Tommy Robinson guilty of harassing Mail journalists

[damien c]

Justice system is a joke in this country, just like the Government.

All the Judges need removing and new ones need appointing who will not let their political persuasions affect their judgements.

Same with the police, sack the lot and get people in who will not be afraid of arresting someone because of their skin colour or religion.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by damien c

Justice system is a joke in this country, just like the Government.

All the Judges need removing and new ones need appointing who will not let their political persuasions affect their judgements.

Same with the police, sack the lot and get people in who will not be afraid of arresting someone because of their skin colour or religion.

Short version: My guy lost in court.

[Pierre]

They have no choice. Their narrative grid is smashed. We’ve won. Taking out Robinson now will make no difference. The establishment now has to wipe out his entire existence!

The jury accepted the prosecution's case that Robinson had hired detectives to "intimidate" the journalists.

Photographs of Dirnhuber outside his home and cropped images of Young's family had been posted online by Robinson.

The court heard that, as well as social media posts and direct messages to Dirnhuber, the defendant had become "increasingly menacing" on a telephone call with Young on August 5, 2024, telling the freelance journalist: "I'm coming to get you."

I am not sure what people expected, or why they think this is acceptable just because it's 'Tommy'.

And yes, his form for this is likely to mean a harsher punishment.

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by Damien

I am not sure what people expected, or why they think this is acceptable just because it's 'Tommy'.

And yes, his form for this is likely to mean a harsher punishment.

It is not lost on me that that is exactly what mainstream media do every single day instead of hiring detectives they just call themselves journalists take images and crop them and post them anywhere they want. Also the internet is full of Richard Heads with cameras "exercising" their rights to take images in public and post them online often with altercations and people feeling harassed again almost every day. Not a huge difference really is there???

The threat on the phone call is the only unique thing in this

[Carth]

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

It is not lost on me that that is exactly what mainstream media do every single day instead of hiring detectives they just call themselves journalists take images and crop them and post them anywhere they want. Also the internet is full of Richard Heads with cameras "exercising" their rights to take images in public and post them online often with altercations and people feeling harassed again almost every day. Not a huge difference really is there???

The threat on the phone call is the only unique thing in this

You should listen to me shouting abuse at automated answer systems

[thenry]

Sorry we didn't understand that x3... please hold while we transfer you to a human

[Carth]

Originally Posted by thenry

Sorry we didn't understand that x3... please hold while we transfer you to a human

Believe it or not, that's exactly what happens

Similar often works with stupid chatbot help on sites.
Just keep typing "Human", eventually they get the message.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Damien

I am not sure what people expected, or why they think this is acceptable just because it's 'Tommy'.

And yes, his form for this is likely to mean a harsher punishment.

Agreed. Some people seem to want two-tier justice: their man Tommy to get off because he's a 'saint' and everyone else to be convicted. Also quite amusing how many of those supporters blame 'the judges' and 'the establishment' when it was a jury trial!

Tommy also made a couple of poor choices:

1. If you're a public figure courting attention for your cause, you need to follow the letter of the law. He clearly did not.

2. It's also poor judgment to think that you can intimidate national journalists in the same way that you might be able to intimidate opponents in your own circle. However annoying those journalists might be, they are risky people to intimidate.

[damien c]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Short version: My guy lost in court.

Nope, I think the guy is an idiot.

He had a chance to actually do things the right way years ago, but decided to go in the direction he did, I have always said there are things I agree with that he says and there are things I don't, just like with some of the MP's including the last lord and savour Starmer and the current socialist ass clown Burnham!


The reason I said what I did is because:

you have people raping children daily and get no prison time
you have people daily creating and distributing child porn and they get no prison time
you have a councilor who say's "cut the throats of the white man" and he get's no prison time

meanwhile you say one stupid thing online (shouldn't have been said) and get sent to prison
you commit a crime that takes money away from the government and you get sent to prison!

Judges are supposed to be impartial, that cannot be said for the judges in this country when they do the governments bidding and send people to prison for speech that the government doesn't like, and it doesn't matter if a Jury finds someone guilty or not, the judge decides the punishment based of a bunch of options, but when they have the government forcing their hands, they lose the ability to say they are impartial because they refuse to do what is right!

Don't worry though, as it won't be long before we are all in prison for "hate speech" since Raving Rayner has got her "Anti-Banter" law in place, meaning if you dare say anything that someone doesn't like they can now sue you for it https://freespeechunion.org/archive/...h-warns-ehrc-2 and because of the way this government is pushing "anti-speech" and "blasphemy" laws so you cannot criticise or speak ill of islam, their will only be one lot of people being dealt with by this law and it's anyone that Labour and their quite frankly lunatic supporter base do not like!

As for the police, well when you have policies in place to arrest white people and not black people, you have police that actively cause the death of a white kid because the policy is to believe anyone but white people, yeah we need police that have a spine and will stand up against racist policies and do what is required fo them, as in protecting the people not just some people.

That goes the same for police who think it's okay to stop and search kids just because they are black!



So yes the whole lot needs to be removed, they need to be replaced by people who will not allow their political leanings to influence them, and we need politicians who actually do the job because they want to help their constituents and the country, not because they want a easy life after a few years being an MP!

[Dingbat]

Originally Posted by damien c

The reason I said what I did is because:

you have people raping children daily and get no prison time
you have people daily creating and distributing child porn and they get no prison time
you have a councilor who say's "cut the throats of the white man" and he get's no prison time

meanwhile you say one stupid thing online (shouldn't have been said) and get sent to prison
you commit a crime that takes money away from the government and you get sent to prison!

Got any evidence for those assertions?

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by Dingbat

Got any evidence for those assertions?

What about the 3 teens who raped the girl who got off? think that is getting reviewed or has been but it happened

I honestly think that one bit of evidence is enough 3 not imprisoned for raping a girl . But I will look for more



https://www.theguardian.com/law/2026...dominic-grieve


Here is the councillor one

https://www.itv.com/news/london/2025...t-london-rally


and here is a copper not getting locked up for child porn

https://sussexonlinenews.co.uk/2025/...th-child-porn/

[jem]

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

What about the 3 teens who raped the girl who got off? think that is getting reviewed or has been but it happened

I honestly think that one bit of evidence is enough 3 not imprisoned for raping a girl . But I will look for more



https://www.theguardian.com/law/2026...dominic-grieve


Here is the councillor one

https://www.itv.com/news/london/2025...t-london-rally


and here is a copper not getting locked up for child porn

https://sussexonlinenews.co.uk/2025/...th-child-porn/

I do understand where you are coming from but I do think you are being a bit sensationalist.

"you have people raping children daily and get no prison time”

You imply that someone is raping children ‘daily’, and are allowed to go about their business. This is obvious nonsense. The link you provided was to a particular case, and did the rapists ‘get away with it’? They were found guilty, and remember they are children themselves - do you think it is in anyone’s best interest to bang up a 14 year old in Belmarsh for ten years?

"you have people daily creating and distributing child porn and they get no prison time”

Well they will if they get caught! Again, the link you provided was to a specific case where there was no indication that the person distributed anything. He pleaded guilty, so a degree of leniency is expected, he was sentenced to six months, but suspended for 18 months.

The judge made Voisey subject to a “sexual harm prevention order” for seven years and ordered him to register as a sex offender for the same period. Imposing a community sentence, Judge Mooney also told Voisey to complete 20 rehabilitation activity days and 150 hours of unpaid work.

So, again not really ‘got away with it’.


"you have a councilor [sic] who say’s [sic] "cut the throats of the white man" and he get's no prison time”

Yes but the problem with this one is that he 'get’s no prison time’, because...drum roll...he was found not guilty in court! Unless you think that people should be ‘banged up’ even if found not-guilty by a jury. Now I happen to agree with you, if the reports of what he said at the rally are true, then I struggle to understand the verdict. But I wasn’t there, I haven't heard the evidence; so....

[Jaymoss]

I did not imply anything I just offered evidence that dingbat requested. At no point did I say any of that. Read back see who actually posted that which Dingbat replied to which I replied to. Come back say sorry to me and then repeat the sensationalist bit to Damien c