The big time “Tommy Robinson” legal defence team needs the little people’s money, but what for?

Ezra Levant and Rebel Media are asking people to give money to pay for the highly expensive legal team that is now preparing “Tommy Robinson’s” defence in the retrial of his alleged breach of a suspended sentence. SaveTommydotcom, the domain name that Levant purchased in 2017, now redirects to a file called “Save Tommy Robinson Again” at the Rebel Media website. “He needs help to pay for the lawyers” writes Levant “because they’ve got to prepare for that September hearing. So I’ve talked to the lawyers. They’ve started preparing…”

He goes on:

The British government has unlimited funds. I think they’re trying to break Tommy — physically, psychologically and now financially.

There’s no way he can do this by himself. But if enough of us stand together with him, we’ve got a chance.

These two lines pretty much summarise the content of the page: knowing misrepresentation of “Tommy Robinson’s” case, and after a suitable amount of psychological manipulation, a request for money based on the portrayal of “Robinson’s” own lost cause as a “Mr Smith Goes to Washington” finale, where instead of inspiring drowned-out efforts of support in a public act of defiance, the little people send copious financial contributions. However, Levant completely distorts “Robinson’s” case into an attempt by the Government to ex-judiciously execute the irritant in its ointment – an evil ploy scarcely evaded in the previous episode when “Robinson” was completely exonerated by the judges of the Court of Appeal (emphasis by Levant):

Just last week the Court of Appeal confirmed that Tommy was improperly tried, improperly convicted, improperly sentenced, and improperly imprisoned. That’s why they set him free. It was a total vindication of everything Tommy had said.

But now the UK government wants to do it all over again. They’re not done with Tommy.

They want to put him through a second trial — for the exact same thing, his Facebook livestream that day back in May, in Leeds.

They want to put him in prison again. That will probably kill him.

A question previously asked at FBEL of Rebel Media fundraising on behalf of “Tommy Robinson” was at what point does it become fraud? Again, we are bound to revisit the topic.

There are two points to cover in relation to this question. Firstly, there is enough evidence to decide that when “Robinson” set out to cover the trials of Muslims accused of being complicit in “grooming gangs”, it was his intention also to fall foul of contempt laws exactly in order to create an impression of the State’s persecution of a white man who wants justice, and also of the State’s desire to conceal crime by the brown man. “Robinson’s” mission was to stir up resentment in white people, and except for the detail of “Robinson” expressing awareness of being in contempt at Leeds upon his arrest being more fully examined, the evidence for intentional trouble-making has been covered in the  FBEL article linked to above.

Secondly, pertaining to Rebel Media’s initial appeal for funds to cover legal costs for the hearing at the Court of Appeal, Ezra Levant at that time appeared to describe the scope of the appeal as being limited to an attempt to reduce the sentence. There would be no apparent attempt to have the charges against “Robinson” rescinded. Indeed, this was somewhat confirmed when “Robinson’s” incredibly top-notch legal team had the case reset on a technicality; there was no argument offered that “Robinson” had not committed the offence for which he had been jailed. The point was made at FBEL that in reality, based on the information supplied to a public which was being enjoined to part with money, nothing could be done in the name of “Freeing” “Tommy”, and that is why the slogan that identified the campaign had shifted to provide an emphasis on “Saving” “Tommy” from the length of his sentence, and the danger it posed to him by forcing him into proximity with Muslims who didn’t like his tension-stoking activity. However, this required a voluminous disinformation campaign executed by “Robinson” allies to create a perception of a threat to life and limb – a threat that never existed, and did not actually bear out as things transpired. Now, it could be argued that the “Robinson’s” legal team did achieve an objective that was set out by Levant as part of the first appeal, which was to win bail for “Robinson”, although the impression that Levant gave is that the bail was hoped for before the July Court of Appeal hearing (from SaveTommyRobinson in its previous form [Help Save Tommy Robinson], June 22nd Update):

The second part of Mr. Carson’s note [a communication from “Robinson’s legal team to Levant] indicates that he is asking for bail for Tommy, until the appeal is heard.

The bail ahead of the hearing did not occur. We should also note, in fact, after revisiting the original literature published by Rebel Media in this case, that “Robinson” did not win an appeal against the sentence he had received in Leeds. His sentence has not been reduced. What “Robinson” won, through his very expensive legal efforts, was a new hearing that could very well extend his sentence. In effect, “Robinson’s” case has been made into one that is ongoing instead of one that was closed. So the question is still pertinent: can “Robinson’s” legal team actually achieve anything?

If money has been raised in the name of freeing “Robinson”, then it could be considered fraudulently got if there had never been any chance of freeing “Robinson”. It should be noted, that while “Robinson” is currently out of prison on bail, he has not been freed. He is not free. There are conditions, albeit a few, to the suspension of his internment as he awaits the new hearing. The saying is “released on bail”, although many in corporate-media have had him “freed on bail”. The author is of the opinion that it must have been felt amongst his top-dollar defence team that there was no chance of freeing “Robinson”, and this is why money was raised in the name of saving “Robinson”. However, this second approach depended on a public perception of imminent danger that actually could not be demonstrated outside of the calls for hysteria made by “Robinson” associates. This is where a question of possible fraud might well apply in the case – not counting the overarching set of circumstances whereby “Robinson” could have purposefully engaged in activity that would bring about his entanglement in a predicament that people were then asked to give money to bring about an extrication.

And as things currently stand, to be responsible in asking for money on “Robinson’s” behalf, it is surely the case that potential donors must be informed of the realistic objectives of “Robinson’s” legal team. At the time of writing, the current SaveTommydotcom page only misleads by giving the impression that “Robinson” is involved in a case of denial of double jeopardy (also notice from the quote above: “They want to put him through a second trial — for the exact same thing”):

I thought we were done last week with the Court of Appeal victory. But we’re not. The UK government wants to fight with Tommy — now that they think he’s weakened. Well, they forgot about one thing — they forgot about us, didn’t they?

Please help with Tommy’s legal fees. His lawyers need to prepare for the case immediately.

Maybe the Rebel Media should point out the line in the Appeal Court judgement that appears to show that “Robinson’s” extremely expensive Queen’s Counsel – the foremost criminal defence lawyer in the land – is not able to deny that “Robinson” was in breach of the postponement order (reporting restrictions) that the Leeds trial was subject to.

During the course of his submissions Mr Dein QC accepted that the transcript of his client’s broadcast suggested that he had indeed acted in breach of this order in several respects.

Will “Robinson’s” hot-shot legal representation be able to argue that he was not in contempt of court, and thus not in breach of the suspended sentence handed to him at Canterbury? If they are, then Rebel Media (at the time of writing) wasn’t telling its audience about it.

But the possible omission of data that might deter gifts of money wouldn’t be the only way that Rebel Media is manipulating its audience. Levant writes:

Tommy Robinson just phoned me.

He’s supposed to be having a quiet vacation with his family. But he can’t. He’s had to go to the hospital twice, because of the physical abuse he suffered in prison.

They starved him. He lost 40 pounds in two months. He clearly has a form of post-traumatic stress, too, from being locked up in solitary confinement for so long, and being constantly threatened with violence from Muslim prison gangs.”

The first thing to note is the appeal for sympathy while “Tommy Robinson” has a vacation in Tenerife, and does what lots of Britons cannot do these days (in 2013 nearly a third of Britons couldn’t afford to go to a holiday destination, either in the UK or abroad. More recent figures cannot be found, but it has been noticed that the term “staycation” used in corporate-media reporting of the issue acts to blur the difference between people holidaying in the UK, and people not holidaying at all).

Obviously, the intent is to mitigate the fact that, despite his problems – and perhaps as a consequence of them – “Robinson” is much better off than a lot of people in the UK, and therefore than a lot of his supporters (some of whom may have given money to the cause). Moving on, the first of Levant’s claims regarding the abuse that “Robinson” supposedly suffered while in prison can be dealt with simply, and be called out for the lie that it is. “Robinson” elected not to eat the food that had been prepared for him. That this is the case is evidenced in a formal written complaint made to the Prison Service by “Robinson”, a copy of which was apparently released into the public domain by “Robinson” himself (source: the Coventry Telegraph):

I don’t eat the prison food as I can’t see if anything is done to it…I’m paranoid so I rely on tinned food from the canteen.

We should note that “Robinson” has not produced evidence that he made a complaint about not being fed while in prison. Furthermore, we should remember that there are many decent people up and down the land who never went to prison, and who do not know where their next meal is coming from – all the while “Tommy Robinson” can turn his nose up at free meals and call it abuse. Not only is “Robinson” no Papillon, he probably can’t spell it either from the looks of his complaint forms – but we’ll come very shortly to his distinct lack of merits as a leader and why people should not follow him.

As for continuous lock-up in solitary confinement, this is something denied by the authorities (from the Coventry Telegraph):

A Prison Service spokesman said: “Mr Yaxley-Lennon was treated with the same fairness we aim to show all prisoners – he had access to visits, television and showers and it is totally false to say he was held in ‘solitary confinement’.

“He was initially placed into the Care & Separation Unit for less than 48 hours while an assessment of the risk to his safety was undertaken by prison staff. He then joined the main prison population.”

In all fairness to the Prison Service, “Robinson” clearly states in a complaint dated 15th June that his feeling of being “mentally tortured” is related to his not having a TV, and after this initial complaint about the absence of said article, there is not a recurrence of the subject matter in two subsequent complaint forms made out by “Robinson” on the 27th June, and 5th July. There is no mention in any of these other forms of a state of mental distress being caused specifically by being kept in solitary confinement. A complaint in the second form about not being allowed access to the gym and requiring extra visits towards the establishment of a “normal regime” to counter “mental health” issues is not repeated in the final one. Could it possibly be that the Prison Service was responsive to “Robinson’s” requests and was, in stark contrast to the accusations levelled against it, reasonable with “Robinson”? It is true that in the July form “Robinson” does still complain of being “held in isolation”, and so this cannot seemingly be reconciled with what the Prison Service claims. The author has no explanation for why “Robinson” would feel that he was held in isolation at the same time the Prison Service would consider him as mixing with the prison population (except that “Robinson” was delusional).

Indeed, we have no choice but to understand him as being mixed with the general prison population to make sense of the claim that he was “threatened with violence from Muslim prison gangs” as Levant claims. Luckily, we can get a better idea of what was going on from an appearance that “Robinson” made on Fox News and in an interview with Tucker Carlson (as reported by Breitbart).

My prison cell that I was put in was on the ground level — which it didn’t have to be — so it’s on the ground level, so every prisoner would walk past my cell window… the mosque for the prison was directly opposite my cell…

We’ve had two huge heat waves I was literally drenched [because] I had excrement and spit put through my window [and] in the end… I had to block up all of my cell windows.

The author’s first impression is that if “Robinson” had a window that opened onto a thoroughfare in the prison, then he wasn’t being held in isolation because it was obviously possible for him to communicate with whomever was passing. Secondly, if what he is saying is true about excrement being deposited in his cell through an open window, then “Robinson” will have no doubt made a complaint. As he complained about much less serious issues, it is unfeasible that he would not have complained when faced with what constitutes major abuse. And so he needs to produce the form that he completed and submitted to the prison authorities on this matter, and until he does so this tale must be treated as being untrue purely because of “Robinson’s” previous form. Also, if Tucker Carlson allowed what, until proven otherwise, constitutes aggravation of a TV audience to hatred against Muslims, and, dare it be suggested, emotional manipulation in order to provoke donations, to be aired on his show without challenge, then he is busted, if one didn’t understand it before, as an agenda-pushing provocateur towards the same ends as “Robinson”, and someone’s whose work should not be called journalism. The same could be said of James Delingpole of Breitbart, who lionises the fact-misrepresenting, hysteria-raising Levant as a great intellect:

Ezra Levant is quick, fluent, articulate with a great legal brain. And as a friend and former employer of Robinson, as well as someone who flew over from Canada to attend his Appeal Court hearing, Levant is surely in a better position than most to pronounce on the affair with authority.

In that case, here is testimony that tells that Levant is knowingly engaged in deceiving the public to raise money for “Tommy Robinson”.

If the reader didn’t know by now, Delingpole is a Government man through and through – FBEL wrote introductorily about it in the article, The intelligence media battleground: the Alt-Right (here). He is currently engaged in misdirecting support to the phony Boris Johnson by initially telling his audience that Brexit was dead, and then promoting his Tory chum – a main player in the Salisbury hoax, don’t forget – as a Brexit saviour.

None of these people have any credibility, not least “Robinson”. From a common, but reasonably informed perspective, “Robinson” isn’t likely to be found not guilty in his retrial, but we may be surprised, and his lawyers may well be prestigious enough to turn the head of the judge that takes the retrial and to have “Robinson” exonerated, or to rule that sentence has already been served. None of that, however, alters the fact that “Robinson” has demonstrated in this incident that he is not a man to be followed. Judging by his complaint forms, and indeed their content which suggest that “Robinson” is anything but a student, the author is of the opinion that “Robinson” could not have learnt the material by which he claims to be informed about Islam by book learning – meaning that someone must prime and coach him. “Robinson” has the gift of the gab – and this is why he was selected for the role, and why he has been exposed through controversy into a household name. However, the grist for the mill of “Robinson’s” flapping gob is supplied by someone else – that, at least, is the author’s opinion. That this would indicate that he is a puppet for an agenda which requires the stoking of tension between British nationals of different races and religions only confirms other observations. Secondly, “Robinson”, as a man who feels that it is torture not to have a TV, cuts a pathetic figure who should not rouse any admiration in people who are being asked to flock to what they understand to be his leadership. “Robinson” is obviously not made of the sterner stuff that men of quiet resolve possess, and unable to suffer sacrifice for a greater cause without whining like a big baby. He is no hero. Those who were tempted to support “Robinson” with money should learn a lesson from this incident, and consider themselves to have made a lucky escape. In the author’s opinion, those who have already given should be demanding it back. Of course, and as the saying goes, it is harder to convince someone that they have been fooled than to fool them. There’s a very good example of this in the comments under a recent Mail article that at last does a little bit of journalism to examine “Robinson’s” previous dubious activity in relation to his earnings, but mainly to ask why he is funded by the likes of the Middle East Forum, an American think tank that promotes US interests in the Near East. Unable in their tiny minds to see the connection between stoking hatred of brown people, thus demonising them so that they can be killed scot-free in wars for oil and gas and other resources in places like Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria, the commenters under Guy Adams’ article consider him to have written a hit piece. One wonders if any of these commenters are amongst the Britons who cannot holiday, or do not have enough to eat.