Tommy Robinson is begging the judge to hand him a tougher sentence.
“I didn't do anything. I could've come back and beaten them up. I should've battered them.”
Good… now we’ve got that out the way nobody is asking you to celebrate Diwali or worship Hindu deities. If your beliefs are so fragile that saying “Happy Diwali” threatens them, perhaps the problem isn’t the greeting. Oh and also, respect isn’t a transaction where you refuse to show it in case someone expects it back… you’ve really shown your true colours on that one.
@5Pillarsuk Totally agree with this, so can we have an explanation as to why @5Pillarsuk have decided to publish two separate posts fundamentally criticising @MayorofLondon and @AbdulElSayed? Hypocrite its finest!
What an awfully stupid post Roshan, the hypocrisy is honestly laughable! Do not expect others to have respect and basic decorum when it comes to our Islamic practices, if you are to be fundamentally hateful when it comes to others.
You do not speak for the religion and your position on this matter prejudices yourself.
This argument falls apart the moment you apply actual criminal law rather than political outrage!
Danny Tommo hasn’t been sentenced until 2027 as he is on remand awaiting trial, having been refused bail. Also, property doesn’t automatically become fair game for criminal damage simply because someone claims it has no owner.
@TRobinsonNewEra wasn’t convicted for “doing journalism”. He was convicted of harassment causing fear of violence against two journalists and freedom of the press isn’t a licence to threaten or harass people. Side note: Tommy has over 8 previous convictions.
@LucyTCWife pleaded guilty to stirring up racial hatred after advocating setting fire to hotels housing migrants and so whilst you can dispute the proportionality of her 31-month sentence, you cannot pretend she was convicted merely for expressing an unpopular opinion.
Ricky Jones was prosecuted and ACQUITTED BY A JURY. An acquittal is not a lenient sentence, believe it or not, It means guilt wasn’t proved to the criminal standard. Are you suggesting juries should convict people regardless of the evidence?
Mike Amesbury received a prison sentence, subsequently suspended on appeal, alongside 200 hours of unpaid work and other requirements. A suspended sentence is also not an acquittal.
Huw Edwards was convicted and received a suspended custodial sentence which I too would argue it was too lenient, but I also understand sentencing requires consideration of the offence, culpability, aggravating factors and mitigation.
And Mohammad Amaaz? He received 42 months’ detention in June 2026. Leaving that out rather undermines the argument.
Here’s the fundamental legal problem though: you’re comparing someone on remand, someone awaiting sentence, someone who pleaded guilty, someone acquitted by a jury, two people given suspended sentences and someone sentenced to three and a half years.
Those are entirely different legal circumstances.
Under English law, sentencing depends on the offence, evidence, harm, culpability, mitigation and applicable guidelines. Equality before the law does therefore not mean identical outcomes for different offences!
If you want to establish a two-tier justice system, please
produce comparable cases and evidence of discriminatory treatment. Cherry-picking different offences and misrepresenting their outcomes proves nothing.
The rule of law simply requires equal application of legal principles and not identical punishment for unrelated conduct.
Danny Tommo is locked up until June 2027 for damaging property that had no owner.
Tommy Robinson faces sentencing next month for doing journalism.
Lucy Connolly was jailed for more than two years for words on social media.
Now compare:
Ricky Jones said on live camera that right-wingers needed their throats cut : no prison.
Labour MP Mike Amesbury beat a constituent he was elected to represent : no prison.
Huw Edwards possessed explicit images of children : no prison.
Mohammad Amaaz beat police officers at Manchester Airport : years of delays before conviction.
Same country, different rules.
@BritBoy95X@ManMythTD Yeah in all fairness I didn’t know we were doing a Remembrance Day event, I was invited to a meal, and Mark always tells me I dress way too smart, so I dressed down thinking it was just a meal.
I’m not bothered, still got the Union flag in.
Ray, you’ve identified decades of government failure, yet your instinct is to blame immigrants. This is the psychology of scapegoating in direct action: redirecting frustration towards a convenient outsider instead of confronting the complexity of the problem! Population growth creates pressure, no doubt, and governments decide how to manage it. Yet, you have still confused identifying a contributing factor with establishing the cause and that is not critical thinking, it’s rather blame masquerading as analysis.
Seen as though this post has gained quite a bit of traction, I’d like to discuss the psychology of scapegoating and blaming immigrants for everything.
There is an all too familiar political narrative in Britain.
Your wages are stagnant? Blame immigrants.
You cannot afford a home? Blame immigrants.
The NHS is struggling? Blame immigrants.
Crime, unemployment, declining public services, economic insecurity? Apparently, the answer is always the same.
Psychologist Gordon Allport explored how frustration and prejudice can become connected, particularly when hostility is displaced towards an identifiable out-group.
More recently, researchers Aleš Kudrnáč, Maureen Eger and Mikael Hjerm examined the scapegoating of immigrants during periods of personal and collective crisis.
Their research addresses a fundamental psychological mechanism: when people experience frustration, they may redirect blame towards groups they perceive as outsiders.
In 2025, researchers including Karen Douglas and Daniel Jolley published six studies involving 3,643 participants, finding links between economic hardship, perceptions of societal decline, conspiracy beliefs and anti-immigrant hostility.
Think about what that means.
A person can experience genuine economic hardship, feel understandably angry about declining living standards, and still be persuaded to direct that anger towards the wrong target.
And therein lies the political opportunity.
Rather than explaining complex failures of housing policy, investment, productivity, public administration and economic management, it becomes tempting to offer the public a convenient enemy.
An enemy who can be blamed for almost anything.
This is where Ludwig von Mises’ critique of resentment becomes particularly interesting.
Mises argued that resentment can encourage people to attribute their frustrations to external enemies rather than examine more complicated explanations.
He directed much of that criticism towards socialism.
But scapegoating is not the exclusive property of the political left.
The same psychological mechanisms can arise wherever resentment is transformed into an ideology of collective blame.
And there is a profound irony in people who constantly denounce “lefties” for blaming the system while insisting that immigrants are responsible for virtually every disappointment in modern British life.
Of course immigration creates legitimate policy challenges but acknowledging those realities is fundamentally different from portraying millions of individuals as collectively responsible for a nation’s failures.
A legitimate concern about immigration is not the same thing as an ideology built around hostility towards immigrants.
And perhaps the most dangerous feature of scapegoating is how effectively it distracts from accountability.
If every problem can be attributed to an outsider, the decisions of governments, employers, regulators and institutions receive considerably less scrutiny.
The public is encouraged to look sideways at its neighbours rather than upwards at the decisions shaping its circumstances.
The result is not necessarily a better-informed electorate.
It may simply be a more divided one.
You cannot repair a failing housing system by hating immigrants.
You cannot improve public services by spreading conspiracy theories.
And you cannot demonstrate patriotism by treating an entire population as the enemy.
Dear Lucy Connolly,
A grieving family deserves compassion, dignity and justice. On that, there should be no disagreement.
But since you have chosen to lecture others about humanity, offensive language and moral responsibility, perhaps we should examine your own public record.
Following the horrific murder of three children in Southport, when grieving families needed compassion and the country desperately needed calm, you published a message calling for hotels housing asylum seekers to be set on fire.
You pleaded guilty to inciting racial hatred. You received a 31-month prison sentence. The Court of Appeal rejected your challenge to that sentence.
These are not malicious allegations or differences of political opinion. They are established facts.
You now describe a broadcaster’s comments as “beyond offensive”, demand that he be removed from the air and invoke the distress his words might cause.
Yet you have repeatedly defended your own right to express views that resulted in a criminal conviction.
You are entitled to criticise James O’Brien. You are entitled to disagree with his analysis of racism in policing.
But freedom of expression cannot mean unlimited protection for your own words and professional consequences for everyone else’s.
Nor does genuine concern for grieving families confer immunity from scrutiny of your own conduct.
Compassion should be a principle, not a weapon deployed selectively against people you dislike.
And moral authority is not something you acquire merely by writing an indignant open letter.
It is demonstrated through consistency, accountability and an appreciation of the consequences of one’s own words.
Perhaps those are better standards by which to judge this exchange than who can express the greatest contempt.
Once a crowd has applauded a lie, the truth becomes an accusation against everyone who cheered.
And in retaliation for exposing the liar, he becomes all the more sacred to them, until even his blatant dishonesty is perceived merely as a test of their loyalty.
For they would rather make a god of a liar than admit they had been kneeling before an ordinary man.
Stephen Yaxley Lennon, the delicious irony is in the fact that you would see someone in need and just grift. It’s easy hiding behind the guise of helping our nation when in actual fact… your inability to behave and adhere to our laws has cost the tax payer, considerably!
@TRobinsonNewEra
Once a crowd has applauded a lie, the truth becomes an accusation against everyone who cheered.
And in retaliation for exposing the liar, he becomes all the more sacred to them, until even his blatant dishonesty is perceived merely as a test of their loyalty.
For they would rather make a god of a liar than admit they had been kneeling before an ordinary man.
Ray, nobody denies population growth puts pressure on infrastructure. But this constant tendency to redirect frustration towards convenient outsiders rather than confront more complex causes is weak soup. Decades of poor planning, underinvestment and political failure don’t magically become immigrants’ fault. The mentality my post challenges is clear: endless blame, selective accountability and very little critical examination of the actual causes!
Once a crowd has applauded a lie, the truth becomes an accusation against everyone who cheered.
And in retaliation for exposing the liar, he becomes all the more sacred to them, until even his blatant dishonesty is perceived merely as a test of their loyalty.
For they would rather make a god of a liar than admit they had been kneeling before an ordinary man.
@TRobinsonNewEra
There needs to be a STOP to the political persecution of good men standing for our country.
This requires people who are brave in public office to make a stand.
It’s not right what is being done to these men. @TRobinsonNewEra@RealDannyTommo
Politicians where are you?!