Saturday, 26 May 2018


The outpouring of indignance of the vertically challenged, Zionist-lobby-funded Lutonian is in ignorance at what the ramifications are for the little girls who were the victims of the Muslim rape trial, which was still ongoing. The so called heroic act of Tommy Robinson has put the entire trial at risk of collapsing and the bastards walking free, laughing up their sleeves. Far from some heroic, brave act, persecuted by police, this is stupidity in the extreme, and this entire sorry saga has brought genuine nationalists into disrepute. If Robinson does not possess one lonely brain cell, to do what any other nationalist would do, i.e. when deciding to film the defendants arriving at court, first approach the court office to check whether the verdict was due Friday, or whether it was still ongoing, which would then make his live streaming a criminal offence, then don't go sobbing that it's all so unfair. 


Tommy can you hear me?


 Reporting restrictions, especially live streaming in an ongoing trial, are not there for nothing. If some amateur with a camera films defendants arriving at court in an ongoing case, streams their faces live on social media before the day's proceedings have even started, and then adds his own perception that they are all guilty before a verdict has been reached, along with his own opinions, this can sway public opinion, along with that of the jurors, should they see it. That means, even if it has no effect on the decision of the Jury, those on trial can call a mistrial based on the claim that the premature footage did, can, or will, bias the Jury. In other words, Tommy Robinson put the trial in danger of the defendants being able to claim a mistrial due to public opinion having been swayed, and get off scot free, even if they were as guilty as hell. 


For those girls and their families who have had their lives destroyed by these Muslim rape gangs, all they had left in the hope of closure was at least having the peace of mind that their rapists would see justice. The actions of Robinson, who didn't have the brains just to check that Friday was the day the verdict was due, or whether the trial was still ongoing, could also have resulted in immeasurable hours of police manpower bringing this investigation to court being flushed down the toilet. If Robinson is so stupid that he hadn't the nous just to check with the court and ask just one simple question, if it was the last day of the trial or whether it was ongoing, because he wants to look the hard man on social media, then his stupidity means that far from being the nationalist and champion of the victims of Muslim rape gangs that he portrays himself as, he is in fact bringing the entire nationalist movement into disrepute and damaging police investigations and closure for those little girls.


Not only did Robinson not bother to check with the court, his stupidity held no bounds in the fact that he was on a suspended prison sentence for doing the exact same thing, for committing contempt of court over a gang rape case heard in Canterbury last year. That was another trial he put in danger of collapsing and the rapists walking free. After he was handed down that suspended sentence, and his lawyer explaining to him the law regarding filming before verdicts are reached, he believed he was so bomb-proof that he could do it again. In each of those trials, he handed the defence the golden egg from the golden goose, for the guilty to claim a mistrial based on not getting a fair hearing. This has set back all the hard work that nationalists for years have been campaigning for. For those who really don't get this, with their tears for poor old Tommy, this is the law:


"Statutory contempt law bans the media from publishing or broadcasting, including on the internet, any comments or information that might seriously prejudice active legal proceedings, in particular criminal proceedings heard before juries. The concern is that a juror might hear or see something outside of the courtroom that would sway him/her when he/she is deciding whether an accused person is innocent or guilty."


In short, once legal proceedings become "active", it is a criminal offence for media organisations to broadcast material which would create "a substantial risk of serious prejudice" to the proceedings. Criminal proceedings become "active" as soon as one of the following has occurred: a person is arrested, a warrant for arrest is issued, a summons has been issued, or a person has been charged, and they remain so until such time as the accused has been acquitted or convicted. Furthermore, liability for statutory contempt is 'strict', which means that the broadcaster's and programme-maker's knowledge or intention is irrelevant, as is the fact that no actual prejudice was caused in a particular case - the risk of prejudice is sufficient. If contempt is committed intentionally, however, it would be punished even more severely. Common law contempt consists of any other action which is intended to interfere with the administration of justice, for example a sustained campaign by the media to influence legal proceedings. Proceedings need not be active.




Sympathy for Robinson? He has now put two trials at risk of collapse, and destroyed the victims' only hope of justice and closure. For what? If some clown cannot make a simple phone call to the Court, as a 'journalist', as he calls himself, to check that Friday was the last day of proceedings, or if it was still ongoing, to ensure he was not breaking the law in any shape or form, especially given he had already been convicted for the exact same thing and was on a suspended prison sentence that would immediately put him straight back in prison, then save your tears and save your outpouring, because we don't want to hear it.


Genuine nationalism is about staying within the law and checking up on the law before you undertake any activism, i.e. checking that the area you are protesting in is a public space that will give you the legal right to peaceful protest by law. This is because a nationalist in prison is a totally useless nationalist. I for one will not be banded in the same section of society that is the fame seeking world of Tommy Robinson. He is now in prison because of his own stupidity and desire for fame. Tommy Robinson has damaged nationalism and his stupidity is in part responsible for the new laws being passed through Parliament to restrict nationalist movement. Save your tears, money, and join a real nationalist party, one that has conducted itself in a manner that has avoided prison sentences for it's leaders for 51 years.


Finally, don't even think about classifying the case of Robinson with those of political prisoners, such as Jeremy Bedford-Turner, whose was the result of pressure on the CPS, after it had ruled that he had committed no crime and that there was no case to answer. Robinson's actions have jeopardised any appeal by genuine victims of the state like Bedford-Turner. Robinson, like Anne Marie Waters, does not care about real nationalists, the victims or those who send him their hard-earned cash, but is interested in self-promotion and fame.


Robinson has made a laughing stock of all of you who have bought into him, and if you can't find some champion of the people who has the nous to check with the court first by means of a simple enquiry on the phone or research reporting restrictions beforehand, then there's no hope for you. Robinson now being in prison is not the fault of the courts, the police, the CPS, the Commie establishment, or the old woman who lives down the lane. He is there through his own stupidity, arrogance and quest for fame.


  1. Thanks to Donna Treanor for the link, this is live footage of Tommy Robinson putting another trial in jeopardy, where he is told directly by the Sky News reporter the law regarding jounalism and contempt of court:

  2. With the Sky News reporter above, while it does expose a double-standard given Sky, the BBC and other news agencies had tried to blame Tommy Robinson for Darren Osborne's alleged crime, what Robinson did in Leeds was to go directly to the court and confront the defendants and stream it back. That is no longer discussing the trial, but getting involved in it.

  3. Nice piece, although I'm really not sure what Robinson's height has to do with anything.

    1. Perhaps the author is hinting that Robinson might have Small Man Syndrome.

  4. It was supposed to be the verdict that day and he had been told he could film as long as it wasn't actually in the court.

    1. Even if that is true, he has got involved before the case has been closed. Read this from when the case first started and note well the following passage: "We understand the trial will carry reporting restrictions which would only allow any reporting on conclusion of the case. If an order is raised we will challenge it."

  5. I have deleted and will delete all retarded comments suggesting any of us at Mjolnir Magazine or the author of this article have any sympathy with child rapists, whether Muslim or otherwise. We were involved in activism against Islamic rape gangs long before Tommy Robinson was funded by Jewish-interest groups to create a kosher version of the same. On the contrary, the whole point here is that if it can be shown that the actions of Tommy Robinson have prejudiced the jury in any way, the defendants can claim a mistrial and go free. In turning the trial into the Tommy Robinson Show, that is a distinct danger, and his mindless followers do not seem to appreciate this.

  6. Some of the Tommy Robinson saga surfaces occasionally here in the US so I dropped by to learn the ins and outs of it. Thanks for the information. In the OP I notice a reference to a political party that has "avoided prison sentences for it's leaders for 51 years" which may be obvious to others, but since it is not to me, could you name it so that I can follow it?

    1. The National Front, of which Julie Lake is South West Regional Organiser.

  7. Read the judges full summing up when he was given the suspended sentence at Canterbury when the trial he disrupted very nearly collapsed. This is three trials now, that he has disrupted and almost brought a mistrial. All he had to do, was wait for the verdicts. All we have in a way of justice, is seeing these bastards rot in a cell for 15 years. The defence of Robinson in that he is the champion for the victims, loses any credibility, by the fact that he has so nearly caused three mistrials, which would have see those bastards walk free and the victims lose all hope of justice. He has absolutely no right to interfere with the victims rights to see justice served, and their abusers, sent down.... The reason he was whisked away and sent down so quickly, was because he was a bloody liability to that trial. Read the Judges summing up, because it would leave him in no doubt of the risks to trials. He ignored everything that was explained to him, not just once at Darren Osborne's trial, but twice with the Canterbury trial, where he seriously disrupted that trial by chasing the defendants around the building, even after he was told to leave. That is contempt of court. At Leeds, it was clear, he had no intention of carrying out the advice given to him at two previous trials, and blatantly ignored his suspended sentence conditions. He was sent down so quickly, because there was a significant risk, he's ignore warnings again, and return to the court, and see the whole trial collapse. They could not risk that, and so he had to be detained in order to ensure that the trial went ahead, and convictions were obtained.... Julie Lake..............

  8. Wow you're in support of illogical, tyrannical laws. You're a bloody fascist.

    1. Congratulations. You have just won this week's Retard of the Week Award. You can pick it up at any time from any branch of Cohen's Pharmacists. Just tell them I sent you.

  9. Hadn't the jury already decided the guilt or innocence of the defendants?
    The defendants I saw were carrying their prison bags into court.
    I'm really confused. I'm waiting to see what his solicitor says /does today.

  10. I don't really agree with this. Robinson was clearly taken out on a technicality just as Jez and Alison have been taken out on pretty tenuous legal grounds. It is all part of the same agenda to lock up the leaders of the nationalist movement. Ok, you don't care for Tommy Robinson...but you are missing the wider picture..

  11. Is there any way that this can be used positively? Is the only choice of the Right to attack this? It would seem a good chance to show to the average person who this is reaching that their governments are slipping into tyranny and there are problems. Could it be used for greater good? Can we guide people away from this false path?

    There's a risk in just attacking him the average person will not pay attention or we'll end up isolated.

  12. On a side note, I find it strange that Tommy Finkelstein is so concerned by paedophilia when it seems to be quite popular amongst his merry EDL lads.

    Lennon, also known as Tommy Robinson, backed the group’s founder member Richard Price, 41, after he was convicted of child porn charges.

    Officers found the sick snaps at his home after he was arrested for breaking police lines during an EDL rally. He was later put on the Sex Offenders’ Register after admitting downloading the images.
    Senior EDL leader who campaigned against child grooming is convicted of abducting schoolgirl
    Paul Whiteside, the EDL lead for Lincolnshire, claimed mosques were sheltering "grooming gangs all over the UK"

    A “senior member” of the far-right English Defence League has been jailed for sexually abusing a schoolgirl dozens of times.

    Leigh McMillan, 46, groomed his 10-year-old victim with cigarettes and drugs before subjecting her to a “spiral of sexual abuse” during the mid-1990s, jurors at the Old Bailey heard.

    McMillan attacked the girl as she lay on her mother's bed and warned: “You mustn't tell your mum - she'd be really upset.”

  13. Thanks for your take on this.

    There is a lot of misunderstanding going around.

  14. Strange, but in the Milly Dowler case two newspapers reported information which was not allowed to be revealed in court because it was so prejudicial to the defendant, before the jury had considered a second kidnapping charge against Levi Bellfield.


    And Bellfield got let off that charge.

    Did the reporters get the maximum two years?

    Or the editors?!

    Did they even get 13 months?!?!

    Did they even get 10, or even 3 months?!

    In the UK sentences almost never run consecutively, as Robinson's do, they are almost always concurrent.

    In fact, in the UK hardened seriously violent criminals usually get Saturday afternoon detention, community service, suspended sentence after suspended sentence, never activated, despite breaches, before they end up in jail.

    So, typically, the journalists (and editors) got zero months, and zero days.

    Their employers got a £10,000 fine, nothing for a major international newspaper, the editor of one probably spends more a year on lunch expenses!

    Regardless of what you think of Robinson, or what he did, that puts his "crime" in perspective, and his treatment even more so.

    Furthermore, he was not allowed his own legal team, who were sidetracked and sidelined.

    His court appointed barrister can't have had more than a few minutes to prepare his "defence", while the judge and CPS must have been working on their prosecution all morning.

    And yet the crown has just postponed Robinson's appeal because they haven't had time, with the whole CPS available to them, as well as the judge and prosecutor from the original hearing, and their preparatory work for that hearing, to prepare their case?!

    So why do they need weeks (months?!) to argue the same case they prosecuted him with?!?!

    Then again, "The law governing contempt of court is vast"

    This is a Rule of Law (look it up, it doesn't mean what most people think it means!) and Justice issue, which everyone who believes in freedom and liberty should be supporting Robinson on, regardless of personal views about him and his politics.

    He was speaking out for the girls in his home town, and other working class communities (black, brown and white) and when they came for him, over and over again, no one spoke up for him.

    When they finally come for you, who will be left to speak up for you?!?!

    Jeremy Bonnington-Jagworth

    1. Well, Mr Bonnington-Jagworth, let us ignore the emotive bullshit and get down to the facts you mention about the Milly Dowler case, or rather the Levi Bellfield case, which was for a charge of kidnapping further to the murder of Milly Dowler. You are correct in that the reporters who prejudiced the case were not imprisoned. This, however, does not make Tommy Robinson innocent, but the state guilty of not prosecuting those journalists. Thus the question has to be asked: why were you campaigning for Robinson's release and not for the imprisonment of those journalists? You people are perverse! Let me remind you: our focus should be on protecting our children from abuse and anyone who compromises that needs to be punished harshly.

  15. "The law governing contempt of court is vast" -

    And people might like to contrast the treatment of Robinson with:


    "Contempt of court proceedings against newspapers are still relatively uncommon, despite two prosecutions in the past 12 months."


    His Suspended Sentence Conditions were:

    ……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 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….

    Which he was very careful NOT to do!


    Postponement of fair and accurate reports

    • Under s.4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 the court *may* postpone publication of a fair, accurate and contemporaneous report of its proceedings where that is *necessary* to avoid a *substantial* risk of prejudice to the administration of justice in those or other proceedings

    • The power is strictly limited to fair, accurate reports and contemporaneous reports of the proceedings

    • The court must be satisfied that a *substantial* risk of prejudice would arise from such reports

    • If the concern is potential prejudice to a *future* trial, in making that judgment, the court *will* bear in mind the tendency for news reports to *fade* from public consciousness *and* the conscientiousness with which it can *normally* be expected that the jury in the subsequent case *will* follow the trial judge’s directions to reach their decision *exclusively* on the basis of evidence given in that case

    • Before making a s.4(2) order, the court *must* be satisfied that the order would eliminate the risk of prejudice and that there is *no* less restrictive measure that could be employed

    • If satisfied of these matters, the court *must* exercise its discretion *balancing* the risk of prejudice to the administration of justice against the *strong* public interest in the *full* reporting of criminal trials

    *…* My emphasis

    Jeremy Bonington-Jagworth