Tommy Robinson has been arrested and imprisoned in a manner not befitting common law nor is it acceptable under English Common Law, what happened to Tommy, real name Stephen Lennon, is absolutely outrageous.
Without having access to his own lawyer, Robinson was summarily tried and sentenced to 13 months behind bars and immediately transported to Hull Prison by a corporate outsource provider called G4S.
The Judge who sentenced Robinson, Judge Geoffrey Marson QC, also ordered the U.K. media not to report on his case. Newspapers that had already posted reports of his arrest quickly took them down. All this happened on the same day.
In England there is a three tier system of law. Only two are known by those who take the time to understand the nation in which they live.
What has happened to Robinson has to be laid at the feet of the latter tier of law being implemented across the corporate courts and is part of the Justice and Security Bill which was first published as a Justice and Security Green Paper on 3 October 2011, they said, to provide oversight of the Security Service (MI6), the Secret Intelligence Service (MI5), and the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) on intelligence or security matters.
The second aim was to provide for the establishment of closed material procedures (CMP) in relation to certain civil proceedings.
The third aim was to stop court orders from achieving the revelation of what the government considered as an affront to national security, a platform mantra used excessively in the United States.
The Bill was presented to Parliament on 28 November 2012, it had its second reading debate on 18 December 2012, completing its House of Lords Committee stage on 7 February 2013.
The Bill was watered down by Cabinet Minister Ken Clarke after sustaining several defeats in the House of Lords.
In March 2013 The Labour party pushed for amendments to the government’s Justice and Security Bill, before it went to the House of Lords for ratification. The amendment sought to ensure that the extension of Closed Material Procedures (CMPs) for civil cases could only happen if a judge ruled that reaching a fair verdict was impossible “by any other means”.
The House of Lords, then full of Tony Blair’s friends, rejected the amendment with a majority of 16, with the vote concluding at 174 to 158. The ratification in the Lords opened the way for the controversial plan to become law within only a few weeks after the Queen gave it Royal assent to become functional.
The action is very reminiscent of Regulation 18b, activated by Winston Churchill and operated by Lord Victor Rothschild to imprison psychics, military men and journalists who would present the reality over the spin as the nation went to war with Germany.
In January 2010 the European Court of Human Rights in a unanimous ruling, condemned Britain’s anti-terrorism legislation arguing that it disrespected the private life of an individual.
In all there were seven judges that sat censuring the legislation, they said that police searches, without reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, breach the complainants’ right to their private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. That the police are empowered to search the person’s clothing and personal belongings, and having personal information exposed to public view, amounts to a clear interference and could also cause “humiliation and embarrassment” to the individual, they said in a statement on Tuesday, January 12th 2010.
In December 2012 David Cameron, the then Prime Minister on the subject of secret courts claimed in the Commons that it “will always be a judge that decides” whether to make a trial secret. Under grilling by the parliamentary liaison committee, Cameron moved to argue that the scheme would stop “undeserved” compensation going to “unsavoury” characters.
According to campaigners back in 2013, the Bill in its current format will “undermine centuries of open justice and erode Britain’s moral standing in the world,” and believe that the government must rewrite its plans to hold court cases covering national security behind closed doors.
Anthony Peto QC and Andrew Tyrie MP say the Bill is ‘neither just nor secure’, published by the Centre for Policy Studies, “the Justice and Security Bill, in its current form, would be a step in the wrong direction”.
The report went on : “Too many features of the Bill are designed to address the awkward consequences of disclosure of wrongdoing; too little is being done to ensure that Britain closes the chapter on extraordinary rendition.”
“That Britain allowed itself to be dragged into complicity in “extraordinary rendition” – the kidnap and torture of individuals as a matter of policy, is a disgrace. That, nearly a decade later, the extent and limits of Britain’s involvement are still unknown is almost as shocking.”
Under the plans for ‘closed material proceedings’ defendants or claimants will not be allowed to be present, know or challenge the case against them and must be represented by a security-cleared advocate, rather than their own lawyer.
Andrew Tyrie MP warns that the government is in danger of “closing down access to the truth”.
”people will be deterred from providing information to the police if the government expands secret courts and increases the public’s distrust of the authorities. Unless this bill is further amended, this and future governments could find themselves accused, not just of closing down access to justice, but access to the truth as well.”
Lucy Scott-Moncrieff, president of the Law Society, said that “secret trials and non-disclosure of evidence are characteristics most commonly associated with repressive regimes and undemocratic societies”.
Human rights campaigners claim the government has published a Bill which would mean that in future, UK complicity in torture and rendition will be covered up, rather than brought to light. The Bill contains a number of measures which would make it extremely difficult to hold the government or its intelligence agencies to account over complicity in acts such as rendition and torture.
“After a decade which has seen our intelligence agencies become involved in unprecedented wrongdoings, we should be asking how we could stop this from ever happening again – not how to remove the safeguards which allow us to hold the state and its agencies to account”.
In truth unless you are a member of the Law Society, you are not qualified to ‘Act’ in the capacity of Defendant. Take your study from that premise.
Who is funding Robinson?
According to a Guardian report Robinson and his cause has received foreign funding as follows :
A Philadelphia-based thinktank, the Middle East Forum (MEF), acknowledges it has spent about $60,000 (£47,000) on Robinson’s legal fees and demonstrations staged in London earlier this year. A senior MEF executive has been closely involved in preparations for this weekend’s march, though the thinktank said she was there in a personal capacity.
A US tech billionaire, Robert Shillman, financed a fellowship that helped pay for Robinson to be employed in 2017 by a rightwing Canadian media website, the Rebel Media, on a salary of about £5,000 a month.
A small Australian rightwing group, Australian Liberty Alliance, says it has helped fund Robinson, but did not disclose how much.
A New York City-based thinktank, the Gatestone Institute, has published a succession of articles supporting Robinson’s cause.
The David Horowitz Freedom Center (DHFC), a California-based think tank that describes itself as a “school for political warfare”, has published a series of pieces defending Robinson, and has lobbied for him to address US politicians. Source
How Stephen was madeHouse of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee Behaviour Change@0.pdf