BREAKING: Gerard Batten BLASTS “Police State” As Tommy Robinson Allegedly Given 13 Month Prison Sentence

Reece Coombes

As a 16-year-old member of UKIP with a cardboard Nigel Farage cut-out in his bedroom, Reece is hardly your bog-standard student, but he cherishes his independent thinking as his greatest strength. Reece is the founder and owner of Kipper Central, a UKIP community blog with thousands of daily hits and is also the Deputy Chairman of Young Independence, UKIP's youth wing, where he works hard to promote Brexit and radical thinking to young people across Britain.

You may also like...

23 Responses

  1. John Freeman says:

    So do we Kippers just roll over and wait till they ban free speech and free reporting all together or do we do something?

    • Steven says:

      The people need to get the message that voting for any mainstream political party like Labour, Conservatives, Lib Dems, Green Party etc means quite literally voting for the ongoing destruction of our nation.

      • Phillip Carter says:

        I will agree with you but there is one small problem, no matter what party gets in and yes i include UKIP .
        This country is run by the civil servants and most of those are masons and old school tie brigade so unless someone fires the top 10% of the civil service it won’t make any difference.

    • Brenda Rattle says:

      It’s looking as though free speech already hard been banned for the indigenous population. I agree that we need to do something but am not sure what would work. It seems that, potentially, anyone who tries to stand up for free speech will simply be put in the same place as Tommy Robinson.

      Kind regards.

  2. Steven says:

    Well said Mr Batten, Tommy is a national hero to those who still have moral standards. The behavior of the communist public policy driven Police is characteristic of a government which has been infiltrated and who’s aim is to subvert and destroy our country from within.

  3. Richard says:

    the non violent options are drying up and the police and courts seem determined to make themselves legitimate targets for the people

  4. Mr Truth says:

    He was filming outside on the pavement.

    Tommy’s Robinson’s livestream video link below. His arrest is at the end.

  5. Mr Truth says:

    Some of the tweets by people close to Tommy have been ‘removed’ from twitter.

    It is confirmed his sentence.

  6. Graham Wood says:

    John. As we can see we do indeed live in a Police State. I’m amazed that there has not been an explosion of anger on this site from outraged Kippers.
    I expect this to be reported on one of the saner blogs tomorrow, like ‘Spiked’ or on the excellent The Conservation Woman (nothing to do with the corrupted political party of same name!)

  7. I’ve looked more into this. Caution is needed.

    On May 22, 2017 (note the year) TR was found guilty of contempt of court, a breach of s41 CJA 1925, for conduct liable to force a retrial of the defendants (charged with serious offences against young girls) which would have actually postponed the point in time that those defendants, if guilty, had to face the consequences of the crime(s), increased distress to the victim(s) by prolonging proceedings and significantly increased the cost to the taxpayer.

    In Canterbury Crown Court, the judge explained “If something of the nature of that which you put out on social media had been put into the mainstream press I would have been faced with applications from the advocates concerned … to abandon the trial and to start again. That is the kind of thing that actions such as these can and do have, and that is why you have been dealt with in the way in which you have and why I am dealing with this case with the seriousness which I am.”

    Sentencing TR to 3 months suspended for 18 months, the judge added “you should be under no illusions that if you commit any further offence of any kind, and that would include, I would have thought a further contempt of court by similar actions, then that sentence of three
    months would be activated, and that would be on top of anything else that you were given by any other court. 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?”

    Apparently TR either did not understand or desired the outcome, because a few days ago, almost exactly one year after the original conviction, he apparently pretty much repeated the conduct outside or at Leeds Crown Court… with the predictable result.

    I understand and share his rage at what’s been going on – but either this is not an effective way to combat it, or if effective, this is the price he pays for the publicity.

    • Steve C says:

      Please also be acutely aware that TR was reporting outside the court on the day that the VERDICT was to be announced. The trial itself was already concluded and therefore, the reporting by TR could not have influenced the case.

      • John Ferguson says:

        I’m sorry but really. Verdict not announced = trial not concluded in the eyes of the judge = judge pissed off with serial offender being a pain in the backside & he doesn’t give two hoots whether he’s reporting, campaigning or protesting = phone call & complaint to plod = arrest him for anything, I don’t care, but just get rid of him from outside my courtroom right now. Contempt of court powers are not rocket science, but more akin to a sledgehammer to squash the cheeky impudent oiks who come to court, sinister conspiracy theory it is certainly not.

        • Right, John. As I’ve written elsewhere: The risk was defence briefs arguing right then – or appealing later – that the jury, in deliberation and sequestered, could have heard or seen what was unfolding in the street below. Therefore, the verdict (assuming it was ‘guilty’) was contaminated… Therefore, mistrial, retrial. Huge costs to taxpayer, suffering to (alleged) victims, etc.
          So Judge Marson exercised his sweeping powers.

          Anyone who thinks Geoffrey Marson QC is a soft-sentencer… hasn’t checked on court sites, or with google. TR found that out directly. But so would people guilty of these sort of horrific sexual offences, and in spades. Just let him get on with the job.

  8. Steven says:

    Freddy, you’re being mislead, please read.
    I watched the uncensored Tommy Robinson video outside Leeds Crown court and he never referred to the Muslims involved as rapists/pedophiles, nor did he indicate that they were guilty. He talked about grooming in other areas of the country in a general sense but not specifically about this case HOWEVER, the premise that producing video and distributing media accusing someone of something they might have or have not done would not be grounds for a retrial for the simple reason that all prosecutions are based upon physical evidence and testimony from credible witnesses, NOT public opinion. The judge is a corrupt LIAR and you are believing his lies.

    Take note: the establishment want to keep a lid on this and they have instructed their public servants through legislation to keep it quiet too.

    • IANAL. Steven, as you know there are two relevant cases involved against TR.

      We don’t yet have any transcript or judgment from the second one (in Leeds). I have the judgment (and more) from Canterbury – the case number is S20170102.

      In the first trial, Judge Norton stated “There will be no conditions that need to be attached to that suspended sentence”.

      That is important because it means that a subsequent lawful protest outside a court by TR would not be a breach of the suspension terms. The judge could have imposed additional terms – i.e., do not go within 50 yards of a court building unless you have business in it – but did not.

      The judge went on to add – as I quoted originally – “you should be under no illusions that if you commit any further offence of any kind, and that would include, I would have thought a further contempt of court by similar actions, then that sentence of three
      months would be activated, and that would be on top of anything else that you were given by any other court. 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?”
      but that must mean that the sanctions apply only if the law was subsequently broken by those acts.

      Therefore, if, as you state, TR did NOT break the law in Leeds, then his earlier conviction and (suspended) sentence are irrelevant to this. If he did break the law in Leeds, they are very relevant.

      If TR didn’t break the law in Leeds, but merely made himself prominent in the vicinity of the court, then the second conviction may be based on a misreading of the judgment in the first one, as if that earlier judgment contained a prohibition against certain lawful acts (which it could have had as part of the suspension terms, but didn’t, whatever a casual reading may suggest).

      If so, TR will be freed on appeal.

      If it isn’t so, then I was probably right. It is an expensive bit of publicity, or a miscalculation, by TR.

      Anger is a good motivator but isn’t always a reliable guide as to what best to do to achieve one’s goals.

      In contrast, I’m working on a linguistic/ethnicity based analysis of recent convictions in the UK for serious, gang-based sexual offences against multiple children. So far, I’ve found almost 200 cases where the convicted person is called Mohammed (allowing for spelling variations)…

    • John Ferguson says:

      Well that’s as may well be & no doubt his brief will argue that in his defence which may or may not result in his freedom. However in light of the position outlined by Freddy, the threat to his liberty should have been abundantly clear to him following the previous incident. In which case, he either has a very bad memory or was deliberately, perhaps naively, provoking the authorities & the judiciary. Either way, it was simply asking for trouble in his position & inviting the attention of the police by doing whatever he was doing right outside the front door of another court. Which raises the question of whether this was all really necessary or whether he was free to do what he was doing anywhere else. Just not on the courtroom steps right in the middle of a trial whilst carrying a suspended sentence. So I think this whole idea about him merely conducting journalistic reporting & freedom of speech in this context is entirely misplaced.

  9. They knew Tommy would be there, they knew also that if he breached his probation conditions they could arrest him, so, in effect, any trumped up charge would do, and whether they had him on breach of the peace, incitement or contempt of court, make no mistake, it was orchestrated! Don’t let’s lose sight of the fact that his life is now in danger, because I doubt they will put him in isolation for his protection, and if he goes into general circulation he will be hurt, quite possibly fatally. My question is, what about his rights under Article 19 (Universal Declaration of Human Rights)? And maybe we should all be entitled to quote Article 19, as our rights to free speech are being taken away from us on a daily basis. Our government has gone too far now, the people are angry, and they will not forgive. I certainly won’t! I’m just glad UKIP are on the rise.

  10. Freddy, you are unfortunately quite correct in what you say, Tommy should have held back in this case as contempt of court is one of the most serious offence you can be charged with, in this case although we are all outraged as you say, however, in his case it was not worth the risks entailed. We should wait until the sentences have been passed on these vile people then if not severe enough we should then complain against that. But by doing what he has done he is just giving the police and the courts the power to do exactly what they have done, and by doing that he has put himself in considerable danger.

    In circumstances like this you cannot let your heart rule your head, caution and boxing clever is certainly required.

  11. Anthony Woodcock says:

    How can Mr. Vacha possibly try to excuse this totalitarian, political arrest of someone giving a commentary outside a court… ON THE PAVEMENT.
    There are too many people like Vacha at the top of UKIP and that is why I cannot bring myself to rejoin, despite my desperation for an alternative to this British junta government.
    FREE TOMMY ROBINSON …..NOW!

  12. MIKE MAUNDER says:

    It is clear to me that the State, via the Police, has become involved in Tommy Robinson’s Court case. THIS IS SERIOUSLY WRONG ! Nothing illegal was performed by Tommy, EXCEPT for the use of Free Speech, which its use today would appear as illegal, and has descended into interpretation by the Police. That gave an opening to the execution of a pending legal item that has put Tommy in prison ! THIS MUST NOT STAND, FOR TOMMY AND ALL OF US. OUR FREEDOM IS AT STAKE ! ADVANCE UKIP NOW !

  13. Dave Copeland says:

    As far as I…and, I believe Mr Robinson understood things, the ‘precincts of the court’ referred to the court interior and the steps outside. Tommy didn’t go there. He reported in the street, which is a public domain. Take the draconian smoking ban for example. You would not be allowed to smoke inside the court, or indeed outside on the steps. But in the street from where he was running his live feed, the smoking ban would not apply…why?…because it is OUTSIDE of the court precinct.
    Furthermore, questions need to be asked WHY there were no press there? Why do these particular cases restrict press coverage. I don’t buy the ‘to avoid prejudicing a jury’ mantra one little bit. This is just a feeble, politically correct excuse to help quell the anger…the righteous anger, against a certain section of our community. If these defendants were indigenous, white, British men the press would be there in their droves. You know that, and I know that. There would be no press restrictions whatsoever. This unfair, politically correct bias towards Muslims is what is so wrong. The people aren’t stupid. They can see what is going on, and unless there is change, I fear that this’ll lead to civil unrest on a massive scale.
    “An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law”
    ― Martin Luther King Jr.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *