Tommy Robinson’s 2018 trial against Cambridgeshire Police ended with a £38,000 cost order—£20,000 due in 14 days—after officers forcibly ejected him and his children from Cambridge despite no wrongdoing, contradicted video evidence, and ignored witnesses like the landlady. The judge dismissed his claims, accepted an anonymous "drunk fan" warning as intel, and threatened journalists with contempt for tweeting, while police deleted footage. Robinson calls it a systemic "stitch-up," comparing it to historical injustices, and plans appeals, linking it to broader Brexit-era threats to democratic freedoms. [Automatically generated summary]
I've been over there in Peterborough in the United Kingdom.
That's how they say Peterborough.
Tommy was on trial.
He was actually not the one on trial.
He was taking the Cambridgeshire Police to trial for harassing him.
But today Tommy lost that case.
I give you my review of my three days over there and I interview Tommy himself.
Hey, I'd love it if you could sign up for our premium content.
That's basically this podcast with visuals.
It's the video form.
Go to the rebel.media slash shows.
It's eight bucks a month.
It's only 80 bucks for the year.
And you even get a discount if you use the coupon code podcast at the Rebel.media slash shows.
And of course, we use that money to help keep the lights on here.
All right, without further ado, here's my report from Tommy's trial.
You're listening to a Rebel Media podcast.
Tonight, Tommy Robinson loses his court case against the Cambridgeshire police.
What happened?
It's the Ides of March, and you're watching the Ezra Levant show.
Why should others go to jail when you're the biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say to the government is because it's my bloody right to do so.
Forgive me for my absence these past three days.
As I mentioned when I spoke to you last, Tommy Robinson called me up at 7 a.m. on Monday morning and said, Eds, I'm going to court in Peterborough, suing the Cambridgeshire Constabulary for what they did to my family.
Please come to report from the court.
Oh, and by the way, the three-day trial starts tomorrow at 10 a.m.
So can you please get on a plane right away?
That's what he said.
Of course, he said it in his own way.
He said, Peterborough instead of Peterborough.
That's how they say it over there.
I kept getting laughed at for saying Peterborough.
I even made a little video of it.
Let me show you a bit of the banter.
I am from Canada, and there is a city in Canada called Peterborough.
P-E-T-E-R-B-O-R-O-U-G, Peterborough.
Are you from Peterborough?
I'm from Peterborough.
Well, here I am in Peterborough, United Kingdom, and I have been chided at great length by assorted, assorted Brits who, whenever I say Peterborough, it's like I've said a four-letter word, except for it's got like 10.
So fellas, can you ask me four words?
How do you say it's not Peterborough?
Is it Peterborough?
Peterborough.
Peterborough.
Are you even saying the T, is it Peterborough?
Peterborough.
That's it.
Again, you said it's Teterborough.
Peterborough.
Peterborough.
Borough.
Peterborough.
There's a fella here who wasn't even saying the T. Peterborough.
Am I doing it?
I'm here in the Borough.
I'm from the Borough.
All right.
I'm not making fun.
They were making fun of me.
I want to fit in.
I want to fit in.
The Rebel Road Media here in Peterborough.
I'm Esther LeBron.
Oh, and by the way, that sauce you put on steak, it's called Worcester.
Worcestershire sauce.
It's not Worcestershire.
Peterborough sounds like Kookaborough.
Pubs And Fun00:05:09
Anyways, there was a lot of laughs.
There's a lot of laughs, but the trial itself was extremely unfunny.
Let me show you a bit of what it was about.
I'm going to start by showing you three clips, all taken from Tommy Robinson's own cell phone.
Now, all this happened just over two years ago in the summer of 2016.
Tommy's a big football fan.
That's what they call soccer over there.
And he goes to the matches, both in his native Luton and when the team travels.
In fact, when the trial ended one night, Tommy took me to a match between Luton, that's Tommy's team, and Bradford.
Look how big the stadium is, eh?
That's me looking very out of place.
And I can't tell you how bitter cold it was, but I got a good feeling for what these football games are about.
The teams on each side are very loyal and passionate.
I mean, truly much more than anything we typically see here in Canada.
Even during NHL playoffs, you don't see that kind of mania here.
And the thing is, each team is that way.
And a certain number of these football fans, especially when they drink a few pints, they get rowdy and they can fight even with rival football teams.
So even going to the Luton match with Tommy, I observed a few things.
The stadium we went to has separate entrances for the fans from each team.
The home fans and the visiting fans entered the stadium from different sides.
at least in Bradford.
And they sat on opposite sides of the stadium.
And when there was a break, the fans went out to buy a hot dog or whatever, get a beer, or in this case to buy a little meat pie.
Isn't that funny?
That's what they served.
Everyone was holding these little meat pies.
They're pretty good.
The Luton fans had their food concessions, and the Bradford fans had their food concessions.
So the fans didn't mix.
Can you believe it?
And last point, I thought this was interesting.
Each team has their own hometown police force there.
So I just took this from where I was sitting.
For example, I was at the Luton versus Bradford match in Bradford.
So obviously the police from Bradford would be there.
But you see that there was a special football police squad in each city that travels to games on the road with each team.
So there in Bradford, the Luton police had sent their own football cops to Bradford to help keep order.
They call them football spotters, since they go to literally every game and they get to know all the fans by name and face.
And so they know who might cause trouble and they have a long-standing rapport with the fans, good and bad.
I took a picture of the Luton Police in Bradford and all the fans knew those police because it's the same cops at every game and the police knew all the fans.
It's an interesting approach to policing.
I tell you that by way of background because my little experience at the freezing cold Luton match in Bradford and Luton won by the way, it was useful.
It wasn't just fun.
Because back in 2016, in the case in question, in the lawsuit, I went over there to cover for Tommy.
Tommy, he's a Luton fan.
He had traveled up to Cambridge to watch Luton play Cambridge.
Tommy went up there with a friend and they each brought their kids.
Tommy, his three young kids, and they made a family day out of it.
They went to some kids' festival in the city.
Then they went to the stadium to watch the match.
And then they went to a pub.
And remember, a pub or a public house, as they're formally called in the UK, they're not really like our Canadian or American bars that are adults only.
Yeah, they got a bar.
But it's not like a nightclub or something.
These pubs obviously do serve beer.
And these are pictures from, those were pictures we were showing from the actual pub Tommy went to.
They're really a place for families eating lunches, socializing with other families.
It's quite a fun custom.
It's different from what we do here in Canada.
Families hang out there for hours.
It's not a fast food place.
They go there, they take their time, the opposite of fast food really, and they have something to eat, sure, and they watch a match on TV and they mill around and they catch up with other families.
It's a pretty fun tradition.
Sometimes these pubs have hotel rooms upstairs, like half a dozen rooms or something.
When I visited Tommy right after he got out of prison, you'll recall that's where I met him.
You can see that pub life, people just hanging around.
People hang out there all day.
That's the place I met Tommy in Bradfordshire.
It's a family place, but of course they serve beer.
Anyway, I'm trying to paint a picture for you of what these pubs are like, because if I said a bar, I think you might get the wrong picture.
I mean, yes, they have beer there, but it's like a day-long hangout for families.
Tommy was spending the day with his kids and his friends and their kids.
And like I say, they stay in these pubs for hours, and the kids all hang out with each other and they play with each other.
And every parent sort of keeps an eye out for every kid.
I've seen it at that pub in Bedfordshire that I just shown you, I've been with Tommy a few times.
And the kids get bored and they run around a bit, but maybe they play outside a bit if there's a park.
But they're all together.
It's a real weekend kind of thing to do.
Anyway, that's my brief experience in the UK.
I tell you all this because on that fateful day two and a half years ago, Tommy was at a pub in Cambridge with his kids and he was in full family mode.
No drinking.
I know that to be the case.
Tommy doesn't touch a drop of alcohol when he's with his family.
And he hadn't had anything to drink all day.
It was a kid's day.
And I say that to distinguish him from stereotypical football hooligans who are a factor in British football.
But Tommy isn't that way.
At the Bradford game, I went to with him.
Terrorized Children: Tell Tell00:15:12
He just watches the game.
He cheers.
He sings some of their chants and he talks with everyone.
And they all seem to know each other.
And all the fans know each other and they know the police.
It's quite a thing.
I don't think we have that in Canada.
That communal feeling.
NHL fans don't have the same camaraderie.
They don't travel to see every single away game of their home team in communal buses with the same police riding along, really.
We don't have that here.
It's quite interesting to a connect like me.
Anyways, on that fateful day in 2016, Tommy took his kids to the match.
Then afterwards, they went to the pub, where Tommy watched another match on TV, a team called Manchester United.
You've probably heard of them.
And then the police came in and they came up to Tommy and said, leave the pub now or you'll get arrested.
Now it was 6.30 p.m., the match on TV with Manchester United.
It was going to end in half an hour anyways.
Tommy was with his family.
But the cops from Cambridgeshire just said, hey, you, out of the pub now or you'll get arrested.
Tommy asked why.
And they didn't give him an answer.
He asked again.
They responded that if he kept asking, they'd arrest him right there by serving him a form called a Section 35 dispersal notice.
That's a fancy way of saying being arrested for anti-social behavior.
That's a thing in the UK.
Tommy engaged with the police and he recorded it on his cell phone.
And for good reason, as I'll tell you later, here, watch about two minutes of the interaction with the cops.
This is from Tommy's cell phone that was later uploaded to YouTube.
There are some notes on this video written, I think, by one of Tommy's friends, Brian.
So take a look for a second.
What sort of law tells a man with his children he has to leave a city?
What is that about?
Right.
What is that about?
What is that about?
Freedom, democracy, Britain.
What's that about?
Why should we get to that?
Tell me to explain it.
Tell me why then.
Tell me why it's not.
The question is, because of the lessons we've learned in the past, we know that if certain groups stay within the city, I'm with my children.
I'm with my children.
So tell me what you're saying.
I'm not having an internet.
I've already told you.
So you're telling me what?
I've told you already.
Are you going to leave?
Hold on, hold on, hold on.
Are you going to leave?
I'm with my children and you're telling me I have to leave.
Are you going to leave?
Hold on.
You're going to get a section 35 dispersal notice.
Right.
Okay, we'll give you a 35 then.
I'm with my children.
Hold on.
I'm with my children.
Hold on.
Hold on.
I'm with my children.
Stop getting a thing.
I've not been interviewed by you.
Tell me why.
Now you tell me why.
You tell me why.
You'll get it on the phone.
It'll be explained to you.
Tell me why I have to leave.
Tell me why.
Listen, I'm trying to do this.
No, no, officer, officer, when you take, when I'm...
Take that camera off my face.
I'm not being interviewed.
This isn't crime watching.
I'm with my children.
You're telling me I have to leave.
Why?
Why?
Because there's likely to be disorder out of your life.
Don't assault me.
Tell me why.
Well, tell me why I have to leave.
Stop shouting.
So tell me why I've got to leave.
It'll be explained to you when you get his family.
How are you drawing a jurisdiction to where I do and don't go with my kids?
Tell me.
Tell me the reason.
Shush, I'm trying to talk on my radio.
You've told me I've got to leave.
Sean, you put your hand away from me.
He's touching my hand.
I'm minding my own business.
I mind my own business.
You've come off the street to where I'm having a private drink with my family and you're telling me I've leave.
I can't talk.
We're upstairs.
Tell me why I have to leave.
Mate, you know this is ridiculous, yeah?
You're from Newton.
You know this is ridiculous.
Tell me why I have to leave.
At the end of the day, the boss has authorized a section 35.
But we've already cleared it.
Why?
We've got to allow it to be able to.
We haven't cleared it with the boss, have you?
You haven't cleared it with the boss, have you?
So Tommy was pretty irate.
I mean, I think you might be too, if you were interrupted at a restaurant where you were with your family and told to get out immediately or be arrested.
That's what the form was.
We'll give you a form 35.
If he had been drunk or disorderly or fighting with rival teams, fair play.
But none of that was the case.
In fact, he was apart from most of the Luton fans.
He was upstairs in the pub.
Most were downstairs.
The landlady of the pub, who didn't know Tommy, remember this was in Cambridge, not Tommy's hometown of Luton.
The landlady came over and told the cops, this guy's fine.
He's just been sitting here peacefully with his kids all day.
Here, listen to this clip.
I'm the only manager for the security company.
The member you're throwing out have been in the Fitz Regent today with their children.
So come in here.
So my head of security, he's saying that they've got plus.
No, away from you.
Tell us all right.
Why?
Why?
Because you don't want people hearing the truth.
I don't want to talk to you.
She's telling you, she's telling you she's in my family all day.
You heard her.
He's been there all day with his family and children.
No problem.
He's been no problem.
You'd think that would be the end of it.
I mean, this landlady had no stake in this other than she wants an orderly restaurant safe.
And sure, she wants her paying customers.
So you'd think if Tommy had been in the slightest way a problem, the landlady would say, oh, thank God, officer, you're here.
Get him out.
She'd be grateful to the cops for kicking him up.
But the opposite.
She was saying, why are you kicking out one of my paying customers?
He's been here all day with his family.
I wonder if they even had the right to do so.
I mean, what if she instead had kicked the cops out?
The pub is private property.
I wonder what would have happened if the landlady would have told the cops, please get off my private property or I'll come for you for trespass.
And please leave my peaceful paying customers alone.
I wonder what happened, would have happened in that alternate universe.
But she didn't do that.
And as you can see, the cop didn't even really listen to her.
He just made his decision.
And if Tommy didn't like it, he should take it up with the boss.
Tommy grudgingly complied.
And when he and his kids left the pub, the police now said, okay, now get out of the city.
Get out of the entire city.
Leave the city.
Go to the train station and get out now.
Now, unlike when Tommy was talking to the cops, Tommy's kids were right there now.
So Tommy wasn't as vocally irate anymore.
He was trying to be calm and controlled because he didn't want to upset his kids.
So watch this part right when they're leaving the pub.
He's with his kids, so Tommy's tone is lower, but they're saying get out of the city.
We've caused no problems.
It's embarrassing, lads.
The whole time, is that what I should do?
You ready, kids?
Come on, brother.
Yeah, ready, Jeff.
Let's just go.
Yeah.
Yeah, that's all right, no.
Come go.
All right.
We have to go.
Come on.
Come on, kids.
Come on.
We've got five kids with us, so obviously we're causing loads of trouble.
We've already got to get out.
Look at that.
It's a fucking joke.
You've got to suffer, yeah?
He's even following the kids.
I'm following Johnny as well.
Mate.
Come on.
Kids, come on.
Come on.
Come on.
I think this is what happens when we go to Luke and Wife.
Before they come.
I'm filming it.
Of course, let's get it down.
Get over.
Why were they following him?
Why were they filming him?
Imagine being told to leave a city.
For what crime?
For what crime?
Well, keep asking, and I'll arrest you.
That's the crime.
That's what the cop upstairs said.
Anyways, Tommy did indeed, as you can see, walk to the train station and the police, well, they followed him and they didn't just follow him.
One of them took out a video camera and ostentatiously started recording him.
with his kids right there.
How creepy is that?
You could see he had left the pub.
You could see he was walking the railway station.
And then his girl started to cry and then Tommy got mad in front of his kids for the first time.
Take a look.
No idea, darling.
Darling.
My daughter's crying her eyes out now, lads.
You're following us.
You're following us.
You're shouting.
You're making my daughter cry.
Go away.
We're making sure that you say dead.
Right, okay.
We're following you.
There's no way out of that.
Come here.
Come here, Darling.
It's alright.
Come here.
Ghost, it's alright.
Come here.
Come here.
Come here, police.
girls come here you've terrorized my family You've terrorized my children.
You have terrorized my children.
No, you've terrorized my children.
Stop following us.
You've terrorized my children.
You've terrorized my children.
They're kids trying to watch football.
You've terrorized them.
You've caused this, you bully.
You horrible bully.
So those are the facts, at least the evidence.
Funny thing that police videographer, surprise, he deleted his own videotape, even though he testified in court that he was the official evidence gatherer.
That's weird.
That video cop testified and said under oath that depending on the situation, he is obligated to keep evidence for at least 28 days, or even, he said, in some cases, up to 100 years.
But in this case, he felt the video was of no relevance or interest, so he just deleted it.
Whoopsies, this isn't that convenient.
There was a lot of that at the trial.
You can watch the whole 17-minute YouTube interaction of Tommy and the police as uploaded by Tommy's friend to the internet, and that's recorded on Tommy's phone.
Tommy says it ended only when his cell phone battery ran out.
That's why he wanted to see the police video.
And he wrote to them to that effect.
Can I see the police video?
Because, for example, Tommy said that his daughter was so upset by the police following her and videotaping her that she actually started to run out in the street.
And he knew that would be corroborated by the police video that captured it all.
But alas, the cop thought it was irrelevant, so he deleted it.
You know, I haven't practiced law in a long time, but if you delete evidence, hide something from the court, in Canada, at least there's a presumption that you were hiding something because it was embarrassing to your case.
So a court takes an adverse inference from it.
If you're going to play silly games like that, the court is going to assume the worst about what you refuse to show them, right?
Assume it was damning, but that didn't happen here.
Anyway, so I attended the trial for three days.
I just got back to Toronto late last night, and the judge actually released her judgment today.
And I read about it through the website of the Cambridgeshire Live, a local newspaper.
They had a young reporter, Freddie Lynn, who actually was sitting next to me the whole time during the trial.
We became friendly acquaintances.
So he was in court still today, and he was typing things up, and I relied on him for what happened.
And I learned today that the judge, in fact, ruled against Tommy.
Here's Freddie's story.
Not only did the judge throw out Tommy's lawsuit, but Tommy has to pay the lawyer for the police and apparently has to pay the police themselves.
I've never heard of that before.
They were being paid to attend the trial.
They incurred no cost personally.
But Tommy told me he doesn't just have to pay for their lawyers, but the police, a total of, if Tommy, if I heard him right, a total of 38,000 pounds, which is over 60,000 Canadian dollars.
Now, I'm mad at the police for their obvious strong-arm tactics, kicking a guy out of a restaurant for no reason at all.
I'm mad at the judge for accepting it.
I'm mad at the judge for what she believed and what she refused to believe from the trial.
For example, she specifically said that she did not believe that Tommy's kids were with him in the pub.
But he said that they were.
The pub's landlady, I showed you the video, said that they were.
You saw a video of them with him.
But here's what the judge said.
I am satisfied the children were not in the public house, but on the green.
The judge said they weren't in the pub, but everyone else who was there says they were.
The landlady, Tommy, you saw with your own eyes.
A Luton police spotter named Constable Mason, that's one of those Luton cops that travels with the Luton team, testified that he saw Tommy with the kids.
Now he's a cop.
He said it under oath, but the judge actually said she thinks that Luton cop was mistaken.
What?
You saw the cop hear from the landlady that Tommy was fine.
You saw the cop ignore that, though.
At the court, when asked why he kicked out Tommy if there were no problems, he told this laughable story about how he had bumped into someone on the street.
And he only remembered this later, by the way.
The cop said the Sergeant Street of the Cambridgeshire Cops said that he bumped into someone on the street, a drunk fan, who, he claimed, uttered something about, you better watch out for that Tommy Robinson or something.
The cop actually called that Intel.
This alleged comment by an anonymous drunk on the street was Intel.
Oh, by the way, that he didn't remember till much later.
But his own observations of Tommy being sober, hearing the landlady saying everything was fine, the kids were there, that apparently is mistaken.
An imaginary friend told him Tommy was a risk, and that was more powerful than the landlady's.
And the judge bought it.
The judge said the policing I've described above, the policing that's shown in Tommy's video for 17 minutes.
You can find the whole thing online.
The judge said, that's fine.
That's good policing.
In fact, Tommy owes them money now, not the other way around.
I want to tell you two more crazy things.
Here's a tweet that I wrote from court.
I was very careful to get it right, word for word.
This is the definition of a risk supporter, a football hooligan that's at risk.
The police use to arrest people on site.
If you're a risk, they can arrest you on site.
They call you a risk supporter.
That's their word.
This is how a cop defined being a risk supporter to Tommy's lawyer.
This is the European Union definition that he follows, ready?
So, Gerdon, what is the EU definition?
That's Tommy's lawyer.
Mason, the cop, said, any person, known or not, that has the capability or possibility of public order or antisocial behavior, whether that's spontaneous or pre-planned, at any football event.
Really?
Any person known or not?
What does that even mean?
That just means any person who has the possibility of being antisocial, even in a spontaneous manner.
Isn't that literally any human being in the world?
Isn't it true that any human has the possibility of being antisocial on a spontaneous basis?
I mean, I guess not for a baby in a pram or something, but literally any adult could be arrested under that.
Of course, that's going to be abused, just like it was abused.
Live Tweeting in Court00:07:22
Right, okay, we'll give you a 35 minutes.
Hold on, hold on, stop up to the bottom.
I'm with my children.
Stop getting it.
I've not been interviewed like that.
Absolutely right.
Tell me why.
Now you tell me why.
You tell me why.
When I get it on the form, it'll be explained.
Tell me why you have to forget a form.
Tell me why.
Tell me why you're giving me the form.
It'll be explained on the form.
The form is this Section 35 dispersal order for antisocial behavior.
Why are you arresting me?
I'll let you know when I arrest you.
No, am I doing something wrong right now?
I'll tell you when I arrest you.
Can you tell me what I'm doing?
If you keep asking me why I'm arresting you, I'm going to arrest you.
Imagine having that power.
I met that cop, by the way.
He's just the same in person as he is in the bar there.
Imagine having that power to arrest someone because they might possibly do something in the future that's antisocial.
In fact, that's actually what the judge said.
She accepted the imaginary friend warning the cop about Tommy as a reason to arrest him, but she dismissed the landlady's comments by saying, look at that, look at that.
Let me just quote from this.
Hold this for a second up.
Judge Walden Smith continues, the landlady clearly intervened to say, Mr. Lennon, that's Tommy, had been fine.
That is evidence that is relevant, but it's not everything.
This is the judge.
She's referring, the landlady is referring to how they had been and not how he was going to be.
Well, sure, the landlady said Tommy was fine all day.
Okay, sure, fine.
With his kids, fine.
But she didn't have a crystal ball to know he would still be fine for the last hour of the game.
The judge said, well, you know, he might suddenly have gone berserk.
You never know.
It's incredible.
It's incredible.
But there was one more thing that was incredible.
I got into a little bit of trouble myself.
I don't know if you heard.
I was live tweeting from the court.
In fact, my live tweets from the court over the course of three days, according to Twitter analytics, were cumulatively viewed 13 million times.
13 million.
That is a lot of views.
And you could tell that the police and the lawyers were obsessed by what I was typing.
I mean, my friend Freddie from the Cambridgeshire Live was doing a good enough job, but 13 million views.
That's something else, not to brag.
Okay, brag a little.
And so this is what happened.
During a break in the court, I was standing near a cop, the one who had threatened to arrest Tommy.
The one said, oh, wait, mate, I'll arrest you.
I'll show you why when I arrest you.
And I asked him a couple questions, including if he had any regrets.
I just said, do you have any regrets?
I said, total interaction.
Maybe it was 10 seconds, maybe 15 seconds.
And the cops just all went back into the court to move away from me.
Okay, fair enough.
But then those cops literally complained to the judge, claiming I was intimidating them.
I swear to God.
So stalking Tommy and his kids, including making his young daughter cry, that's good policing.
But these three big bad men asking them, hey guys, do you regret it?
That's intimidating the police.
I kid you not, the judge said that.
So the judge interrupted the trial on the first day and cautioned me to stop being so intimidating.
And I said, no problem.
Okay.
I'll stop intimidating Cambridge's finest.
And I actually apologize.
Now, not to the cops, of course, but I apologize to the judge for causing her a headache in her own court.
So no problem.
I kept tweeting.
And then the cops or someone must have complained again.
I don't know who did, because the judge stopped the proceedings later and ordered the entire public gallery to leave the court.
The judge wasn't in the, then the judge left the court.
The judge wasn't in the court at that moment, actually.
But she had the clerk or the usher ask every journalist, ask all the public to leave, and then ask the remaining people, including the journalists, to show their journalism license or some sort of registration card they have over there, like a permit.
Really a license.
The court was asking everyone to prove they were licensed to commit journalism.
Licensed?
Well, here in Canada, we don't require a license to do journalism.
We're not like Romania, where during the Cold War, you literally had to register your typewriter with the government and get a license because they didn't want anyone typing anything that could cause trouble.
That's true, look it up.
So I told the court, I said, look, we don't have journalism permits in Canada, and they accepted that.
But what was so gross, what was so sad was the speed, the glee, the pride with which the rest of the journalists in the room, including my friend Freddie, whipped out their licenses.
They were so proud.
Here's my license, mate.
Proud to be asked, proud to prove they were compliant and submissive.
They were so proud of their licenses.
On license, bruv.
Anyways, the judge came back in, raised an eyebrow about my point that we don't need licenses here in Canada.
I don't know if she believed me even.
And then she gave a very explicit warning to me directly that I had better stop tweeting any opinions.
None at all.
I couldn't question goofy things like a cop and his imaginary friend.
I couldn't express an opinion at all in my tweets.
Like I was silent in the court.
Obviously, I didn't say anything during the trial.
She said that I couldn't say any opinions on Twitter at all.
No opinions.
And that her ban didn't just apply to what I said from typing in court, but if I was outside the court, like if I made a video, she said that she didn't want me to have any opinions at all on the trial until the ruling came out.
And I didn't want to take out any more of the court's time.
So I said, look, I'll do my best to just be a stenographer.
I didn't want to push this trial off the rails or anything.
It wasn't my affair.
But I guess that wasn't good enough because after the trial ended on the second day, Wednesday, I was asked to go back into the courtroom.
And it was just me then, the judge, the two clerks, the two lawyers, the clerk and the usher, and me.
And we were in the courtroom, just us.
And the judge told me at great length that if I kept giving my opinions, which I guess I was doing, she'd hold me in contempt at court.
It wasn't a hearing.
I was facing no charges.
It was just her being very mad at me.
And I didn't want to fight with you.
I told her the truth.
I didn't come to Peterborough to quarrel with her.
It was her trial.
I didn't want to interfere with it.
To be candid, I have no idea how my tweets could possibly interfere with her trial.
She's the judge.
There was no jury that might sneak a peek at my tweets.
It's laughable that my tweets could be intimidating to these big burly cops or something.
It was so weird.
So I don't even know why tweeting would impact the trial.
I mean, unless they're all watching my tweets, why would they do that?
Now, like I say, I have tweeted hundreds of little updates.
So I asked her, well, was there anything in particular you're mad about?
And she mentioned a couple, including this one, where I had made a self-deprecating joke.
I said, hopefully this won't get me thrown in the dungeon.
It's a little joke.
It's obviously not going to derail a trial.
Obviously, that's not going to intimidate a police officer.
Obviously, that's not going to spoil the jury.
There was no jury.
It was a self-deprecating joke about me in my big mouth.
But the judge obviously didn't even like the joke.
I'm not even sure what was wrong with that tweet, but I deleted it.
I took a picture of it before I deleted it.
And I told her, I'd delete, look, just tell me what you want me to delete.
I'll just delete it.
I don't care.
Even if I disagreed with her, I said, just tell me.
Yesterdays Court Risk00:11:19
I mean, I fight for freedom every day.
I fight in the court all the time.
This just wasn't the right moment.
It was Tommy's trial, not mine.
It wasn't about me.
I didn't go there to get in a quarrel in a foreign country.
I thought I'd tell you that because that was probably the saddest part of the whole experience to me.
First, that the UK has allowed itself to be governed by laws that allow police to simply arrest anyone for anything at any time, for what future crimes they might possibly commit.
Of course, that's going to be abused by bully cops.
That was sad to me.
But even sadder was the general political media culture that to the establishment, to lawyers, politicians, the media, the courts, everyone, having unrestricted police powers is just fine.
And having journalism licenses is just fine.
And threatening to hold a journalist in contempt and possibly throw him, me, in prison for expressing an opinion on Twitter or a dumb joke, this is fine.
It's all just fine.
Except that it is.
And look, I like visiting the UK, I like my friend Tommy, but I sure wouldn't want to live there.
And I want to do my best to make sure that we here in Canada and in the States too, don't make the same mistakes they are.
By the way, one of the reasons we're fighting Rachel Notley in court so hard in Alberta is that she wants us to register our billboards with the government like it's a Romanian typewriter, like it's a British journalist.
Yeah, no, not yet.
All right, stay tuned.
Next is an interview I did today via Skype with Tommy from his car at the side of the road just after he left the trial.
OK, we have Tommy.
Pipe him through.
How you doing?
Tommy, great.
Do we have you on video or just audio?
I can see you.
Hold on.
Perfect.
Can you?
Yeah, okay.
Hold on.
Yeah, we got you.
We got you.
Okay, Tommy, we got 4,000 people online, but I'll invite more to come.
The camera's a little close.
Maybe you could hold it a little further away from your...
Yeah, perfect.
You're not driving now, mate, are you?
No, I'm pulled over, mate.
I don't want another charge.
Yeah, okay.
Well, thanks very much.
I just read from Freddie Lynn's blog in Cambridgeshire Live that you have lost the case and have been ordered to pay £20,000 to the Cambridgeshire Police.
Is that accurate?
£20,000 within 14 days, and then I've got to pay a further £18,000.
I've got to pay Cambridgeshire fees £30,000.
I'm going to laugh or cry, man.
£38,000 so that they can drive me from a city center.
The police, the loot and intelligence police officer stood in court and said I was of no risk.
The judge said I committed no crime.
I done nothing wrong.
Yet they were within the law.
What does this say about British law?
That she found that they acted within the law by forcefully ejecting me and my children from an entire city.
So you need £38,000, Tommy.
Is that right?
£38,000, mate.
All right.
Well, let me say this.
I've got 4,200 of your friends here.
I explained to them at the beginning of the show, and we talked about this briefly.
We were going to do a super chat yesterday.
I already told you that we'd be happy to share.
As you know, Google takes 30% off the top.
If people chip in right now for Tommy, I had actually spoken to Tommy yesterday when I was in the UK about doing a super chat with him.
Let's get Tommy some money right now, right now, for his legal defense.
Do you know why I think they do that?
They've done this.
My legal costs in this case were £10,000.
They've charged me £40,000.
Now that is, I believe, they know I've got a case coming about my treatment in prison, about my unlawful detention and the way I was held.
Now they simply price you out.
Simply, how is an average person supposed to take them to court?
And in what court, in what country can anyone watch that video that happened to me and my family and say that that is fair?
And that is fair and decent policing.
Even my enemies, even my enemies have been disgusted by what they've seen in that video.
Yeah.
Yeah, here.
All right.
So folks, if you contribute a super chat, we'll pass on the dough to Tommy's solicitor, his lawyer.
That's how they call lawyers over there.
So if you do a super chat, we'll give the dough to cover Tommy's costs here.
You know how to do that.
If you put in a super chat of 50 quid or $50 or more, I'll read your question to Tommy right now.
Tommy, do we have audio from you, Tommy?
So you look.
Oh, yeah, I see that.
Okay, so there's some support from Tommy here.
I appreciate that.
I see people say, my money for Tommy, but not Ezra.
I'm telling you, I'm going to give this super chat dough to Tommy.
I spoke with him about it yesterday, in fact.
We did, as we did.
And it's just, I just, I can't think how, in fact, I can.
The whole, all that's done, I actually said in court to the judge at the end, I'd like to personally thank you.
Because every single, the millions of people who have watched that video of that police behavior, to think that the system here defends that behavior, you've just exposed yourself.
You've exposed the corruption of this legal system that defends those actions of those police officers that day.
Actions that my own police force, Bedshib police, were disgusted by themselves.
They didn't agree with it.
Yet here the judge or the establishment or the part of it has completely defended the police's actions in their entirety.
Well, Tommy, one of the things I played for people three times, the clip of the landlady saying you were fine.
And she specifically mentioned your kids were there.
But if I'm reading Cambridgeshire Live's blog from Freddie Lynn, the judge said she didn't believe your kids were there.
Did I get that right?
She said, even though Officer Mason, the Luton police officer, said when he came into the premises, my children were upstairs with me.
The judge said she believes he got that wrong.
She also said, now, Ezra, I didn't draw attention to it, but when I'm leaving the pub, you see my daughter run past in a loot and top coming from behind me.
I've never made a distinction of that because I didn't want to draw attention to what my daughter looked like.
So it's just the entire thing.
And then the police officer thinking, well, the two police officers said he was drunk.
He didn't mention the fact that they lied, that they said I was swearing at them.
In the video footage, it proves that I wasn't.
Didn't mention that.
The judge might, oh, just, I'm frustrated by it because it's just completely, it's absurd.
Why didn't you watch that video and then order me to pay £40,000 for what they've done to me that day?
Yeah.
Well, one of the things that the judge said, and again, I was reading Freddie's live blog, so I'm relying on him, but I think he's accurate.
He said the judge mentioned the landlady and said, sure, she said Tommy was fine, but she didn't know how he would be in the future.
That's insane to me.
That's saying, well, sure, to say that, well, Tommy might possibly have suddenly done something wrong with his family, that's insane.
But the more I learn about this anti-social behavior section 35 orders, they basically can arrest anybody.
I saw that Sergeant Street from Cambridgeshire.
The whole world has seen him.
I thought he was extremely aggressive and arrogant in court, just like he was on that video.
And the judge is fine with that.
What this gives is this is the green card now.
Black Leon family.
Because they can do this.
This is the permission and the president of a case to say that yes, without any evidence, without any action, negative actions by an individual who's with his family, without doing anything wrong, the police are within the law to forcefully eject them and video them as a family out of the city.
You know, I was so frustrated.
And it just feels, you know, your autobiography is called Enemy of the State.
And you show that all the establishment, they all stick together.
The police, the prosecutors, the courts, the media, the politicians, I feel like this is exhibit A in how they all collude.
It really is the elite establishment.
I can't believe that the judge accepted that this imaginary fan who warned, Hey, Sergeant Street, watch out for that Tommy Robinson.
Such a clearly...
No, wait for him.
And to give that weight.
But to brush off the landlady, I'm shocked by this, but maybe I shouldn't be shocked.
And to brush off the loot and intel officer, whose job it is to give them intelligence on who's going to cause trouble, the man that's known me for 15 years, the man that clearly tells her he is no risk, he told the court he's no risk.
He's no risk at all.
In fact, the same police, the Home Office took a case against me two years ago where they tried to ban me from leaving England.
And they tried to ban me from my town center.
And they used exactly what this police force have done.
My presence could provoke a reaction.
Now, when Bedfordshire police come to court, they told the court, he's no risk.
He does nothing wrong.
He only comes to football with his family.
We don't worry about him at all.
We do not need to ban him.
And because of that, the government case was thrown out.
But in this case, the judge has completely sided with their policing, which is insane.
Because essentially, we're not a free country.
We are a police state.
You know, Tommy, I referred earlier to some parts of the deep south in the United States before the civil rights movement, where black families were treated roughly by the police, that the police would, like, say, get out of town or get off the bus or get off this whites-only restaurant in the segregated South I'm talking about.
And that era is regarded as an unfair blight on American history.
And I think it was.
I don't think, especially for the public authorities to treat black people as second-class citizens.
Here we are in 2019, and the cops are ordering a peaceful man and his children to leave an establishment and then to leave the city.
And I felt if you were black and if that were in Mississippi, that would be straight out of Mississippi burning.
If this would have happened to any minority family in Britain with their children crying and terrified, this would be world new.
This would be well, but this hasn't just happened.
Classism Exposed00:02:52
I've got to pay 38 grand.
What?
Yeah.
It's the home now, Israel, and tell my children, because remember what happened that day, they know it's going on in court.
Well, it was fair.
What does that tell the kids about the police system in this country?
Now, Tommy, it's been a while since I practiced law.
I no longer am a practicing lawyer, but back 15 years ago when I took some matters to trial, if a party in a lawsuit deletes evidence, if they have evidence and they delete it, throw it out, hide it, the court in Canada, and I don't know the law over there, takes an adverse inference, which means if you delete something and hide it from the court, the court wants to punish you for deleting it,
so they assume you're hiding something bad, because no one hides something good, right?
The police video cop, the videographer who followed your family down the road as they frog marched you to the railway station, he videoed that whole thing.
And we showed that clip earlier.
He testified, I was there in court, when he said he just deleted it.
He said he thought it had no value as evidence.
It wasn't interesting.
He didn't even remember when he deleted it.
He might have deleted it the next day.
Did the judge say anything about that in her judgment?
In her judgment, she said that he didn't see any relevance to it.
Now, he's an Intel officer, which means what he videos is for intelligent.
It then goes into an intelligent system.
It's Intel.
He's an Intel officer.
He only videos for intelligent.
So that would have gone into an Intel system, but he says he deleted it after 24 hours.
And Ezra, I'm telling you, he sat in court and said I over-exaggerated.
I didn't need to over-exaggerate.
My daughter was terrified and she nearly run into a road because of your police's action.
And then you're, and I'm sitting there and you're making out like I'm the liar and then I've got to pay you money.
The only thing that I take a little bit of, a little bit from this is it completely exposes the entire system to everyone who's seen that video of my children.
To see that they've defended that action just shows that if I wasn't Tommy Robinson, that there'd have been a power today.
If I wasn't Tommy Robinson, I believe that judge truthfully would have said this is wrong.
Truthfully, 100%.
No one can watch that video and not agree it's wrong.
But if she says it's wrong with me, I walk out of court and it proves police have targeted me.
It proves that I've been harassed.
It proves the other cases and all the other things I've got coming up.
It proves all those points and it lays the foundation for the rest of them.
So by not agreeing, and to be honest, Ezra, when we talk about the establishment in this country, that lady, that judge, would have gone to the same school as the prosecutor.
Proving Harassment00:02:35
They are all part of the same club.
And all of them come from a top middle-class view where they look down their noses upon us.
And we're viewed, as you saw in the Panadrama documentary.
There is a classist system in this country.
And that's partly the problem that we're not in that.
We're not in the club.
Well, Tommy, I want to talk to you about that.
And if you want to talk to me privately about this instead, just say so.
I'm not looking to put you on the spot.
But there were certain things I think your team, and by that I mean your lawyer, Alison Gurden, like the landlady was not summoned to give testimony.
Your friends were not summoned.
And I think you just told us that you paid your lawyer £10,000.
Now, I know from paying your legal bills in the past.
It should be £40,000, I know.
That, I mean, we have spent, I'm not going to say it in public, but we hired a green.
Do you know what it is, Ezra?
Do you know what it is, Edgar?
When I started this legal case, this was two years ago.
I didn't have the public support that I've gotten now.
So I didn't have the support then to go sit down with the best QCs and the best legal teams.
It just was not a possibility two years ago when this happened.
So yeah, their legal fees are £40,000 because they pulled in the top boy.
Well, I want you to make me a promise that in the future, your litigation, that you're not going to be, as they say in the UK, penny-wise and pound foolish.
No, I won't, mate.
I won't.
Hopefully, as I said, I've got one obstacle to get out of the way now, unless it's their 38 grand bill.
Because Frank, I hate the fact that we got to pay 18 grand or 38 grand or whatever it is to their.
I would rather have raised 38.
Yeah, well, I would rather.
I'm sitting there thinking, I'm not going to pay it.
Yeah.
And I'd rather go jail than pay it.
No, don't.
go to jail.
Pissed me off.
Don't go to jail.
I would rather have paid the 38,000 pounds to your lawyers and hired a group of ninjas.
I know.
All right, I'll stop.
I'm not here to lecture you, my friend.
I just, it's on my mind, and some of your viewers might be on my mind.
I'm your friend and ally.
You know that, and we're going to give you some dough from what we're doing here.
Thank you to the folks chipping in.
And we're raising.
Give us, let me ask you two more questions.
Can you stay at the side of the road there for a couple more minutes?
Do you have a few more minutes with us?
Okay, I see from what Freddie was blogging, Freddie from Cambridgeshire Live, he said that you stood up to make a comment afterwards, but the judge said you can't.
Friday's Mass Rally Against Brexit Betrayal00:12:04
Can you tell us a little bit of what happened there?
Yeah, I said at the end, I just said, I'd just like to thank you because anybody who can watch that footage and defend those police actions, you've played your part today, but not in getting justice, in exposing the corruption of this system to the British public.
That's what I said to her in court.
And did the judge let you say that, or did she shut you down?
No, I said it, yeah.
I said it, and then she just walked out.
She walked out.
And can I ask what the reaction was from other people in the court?
Were the police all there?
The police were all there.
They didn't gloat.
They didn't.
They just all sat in silence.
Yeah.
And how about angry Adam Clemens, the rotund lawyer for the police?
And I'm saying rotund because we had little banter back and forth.
He didn't either.
He didn't either, to be honest.
And then when I got told I'd got to pay £38,000, I have to tell you, I laughed my head off because I didn't know what else.
I'm like, are you for real?
Yeah.
Really?
And how about your supporters in the gallery?
I should note that for some bizarre reason, the court was not letting in your supporters.
There were 19 empty seats one day, 23 empty seats the other day I counted, and the court wouldn't let your supporters in.
And the judge said, I don't want it to be overfull.
And I thought, overfull, the chairs are there.
Overfull is if you have 50 chairs and 51 people.
Overfull is not 50 chairs, but you only let in 37 people.
Do you know that from the start of this trial, they had a hired paid protection police officer?
The man with the bit in his ear?
Yeah.
He was a protection officer for the judge.
So straight away from the start of this trial, she's been told you've got personal protection against violence.
As though somehow a court case with me is going to lead to her being violently attacked.
That's straight away put in her head from the start of this case.
Yeah.
What did your supporters say?
I enjoyed the chance to get to meet some of them in person when I was out there.
Did you commiserate with them at all?
Did you talk with them at all?
Yeah, I think they were just shocked.
People were just shocked.
It's like, because everyone's watched the video, Ezra.
Everyone's watched the video.
It's not like it's my word.
It's like, in fact, when you listen to their statements, anyone who watched the video, their statements, all three of them, say I was heavily, I was drunk and disorderly, but I wasn't clearly.
And I was swearing constantly.
I didn't swear once when you watched the footage.
So we know they lied.
You lied.
All three of you lied in your statements.
All of you lied in your statements.
The police made no, no, no comment on that.
Doesn't matter that they lied.
It's just a complete, for me, it's a stitch-up.
I just hope the public have seen it as that.
And now, yeah, I don't know, man.
Listen, stay with us for a few minutes because there's a lot of people online.
There's 5,000 watching.
And I know you often get 10,000 before they shut you down on Facebook, which makes me really mad.
But stay online because, folks, I saw someone just say, is the money going to Tommy?
And the answer is yes.
When I was in Peterborough.
Yeah, Ezra said, because I've been shut down.
Ezra said that through the super chats, that he'd hold a super chat where I could talk to people after the case and he'd throw the money towards a piece.
But that wasn't us thinking there's going to be 38,000 pounds a feast.
That was a £10,000 that we've spent so far.
Yeah.
Not £38,000.
So I'm just saying that because I see some people saying, what's with the super chats?
And Tommy and I had actually planned to do this because we didn't know what was going on.
All right.
Well, let's stay on the line.
Can you give us another 10 minutes, Tommy?
Can you stay for another 10 minutes?
Okay.
Yeah, cool.
You're going to Antwerp.
That's in Belgium, am I right?
Yeah, with Philip DeVinter for a free speech rally.
So, anyone who's in Europe, try and get there.
Is and is there a website we can tell people to visit?
Philip DeRinter, is that what you said?
Philip Dorinter, yes.
Um, I'll send you a link if you want to put it out.
It's the, I can't say the word, I can't say okay.
I'll tweet it later, you can send it to me later.
So, you're giving a free speech talk in Antwerp.
Um, can I ask you about your contempt of court matter?
Do you have any news you can share publicly?
That's, I think, the scarier one.
I do.
That is that not 100%, but it is highly likely that on Monday I will find out the case has again been moved.
So, it's not going to be on the 22nd.
We understand it's probably going to be at the end of April, but I don't know that.
I only found this out last night at a meeting with my legals to say that it looks like due to legal, whatever legal reasons, um, the case is not going to be heard on Friday.
In fact, I won't even have to go to court at all next Friday.
But the trial is going ahead.
Um, I am being prosecuted for causing anxiety to the 10 Muslim rapists, child rapists, who are all in jail now.
They that, according to the Attorney General, the government, no one can no longer say this is not legally motivated.
This is not the police prosecute, this is the government.
The Attorney General has forced prosecution against me.
The trial will go to a high court judge who will then decide whether he's going to let him try, which he will because we know the system's like this.
So, he will then try me, and I will be charged with causing anxiety because apparently, these Muslim rapists should be free from fear of molestation when entering court trials.
Yeah, well, Tommy, I didn't molest them, I didn't scare them, I simply asked them a simple question: How do you feel about your sentence?
That's it, yeah.
Well, and the irony is: I mean, I came to court with you two of the three days I arrived in your vehicle with you, and there was a group of mainstream media journalists there, and they pounced on pounced.
Mr. Robinson, what about this?
Tommy, what about that?
So, that's just normal.
I mean, I don't even see a problem with that, frankly.
I mean, it's a public court, we live in a democracy, a free press, good.
So, the idea that you would be prosecuted for contempt of court for asking someone a question when his trial was over, by the way.
But that happens to I saw it with my own eyes happen to you, and of course, none of the reporters say two-year prison sentence.
It's a two-year prison sentence that I'm looking at.
Now, now, I wouldn't say when I say the world's watching, they can't do that.
They can do whatever they want, and the lengths they will go to.
You've seen it, everyone's seen it.
They don't care that the world's watching, they generally do not care.
They are in power, they will maintain power, they don't care about Brexit, they don't care about the fact that everyone's seen the video of the police harassing my family.
They don't give a shit, they'll still find them not guilty, they'll still prosecute me, they'll still put me back in prison.
Unfortunately, for that case, like when I was released from prison, I was released from prison because of the legal team that I was given with the help of the people.
And when I go back to fight this one, I will go in with a great legal defense, and that's the only chance I have.
Um, well, Tommy, I got one more question for you, and I thank you.
And I know you got to get back and think you've pulled over to the side of the road so you won't be arrested on some trumped-up charge.
I mean, it's you wouldn't want to do a live stream while you're driving, anyways.
Um, I want to ask you one more question because, of course, our UK viewers especially will remember that you did a demo, a street demonstration a couple months ago called Brexit Betrayal.
I'm shifting gears here, but folks, keep chipping in on the super chat.
Uh, as I promised Tommy when I met him in the UK this week, that uh, we were going to help him cover his legal fees.
And that super chat money, we actually get to keep 70% of that from YouTube.
So, go ahead and keep hitting that button.
Tommy and I spoke about this the other day.
Tommy, I want to shift gears away from the trial just for a minute because you led a Brexit betrayal demo with the leader of UKIP, Gerard Batten, a couple months ago.
We got some footage of that on the screen right now.
It was very exciting.
But it looks like Brexit's being betrayed by the Brexit.
The update, Brexit's being betrayed.
They're going to delay it.
The European Union have already said that the delay discussions could go on for four years.
This is just Brexit betrayal.
And there's now plans.
The day we were supposed to leave, or we're meant to leave with Article 50 is the 29th of this month.
It's Friday the 29th.
So now I know that I'm about to organize.
Now I know I'm not in court next week on the 22nd.
I'm going to ask people to come to London on the 29th, the weekend after, the Friday after, for a mass rally against the Brexit betrayal.
And the length they're going to go to, you can see it.
We're not getting Brett.
I truthfully now believe we are not going to get Brit.
And it's unbelievable.
And the anger and frustration that's growing in this country.
We don't have, we live in a police state and we do not have a democracy.
We voted to leave.
We've voted already.
Yeah.
Well, that's incredible.
Well, listen, Tommy, I appreciate you.
Like, I just called you out of the blue there because I thought, well, it looks like it's done.
I'm just going to phone Tommy.
And I handed the phone to Alex and Justin hooked you up.
So thanks for everybody for making that happen.
Jeff, anything else you want to tell our people?
It looks like we've raised, I haven't kept a tally.
We've probably raised a thousand pounds here for you.
And I understand, and we know we got to pay 38,000.
We'll talk more about that, but keep on hitting that, guys, if you want to help.
Give us one last word.
I'm guessing that two-thirds of the viewers right now are from the UK, and the rest are split between Canada, the US, Australia, and there's some continental Europeans, of course.
Do you have a message?
If you have to sum things up, is there a warning you have for the world?
Is there a lesson here?
Do you have any encouragement?
Do you have any encouragement?
Canada, Canada, America, protect your freedom.
Ours have gone.
And it's only going to get work.
Now, when we say encouragement, the only encouragement is the fight goes on.
It does not stop.
It doesn't stop here.
Will I be deterred not to take a prison lawsuit because of this action?
No, I won't.
Will I be deterred not to appeal this?
No, I won't.
I want to fight this.
The public can see on that video how wrong this is.
Now, what today proves is the corruption of the system that today doesn't prove the police acted within the law.
It doesn't prove that.
Everyone can see the video.
It just proves that the whole entire system is corrupt.
And if I had any words to everyone, it would be thank you, every single one of you, for your continued support throughout everything and all of it.
And unfortunately, every time we think he's about to low down and there's going to be a bit of a chill-out period, there's not.
It just goes bang every time.
So God knows what's next, but know one thing.
We will all fight it together.
Thank you.
All right, Tommy.
Well, thanks for pulling over.
Great to see you.
I'm going to say goodbye to you now, but everybody else, stay on because we're going to talk.
We're going to keep going for another six minutes and just wrap things up.
Tommy, stay safe, mate, and we'll talk to you more.
All right.
Bye-bye.
Bye.
Well, there you have it.
Tommy Robinson live from his vehicle.
He pulled over to the side of the road and he corrected me.
I thought he had to pay £20,000.
He confirms that it's £38,000.
I just typed that into the currency converter.
That is exactly $50,000.
And for my Canadian friends and Australia, our currencies are the same.
That's $67,000 on top of Tommy's own legal fees.
Well, that's the show for today.
I'd love your thoughts on Tommy's trial.
Am I too forgiving of Tommy's boisterous interaction with the police?
See, I come from a place where everyone is very respectful of the police because the police are universally respected.
Can't Imagine Calgary Policing00:01:01
They would never, I just can't even imagine growing up in Calgary if I was a kid and my dad was taking the family out to a restaurant, the cops coming in and saying, Dr. Levant, you and your family get out of the restaurant right now.
Like, I can't even imagine that universe.
And I have no idea what my father would have done back then.
I don't know what I would do right now other than say, who the hell are you?
I would be pretty irate if I was with my family, not drunk, not doing anything wrong.
If the landlady came over and said, leave them alone.
I would be irate too.
And if they then followed me down the street with a video camera on my kids and my kids started to cry and it was just, yeah, I'd be pretty irate too.
And to have this policing vindicated and actually Tommy has to pay them, that's crazy to me.
That's crazy to me.
But the craziest part is the law that allows this.
That's Section 35 anti-social behavior law.
And the fact that every journalist there is just fine with all this.
And they're good little licensed poodles.
And they want to show you just how licensed they are.