by Chauncey Tinker – 17 Jul 2019
When I first saw clips of Tommy Robinson’s protests outside court houses I must confess I was a little uneasy. In my mind the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” is one of the most important things about our justice system, it is a principle we should be proud of, grateful for, and continue to fiercely defend; apart from anything else because one day our own lives and liberty may depend upon it. It does not matter who you are or what you are being tried for, you are innocent until a court of law proves you are guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Having said all that however, Tommy Robinson’s protests have very successfully drawn our attention to the fact that prisoners in these very serious cases are being inexplicably let out on bail. Take for example the case of Sajid Hussain (aka Fish) who according to the Examiner Live was sentenced to 17 years in his absence after he absconded to Pakistan:
Huddersfield grooming gang victims don’t feel safe with rapist still at large
In the above article victims are interviewed, one of them states that:
“It is quite infuriating to know that he was given bail in the first place because he didn’t live so far from where we are … “
The case also highlights the lax passport controls at our borders, which another article at the Examiner Live draws our attention to:
Anger over ‘on the run’ member of the Huddersfield Grooming Gang
Labour MP Barry Sheerman is quoted in this article as saying:
“What on earth is going on in our system of border controls? Police have told me about people using borrowed passports and that proper checks were not being carried out.”
There have been many recent media articles about Tommy’s re-trial that have been biased against Tommy. In one example the Independent tried to insinuate that the defendant absconded because of Tommy’s live streaming and also because of a subsequent pro-Tommy protest staged by EDL members outside the court in Leeds:
Tommy Robinson caused Huddersfield grooming gang member to appeal conviction, court ruling reveals
Quote (note the claim in the headline is about an appeal by another defendant in the case, one Faisal Nadeem, aka “Chiller”, not the defendant who absconded):
Another member of the gang, child rapist Sajid Hussain, fled days after the Facebook live video was broadcast.
Court documents said he absconded on 1 June 2018, amid a “large demonstration by the English Defence League” outside Leeds Crown Court protesting Robinson’s imprisonment.
However, the real fault surely lies with the justice system that let this defendant out on bail!!!
Also, what actually happened was that Tommy was originally outside the court on his own (and therefore hardly likely to constitute a danger to anybody) and as the above text in the article admits, the EDL demonstration was actually precipitated by Tommy’s ARREST, not by his original activities livestreaming in person outside the court. In other words, you could just as well argue that it was the ARREST that actually endangered the trial, not Tommy’s activities at all, i.e. it was the action of the authorities in fact that unnecessarily escalated the whole situation to the point where the trial might have been endangered. I only say might as well, because in point of fact the appeal mentioned in the article was simply dismissed by the appeal judge in any case, so the trial was not endangered in fact. Many in the media have even tried to claim that Tommy was deliberately attempting to derail these trials (a rather astonishing claim that seems to suggest these “journalists” have mind-reading powers).
Another crucially important point from this article, and for the whole case against Tommy of course, is the related question of whether Tommy’s activities constituted incitement or not. Here is the judgement from the AG:
AG v Yaxley-Lennon  EWHC 1791 (Admin)
The respondent rejects the allegation of incitement to harass. His case is that the words relied on have been taken out of context, and their significance misrepresented. He says he was addressing the press, who had slandered him and harassed him and others. He was criticising them for double standards.
The document then quotes some of the actual words Tommy used:
In support of these arguments, the Attorney General relies in particular on the passage in the Video that we have aleady quoted, which is characterised as an incitement to the respondent’s supporters to harass the defendants. Because of its importance to this part of the case, we repeat the passage:
“You want to harass someone’s family? You see that man who was getting aggressive as he walked into court, the man who faces charges of child abduction, rape, prostitution – harass him, find him, go knock on his door, follow him, see where he works, see what he’s doing. You want to stick pictures online and call people and slander people, how about you do it about them?”
There you have it, a clearly false statement in the judgement, it is false because clearly Tommy’s remarks were NOT directed “to the respondent’s supporters to harass the defendants”. I know this preceeding point has already been made by many others elsewhere (including by Tommy himself), but since it is part of a decision from the Attorney General, the chief legal adviser of the Crown and its government, I make it again here, it cannot be made often enough. If you listen to the livestream you can hear that those above quoted words were indeed preceeded by words making it absolutely clear that he was indeed addressing those remarks to the press, not to his supporters (@12 mins):
TOMMY ROBINSON – Leeds Crown Court The 30 Minutes In Question
So here is the FULL relevant part of the speech that gives the context:
“You know this lad who runs Generation Identity, I found out that the media had been harassing his family. You want to harass someone’s family? You see that man who was getting aggressive as he walked into court, the man who faces charges of child abduction, rape, prostitution – harass him, find him, go knock on his door, follow him, see where he works, see what he’s doing. You want to stick pictures online and call people and slander people, how about you do it about them?”
The crucial sentence in bold in the above quote had been left out of the court document! The Attorney General must resign, this is a travesty of justice!!!
Incidentally of course another point that has been made by many others already is that the authorities expressed a considerable amount of concern for the mental welfare of the defendants, as can be seen in the above court document. This in a case involving the abuse and rape of children.
Going back to the first case in 2017 in Canterbury where Tommy was convicted of contempt of court for such activities (on this occasion he received a suspended sentence). From Kent Live:
The faces of the men jailed for almost 50 years for raping a girl above a Ramsgate takeaway
According to the above article, one of the perpetrators Rafiullah Hamidy fled to Italy after the crime was committed. I am pretty sure I recall hearing Tommy commenting on the fact that these 4 men were also let out on bail before their trial, though I cannot find the clip now and I cannot now find any news reports to substantiate that either unfortunately. Incidentally, another perpetrator in this case called Shershah Muslimyar apparently:
“fled Afghanistan to escape the Taliban”.
If this man was really a genuine asylum seeker, committing rape does seem an odd way of showing your gratitude to the country that takes you in, doesn’t it?
Another article at the Examiner Live draws our attention to a case from 2002 that Tommy was not even remotely involved in. Eight members of a family (including very young children) were killed in a firebomb attack in Huddersfield:
The Birkby firebomb tragedy: A timeline
According to the above article, one suspect Shahid Mohammed fled to Pakistan while on police bail. He was finally caught and extradited back to the UK 16 years later. Why on earth was he allowed out on bail when he was a suspect in such a serious case involving the murders of children? Also, can you imagine the astronomical cost to us the taxpayers that must have been incurred during this lengthy process? Please note that this trial appears to be in progress at the moment judging by recent articles, so we should not speculate about Mohammed’s guilt at this point.
In yet another unrelated case, that Tommy Robinson was also not remotely involved in, Choudry Ikhalaq Hussain absconded to Pakistan. From the Telegraph:
Police hunt on-the-run child rapist from Rochdale paedophile gang
According to the above article Hussain was sentenced in 2016 to 19 years in his absence, so clearly his crimes must have been extremely serious. According to Sky News, he has now early this year been arrested in Pakistan (nearly 3 years later) and will face another no doubt lengthy and expensive extradition process back to the UK:
Choudhry Ikhalaq Hussain: Convicted Rochdale rapist who fled to Pakistan arrested
In this case the defendant was allowed out to visit a relative’s funeral.
To summarize, there is one common factor in all the above mentioned trials where prisoners have absconded, and that factor is the fact that defendants in these very serious criminal cases are being allowed out on bail. Tommy Robinson was not even remotely involved in some of the above mentioned cases, and yet surprise, surprise, the prisoners also absconded in those other cases as well. In these cases where the defendants have fled the country, they are also finding that the small question of whether they have a valid passport or not does not seem to matter very much. In short, it is our lax judicial system and our lax border “security” controls that should be in the spotlight here, not Tommy Robinson’s involvement. Of course as those of us who are awake do already realize, this trial of Tommy Robinson, just one of quite a number now, is in reality simply an exercise in trying to suppress uncomfortable truths about the state of the UK today.
Tommy Robinson is trying to do something extremely difficult almost single-handedly, he is trying to wake our slumbering country up to the dire state of our lax and discriminatory justice system, and moreover to the growing problems that the Islamic religion has brought to our country. It is a heroic struggle and if you think he is uncouth, an oik, a thug, or a lout (all words I have seen used to describe him), then perhaps that tells us more about you than it tells us about him. I originally had some qualms about his activities intercepting defendants outside court rooms, as I mentioned at the beginning of this article, but those qualms have been swept away in the light of subsequent events, and now I have nothing but admiration for his bravery in successfully forcing these critically important subjects into the public discourse.
My articles from last year on the case:
Free Tommy Robinson And Reform The Law
Sub Judice - What A Joke
How Kirsty Wark radicalized the unholy alliance against Tommy Robinson on Newsnight:
Kirsty Wark’s Cathy Newman Moment
From the CPS:
CPS POLICY ON CLAIMING COSTS IN EXTRADITION CASES
From the BBC:
What is contempt of court, and why is Tommy Robinson guilty of it?
Even the Spectator has jumped on the anti-Tommy bandwagon:
Tommy Robinson is no martyr. Here’s how to stop him becoming one
The claim that Tommy was deliberately attempting to disrupt the rape gang trials is repeated here. Quote:
trials like the ones Lennon tried to disrupt have resulted in hefty prison sentences for Asian gangs who groomed and sexually tortured predominantly white girls
What do you think? Please leave a comment below.