May 29, 2018

Katie Hopkins: Much more than the life of Tommy Robinson, I fear for my country and my children

Katie HopkinsShillman Fellow

It’s an odd time to be British.

We like to think of ourselves as a proud nation, revelling in the old patriotism of Churchill and the Darkest Hour, grasping the threads of past times.

But these old ideas have worn thin now, through overuse.

Because the simple truth is that Britain is lost. (...)

Just to be clear, I happen to agree with those of you who have no patience for Tommy. He was on a suspended sentence and he knew the potential repercussions of being near the court – he knew he would be at risk of arrest, yet he failed to have his solicitor with him. And I understand the frustrations of those who say he could have prevented justice being done, that he might have been responsible for enabling the animals accused of raping underage white girls, whom they see as trash, to escape justice.

But let me ask you this:

Where was the swift justice for our girls? Where was the 8-hour sentencing for the monsters who repeatedly raped an 11-year-old girl...?

(READ THE REST of Katie's column at HopkinsWorld.com — and remember to sign up for free updates so you never miss anything new at her site!

 

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2018-05-30 21:39:43 -0400
From what I’ve heard, he indeed plead guilty. Which is one reason why I speculate so – if it’s a lost cause anyway, may as well make the most of it and get your name in the news as a martyr along the way. It’s really the only thing I can think of that makes sense. A guilty plea makes a trial a pretty cut-and-dried thing, largely a formality. If both sides admit he’s guilty, why waste the time?
commented 2018-05-30 16:38:24 -0400
Andrew, read Enemy of the State by Tommy Robinson.
He would not plead guilty unless pressed to do so and it would result in his release, not imprisonment. He asked for his solicitor and instead received a duty counsel/appointed lawyer. The charge, the hearing and sentencing took a couple of hours, add to that a publication ban. This normally only happens in a Totalitarian state. You might be fine with proceedings like this, sane people aren’t!!!!
commented 2018-05-30 13:59:46 -0400
I wonder if “Robinson” plead guilty for publicity’s sake? He knew he would become a martyr to his cause and a common name among alt-right circles if he did it, especially if partial reporting makes it sound like he’s completely the victim here. He’s already got a criminal record from previous convictions, so there’s very little to lose other than a bit of a vacation at taxpayers expense.

What will the Rebel do with the money they fundraised to challenge the now-lifted ban?
commented 2018-05-30 13:58:22 -0400
Time for boisterous, sustained demonstrations in 3 locations: the judge’s house, the police chief’s home, and the Crown Attorney’s abode.
commented 2018-05-30 11:37:55 -0400
Absolutely Tammie. Who was there to influence, there was no jury.
commented 2018-05-30 10:35:53 -0400
The judge was delivering a verdict that day, it was not a jury trial. The judge would already have written his verdict with comments from the bench. Tommy’s livestream from the sidewalk isn’t going to impact the outcome.
commented 2018-05-30 10:28:41 -0400
Did Katie write this before all the facts were out or she didn’t have them all due to the ban? I could understand her take on it if Tommy had actually been on court property or breached any other conditions, but he didn’t. He was lynched and sentenced without proper representation and without the judge appraising himself of all the facts before delivering that sentence. I agree Philip this is absolutely politically motivated.
commented 2018-05-30 09:44:29 -0400
Tommy has been had here. In what way could Tommy being outside the court livestreaming to youtube result in a mistrial?

Had there been an angry mob of hundreds of the parents of the victims of these grooming gangs been outside the court, chanting shouting and waving flags and placards, how would this have affected the trial other than by encouraging the jury to return a guilty verdict and for the judge to hand out the maximum sentence. It would in no way alter the factual evidence.

Justice would have been done and seen to be done, and the destruction of innocent lives been redressed.  Tommy was actually doing nothing wrong by being outside the court and confronting the criminals. The judge wagged a moralizing finger at Tommy and handed out a politically motivated sentence.
commented 2018-05-30 02:13:33 -0400
Tom Bradly when your lawyer is not allowed and this is forced on you in a split second and other threats are made you may plead guilty as well. You enjoy being subjugated all you want. He did not break an laws but of course you are too dense to see this. I hope the same happens to you one day.
commented 2018-05-29 23:40:50 -0400
Liza, this appears to be a totally f**cked up situation.
Judicial over reach and prosecutor malfeasance.
commented 2018-05-29 23:36:38 -0400
It is now revealed Tommy was not sentence on my previous supesions. He was charged tried nd convicted of a separate charge of disturbing the peace laid that day. Worst case of abuse of process I’ve witnessed. He should appeal and be released.
commented 2018-05-29 23:34:07 -0400
Tammie the fkery just never ends. Could you ever in your wildest dreams imagine Tommy would fall for such a crock? I wonder what the heck went on. Its crazy.
commented 2018-05-29 23:08:54 -0400
TAMMIE PUTINSKI-ZANDBELT commented 24 mins ago
Funny how when a court appointed lawyer who turns up instead of requested solicitor tells the client a guilty plea will result in release….only it doesn’t!!!

The publication ban was just lifted, we will hear what happened when Tommy’s solicitor was in absentia.
commented 2018-05-29 22:58:39 -0400
He pleaded guilty and the judge sentenced him. End of story. He’ll do the time, with good behaviour he might be out in 6 months. Or he could appeal the sentence but the guilty plea still stands. Tommy been to court enough times to know how it works.
commented 2018-05-29 22:51:07 -0400
How can the contempt of court charge stick, whether he plead guilty or not when the judge admitted he made the ruling with no information? The whole thing has to be invalid. The law is a damned ass if they let this stand. The judge should be stripped of his power, and Tommy should be freed immediately.
commented 2018-05-29 22:48:26 -0400
LIZA ROSIE commented 5 mins ago
Bradly ambulance chaser, Tommy Robinson didn’t plead guilty you lying sad sack.

He pleaded guilty, it’s all over the news. You might know this if you ever left your Rebel bubble. I notice Ezra left that part out.
commented 2018-05-29 22:46:22 -0400
The ban may be lifted but Youtube is censoring info about his plea. What in gawds name did he do that for??
commented 2018-05-29 22:41:27 -0400
Bradly ambulance chaser, Tommy Robinson didn’t plead guilty you lying sad sack.
commented 2018-05-29 22:41:20 -0400
Funny how when a court appointed lawyer who turns up instead of requested solicitor tells the client a guilty plea will result in release….only it doesn’t!!!
commented 2018-05-29 22:36:02 -0400
Justice is swift when you plead guilty like Tommy did.
commented 2018-05-29 22:32:09 -0400
Since 9/11 – IN THE NAME OF ISLAM (SATAN): 35,389 Attacks, 229,299 Killed, 309,408 Injured that we know of.
commented 2018-05-29 21:59:37 -0400
“If Tommy is guilty of anything it is the venomous nature of the communists that now rule Britain”
Part of a comment by a poster under Katie’s article on her site. I hope he doesn’t mind me reposting it in part.
commented 2018-05-29 21:48:56 -0400
Tommy fears for his country and his children, why do you think he is doing this? When the shite hits the fan is when you know who your friends are.

“Where was the swift justice for our girls? Where was the 8-hour sentencing for the monsters who repeatedly raped an 11-year-old girl…?”
That is a very good question Katie. Ask your government. Tommy didn’t jeopardise anything.
commented 2018-05-29 21:43:00 -0400
“He was on a suspended sentence and he knew the potential repercussions of being near the court – he knew he would be at risk of arrest”

He was only at risk of arrest if the police, under direction from the top, broke the law to do it. It sure as heck wasn’t Tommy who broke any laws. I cannot believe that anyone in this fight could criticise Tommy for legally reporting on an issue he was responsible for bringing to the attention of the world in the first place.

I don’t know anyone who has ‘no patience’ for Tommy. The man deserves nothing but respect in my opinion.
commented 2018-05-29 21:17:17 -0400
Tommy showed up on verdict day, no chance of influencing the judge who has presumably written his/her verdict in preparation of delivering a verdict that day! The BBC had already published the names and charges of the accused, so what law did he break? He was not filming on court property and gave a commentary for almost one hour before the constables arrived to cart him off. The star chamber proceedings were swift, too swift…so that Tommy’s solicitor could not be present. Very unusual when you consider how long it takes to pass through the system. The Star Chamber judge passed a sentence which surpasses many sentences of convicted muslim rape gang members….then this same judge orders a publication ban. All of this is judicial over reach which needs to be addressed immediately.
commented 2018-05-29 18:14:53 -0400
The original contempt hearing and suspended sentence was because Tommy did something the judge did not like, not because the judge told Tommy not to do something and Tommy did it.

The transcript shows lots of weasel words and obfuscation. The judge said (from memory) that Tommy ‘tried’ to photograph jurors but that was prevented by the judge routing them out the back door. How does she know what he might have done?

The judge said not to do X,Y, Z and Tommy did not do those things at the second hearing.

The original hearing transcript is below.
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/coc-yaxley-lennon-20170522.pdf

Here is the longer video for the recent hearing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbNWJZMyJz4
In the video he catches a few defendants on video. He does so on the street, not on court property. A few make sexual comments about his mother and wife. He uses the word ’alleged" lots just like the press does in the US. A few times he says they might not be guilty and are presumed innocent. The trial is broken into three parts because of the large number of defendants. This is part 2. Tommy does not report on the verdict of part 1 because he cannot. He says he will not report on the verdict of part 2 either.

Around 49:20 he notes that when he went to court the court house outside was filled with photographers and press. I guess the court had no problem with that or try to throw all the press photographers in prison, likely becuase that is not the law in the UK.

Around 52:00 – 55:00 he describes the previous case where the judge gave him the 3 month suspended sentence.

My summary.
1. In the previous case the judge used all sorts of weasel words to say what the statute might mean and then said it did not matter because the courts jurisdiction for contempt of court extended to the entire precinct of the court. The judge did not cite any case law to support contempt for photographing people on the street. The original contempt hearing and suspended sentence was because Tommy did something the judge did not like, not because the judge told Tommy not to do something and Tommy did it. The transcript shows lots of weasel words and obfuscation. The judge said (from memory) that Tommy ‘tried’ to photograph jurors but that was prevented by the judge routing them out the back door. How does she know what he might have done? The judge said not to do X,Y, Z and Tommy did not do those things at the second hearing.

2. The previous court did not say he could not photograph defendants any where outside the court.

3. The previous court did say what he could not do and Tommy did not do any of those things.

4. The judge is power mad and did it because he could.
commented 2018-05-29 16:59:32 -0400
And btw Katie, I have plenty of patience for Tommy. He has a spine and conviction with no retreat in him. How can you not admire that?
commented 2018-05-29 16:56:21 -0400
So what law did Tommy break exactly? I thought he was to stay off the courthouse property and he did?
What were his probation conditions? Anyone? Was he not allowed to report?
From The Ground Up