4088 United Kingdom: Truth Revolt | Tommy Robinson and Stefan Molyneux
Tommy Robinson is an independent journalist, the Founder and ex Leader of the English Defence League (EDL), the author of the bestselling books “Enemy of the State” and “Mohammed's Koran” and he recently took a stand for free speech with the Day For Freedom rally in London. Website: http://www.tommyrobinson.onlineYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6wdP5hTf_phre6Q3kFiV2gFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/thetommyrobinson/Your support is essential to Freedomain Radio, which is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by making a one time donation or signing up for a monthly recurring donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
Hi everybody, Sefan Molyneux here with Tommy Robertson.
He is an independent journalist, master of rallies, the founder and ex-leader of the English Defense League, and the author of the best-selling books, Enemy of the State and Mohammed's Quran.
He recently took a stand, along with many companions and thousands of listeners, for free speech with the Day for Freedom rally in London.
And you can check out Tommy's website at tommyrobinson.online.
Tommy, thanks for taking the time today.
It's a pleasure, Stefan.
Always a pleasure. So let's get the behind the scenes lead up the day for Freedom Rally.
What's happened afterwards? What it was like being there?
For those who missed the genuine emotional experience, what was the whole thing about for you?
It was about the erosion of our free speech.
It was about the attack and what I'd say is the future.
The future of removing certain voices and certain political opinions from whether it be Facebook Whether it be YouTube, whether it be Twitter.
Have we phosed it? No, that's right.
Yeah, so that's what it was about.
And what we see is we can see government interference.
And what I've watched for the last 12 months, I've watched where the government involved my name in the Darren Osborne terrorist trial.
Where in the opening of the trial, the state lied.
They said that I had sent him direct Twitter messages.
Now, all of this, when I look at what they were doing, it was all a build-up to remove me from Twitter.
It was all to get the justification to remove me as a hate figure.
Now, the new term which we see being used so often now is hate speech.
No one can define what it is.
No one can define what a hate figure is.
But they're using it.
And the pressure, for example, I've seen Labour politicians sitting with the CEOs of YouTube talking about my YouTube videos.
So as I'm watching all of this happen, and I've seen where it's gone, I'm removed from Twitter.
I see Facebook as next.
I see many different people are being removed from these social media platforms, which they're bigger than just private businesses now.
They're part and parcel of people's everyday life.
They're where people find their news.
So the idea is to remove us.
That's what I've seen. And this was a demonstration all about that.
It wasn't just about myself.
It was about if we look across the globe, we look in America, we look in Canada, we look everywhere.
This is happening. So that's mainly what it was about.
And it was a stressful build-up to it.
I can sit there now and say it was the most successful and biggest rally I've organised.
It was a festival feeling.
It was a moment, in fact, a moment that will live with me for the rest of my life.
The success of being outside Theresa May's house.
We've seen what's happened with Lauren Southern.
We've seen Brittany Pettybone.
We've seen the path our country's going down.
And this was an opportunity for people to stand up and say, we're not part of it.
We want to make a stand.
Yeah, the question of hate speech, I mean, adding a negative word to the concept of free speech does not nullify free speech.
And it's always struck me that all advancements in the human condition, Tommy, all advancements in morality are considered hateful by some.
I mean, if you end slavery, then the people who own slaves and transport slaves and catch slaves, they all hate you.
If you advance the rights of certain groups, all of the people who are profiting from the diminishment of those people's rights hate you.
So the idea that hate has anything to do with truth, all new truths are hated.
When they said that the sun, not the earth, was the center of the solar system, people were hated for that perspective.
Socrates was hated to the point where they put him to death.
So the idea that calling in a tsunami of negative emotions somehow trumps reason and evidence and arguments and public declarations, it's very, very sad because...
Adding the word hate to something is not an argument.
And when I hear hate speech, all I hear is, I hate your speech.
Okay, well, if you hate my speech, engage in debate.
Prove me wrong. Bring better reason.
Bring better evidence. Disprove me.
Expose me as a fool in the public sphere.
But if you can't do that and you run to the government, you're contemptible.
We see now that hate crimes simply mean if the person...
So if I'm on a train and I look at someone...
And I look at them funny.
If that person perceives it to be because of their race, their gender, their sexuality, their religion, that's a hate crime.
I was actually arrested probably five years ago now, no, probably longer actually, six or seven years ago.
And when I got down to interview, and I was arrested on hate crime, and when I got down to interview, the part that they said, because I asked the girl who worked in the hotel, I asked her where she was from.
At the end of the interview, I've gone through this interview that I've been arrested for, and I'm sitting at the end thinking, well, hold on.
Where was the crime there?
You've interviewed me. You've asked me questions.
Where was the crime? You asked her where she's from.
I said, I asked a girl where she's from.
That's a crime. And I wasn't charged, but I was arrested on it.
I spoke at this demonstration about a young 16-year-old boy who's contacted me in the last few weeks.
He's contacted me because his mother has had a breakdown, his mother is emotional, she's upset.
He has spoke at Speaker's Corner, the home of free speech, and he has debated a Muslim there.
And he has incited no violence, but he's given facts about how Islam is violent, about the history of Islam.
Now, because of that, British counter-terrorism officials, as part of the prevent strategy, have visited his home.
He's 16 years old.
Now, imagine he's not broke the law.
Imagine being a 16-year-old boy or being his mum and counter-terrorism are in your house.
You obviously think something massive has happened here.
Something's bad. They're asking the boy.
They justified their visit to his home on the fact they didn't like his opinions on Islam.
Now, this is the scary thing, because this is one boy that I'm talking about.
There are eight a day, eight a day, I believe, in the UK that are receiving these sorts of visits.
Now, what this is, this is government intimidation.
It is scare tactics.
And I explained in my speech that the reason why this works, I'm in a group message with 20 other young lads.
This 16-year-old boy is one of the men in the group message.
It's a group message where people talk about football from around the country.
Now, when he's put in, counter-terrorism have visited me, and he's put all the reasons why, and he's talking about how scared his mum is, that has a knock-on effect to the other boys, to the other people who are watching who think, basically, you cannot talk about Islam.
You can't, because prevent, and what we see so often now is when Government or our papers talk about hate crime figures.
They talk about the PREVENT strategy, which, let's face it, the PREVENT strategy was brought in to stop Islamic terrorism and Islamic radicalization of children.
But to even the numbers, any non-Muslim child that speaks about Islam then gets a visit from the government PREVENT, and the government PREVENT counterterrorism organization.
So then, when you hear the figures, they'll say the rising number of far-right referrals.
Well, this 16-year-old boy, who I'm going to interview next week, this 16-year-old boy done nothing wrong.
Broke no law. And he's one of your prevent referrals because he gave his opinion on Islam, which our government don't like.
So whether these tactics are purposely done to put fear in amongst the people so that you don't talk about these issues, or whether they're done just to get their numbers up so then when they talk about counterterrorism, they can say 50% of all terrorist atrocities are now young white males.
Whether that's the case, time will tell.
But yeah, we're going down a very slippery path in this country.
But people are awake.
That's the only satisfaction I get.
People are awake. And I see that by the results of the demonstration.
Well, and it's Tragic for me.
I was thinking about this, Tommy, like because I grew up in London and when I was a little kid, the IRA and bombings and so on were a big deal.
There were some bombs set off and I was told as a kid, you know, you go to a bus shelter and you got to look for unattended bags and shopping bags and so on.
There was ample capacity to criticize the use of terrorism for political ends.
Now, nobody said all Irish people.
Nobody said all Irish people who wish to separate.
It was a particular subset of people who felt that it was justified to use political violence in the pursuit of their, or to use violence in the pursuit of their political ends.
And the idea that it would then be illegal to criticize this particular subset of an ideology would be incomprehensible.
In the past, but now this seems to have changed quite a lot.
It does. My mum was an Irish immigrant to the UK. So my mum would tell me about when they'd travel back home and the family would come back, the procedures and they'd get pulled in.
And I think her family, yeah, so they'd get pulled in and they'd be profiled.
Because the certain section were causing terrorism in our country.
And there was no massive screams or cries or Irish people aren't wanting to bomb the UK or feeling alienated.
I'm the son of an Irish immigrant.
I'm not alienated. I'm English.
I love the country. But that's what we see.
And the problem I have is when you're identifying facts.
It's not like you're slandering an entire religion without due cause.
You're telling facts.
This young boy is the perfect example.
I had another young boy who was 14 years old who ended up having a mental breakdown.
He said in school, Islam is a fascist and violent ideology.
He was removed from his class, and he again was put through the prevent scheme.
That's a fact. Now, our government, our education system wants to change what Islam is.
They want to change what the scripture says.
But they can't.
And so many more people now with access are repeating facts and looking and searching for evidence.
This young boy, actually, He's actually very knowledgeable for a 16-year-old child on this subject.
And here he is being, here he is, the knock-on effect.
I don't know if people really understand the knock-on effect that it would have on a family to have counter-terrorism officials visit them, and the problems that will cause that boy.
Yeah, so the fact, and that is what we see.
We see that if you do talk about it, I don't know if you've seen the new laws they're proposing, like they put through this week.
When I read that law, Everything.
It says extra years will be given in jail if the person has a high profile and a large online support base.
As I'm reading it, I'm thinking, they might as well call this Tommy Robinson's law, because I feel that that law is being pushed forward.
If it gets through, in order to arrest me, at some point I can see myself.
Because I'm not going to stop identifying and telling the truth about Islam.
As the laws change in this country, as they try and silence people, that's not going to stop me saying anything.
So I unfortunately see that these laws, some of us, many of us who fight for the truth, will end up being subject to these laws and probably imprisoned.
Well, this is the one of – just before we move on, I just sort of wanted to mention that there are, of course, as you know, some very nice Muslims who take the best aspects of the ideology and bring them to bear in their own lives.
But yes, there are difficult passages and challenging passages for coexistence, and those who focus on those passages do become a challenge.
But this law you're talking about is – Six years, up to six years in prison if you are a public figure.
And of course, this is specifically designed at people on the internet because it's not going to come out of the BBC, right?
So you've got up to six years in prison for upsetting people, for offending people, for making them feel bad.
And that is, that's astounding.
When I look at some of the prison sentences that some of the immigrants who ended up raping get away with, compared to...
The exercise of free speech, not incitement to violence, not incitement to hate everyone, simply identifying facts about belief systems.
Yeah, about religion. It's scary to pretend it's not.
Even myself, I've got three kids.
I see myself in a prison cell.
I see myself in the future in a prison cell.
Undoubtedly. Because these laws are being brought in for people like us.
That's what this is about.
This is about, OK, we'll persecute them, we'll attack them, the UAF will slander them.
That hasn't worked.
Theresa May would have been sitting in her office, sitting in her home last Sunday, listening to tens of thousands of people screaming outside her front door in a festival atmosphere, and she'd have sat there and realised that they're losing.
That the more they attack us, the more support we gain.
The more they bring in laws like this, it's like, and I'd sit here comfortably now and say, if they imprisoned me on this law, you'll make my voice louder than it's ever been.
And how they don't see that, how they don't see that all these people can see now, people have the internet, they're watching these, they're listening to these interviews, they're seeing the whole history of what the government are doing.
And no one likes it.
Even people who don't like us, even people who don't like me, do not like the path the country's going down when it comes to free speech, when it comes to freedom, when it comes to all these great things.
Now, one thing I was super surprised about, which I've seen a complete change, is the way we were policed last Sunday.
It was refreshing.
It was brilliant, actually, on behalf of the police.
I watched the police's face.
After our demonstration, the happiness from the police and some of the media who were congratulating us on the day we helped, There's been a complete shift.
There's been a complete shift in the UK. There's been a complete shift in the public.
I sense that. Obviously, I walk around everywhere, so I've known the reaction I've got for 10 years.
Right now, I get an amazing reaction pretty much everywhere I go.
So, which I take huge satisfaction at, knowing that all the things they've done, all the money they're spending, all the laws they're bringing in, all the organizations which are heavily funded in order to work 24 hours a day to silence, disrupt, and stop what we're doing and saying, it's all failing.
It's all failed. Even getting kicked off Twitter has made absolutely zero difference at the minute.
So let's talk about what you mentioned in your speech the other Sunday about taking Twitter to court.
What's the reasoning behind that?
So the reasoning behind that is Twitter, the headlines were that I was removed for hate.
What I got a seven-day ban for, first of all, was I put a tweet out that said 90% of grooming convictions are Muslim men.
That's a fact.
That's actually from a Muslim study, the Quilliam Foundation from Majin Nawaz, who at the time come out and publicly said You can't kick a man off or suspend him for hate when it's a fact.
So what I want to do is get a court case where I will be suing Twitter, not for a lot of money, but I'll be suing them for discrimination against myself.
Because my solicitor believes I'll be able to prove it as well, because that was the first thing.
The second thing they removed me for was I put a tweet out that said, Islam promotes killing people.
Now, if I have my day in court, I'll be able to summons Muslim after Muslim after Muslim, who will justify and back up the factual statements that I made.
Now, what that will prove, it won't get me my Twitter account back, what it will prove, and I hope it proves to everyone, that facts are now what's viewed as hate.
So this isn't just really about Twitter, because this hate, this word hate and hate speech laws, it goes further than Twitter.
It's obviously Facebook, it's YouTube, it's everything eventually as the clampdown comes, but also our government's angle and the headlines.
So what I want to prove, which would be a costly court case, and I don't think I'll get my Twitter account back, but I'm not bothered about that.
I'm more bothered about proving in the public's eyes That he was removed for stating facts.
Because at the minute, I was removed for hate.
Well, I need to prove that facts are now hate.
In the eyes of the large businesses which are having the government influence, I want to prove, that's what I want to prove in the court of law.
It's going against my deep-held physiological beliefs.
So my deep-held beliefs against Islam, which they are my deep-held beliefs, when you compare that, which hopefully I'll be able to do in the court of law, I've got a father.
I've got a father whose daughter was blown up and killed by Hamas.
He's been tirelessly working to get Hamas removed from Twitter with zero success.
Now, I want all of this to play out in a court of law.
You remove me for stating a fact about grooming gang convictions, you will not remove a prescribed terrorist organisation who blew that man's daughter to pieces, who continue to use your platform for terrorism purposes.
Yet you'll remove me. So I just, what I know, what you know, what we know, I want the public to know in a played out court case that I will use to do that.
It is a shocking thing when you sort of zoom out and look at the promise of diversity and multiculturalism, which was that, hey, we're going to get a lot of new perspectives in society.
It's going to enrich everyone.
We're going to get deeper and more meaningful conversations.
What seems to be playing out in the UK in particular, Tommy, is, well, we've got all these different groups in society now.
And you can't criticize that group.
And you can't upset this group.
And you can't make this group mad.
And you can't do this. And you could face up to six years in prison for upsetting people by stating, as you point out, facts which can be empirically supported.
So how is that the diversity that was promised?
It seems that it was kind of like this bait and switch.
Let's have a lot of diversity. Oh, now you might have to go to jail for criticizing groups.
It's like, that's the exact opposite of what was promised.
But I guess, you know, it's just another government program.
When's it going to produce what it says it will?
What I find so shocking, what I've been so surprised about, is how blatant they are and how they don't care.
That's what I find. When they do something, I think, well, everyone's going to watch this.
Everyone's going to see what you're doing.
And they actually don't care at all.
And they don't care because we don't scare them We don't threaten them.
They're not worried by our reactions.
Until we organize ourselves politically, until we see a political revolution similar to what America saw, similar to what Italy just saw, similar to what other countries, similar to what Poland saw, Austria saw.
But that same feeling that resulted in those political revolutions in those countries is bubbling in this country.
And it's bubbling.
So I think Britain's primed.
Britain is primed right now.
The public are ready. The public are more ready than they've ever been to listen, hear and talk about the threats we face and to not be silenced.
And that's why you can see that there are ever more encroachment on taking away our liberties with the laws they're implementing because the government are scared and the government are worried.
So they're worried and they're scared and we scare them.
We scare them, but not in the sense that they fear violence or they fear terrorism or they fear anything that they can't deal with imprisoning people or taking away their freedoms or liberties.
Well, I just saw this survey across Europe that asked voters what were the biggest two issues and country after country.
Immigration, terrorism, immigration, terrorism, immigration and terrorism.
And when I made the case that Brexit was substantially...
Driven by the preference for controlling borders and reducing immigration, which may have nothing to do with racism, probably doesn't for a lot of people.
It's just lots of people swarming into a country who are full adults where you don't have a chance to develop the right infrastructure, you don't have the chance to develop enough schools, you don't have the chance to train enough doctors.
Or build enough hospitals and so on.
It's just overwhelming a particular situation that the country becomes like these pictures you see of these rickety buses in India with 300 people hanging off the top about to tip.
It's a small island.
People don't understand how England can fit inside of Lake Ontario.
It is a small place and having massive numbers of people come in without the infrastructure ready to develop it It's not what the people ever voted for in particular.
It's not what the people asked for.
And they're really trying to push back.
And I think the big concern is that the internet might actually generate a political movement that listens to the population.
And that is very, very important and very scary because a lot of people who immigrate To England or to the UK do so because they like English society.
They like freedom of speech.
They like separation of church and state.
They like all of the things that England has to offer.
And if then other people who come to the country end up undermining that or changing that, well, what was the point of moving to someplace?
If you want to go there, like I don't go to a French restaurant in order to eat Tunisian food.
I go there to eat French food.
Which these days seems to be Tunisian food.
So I think that there's this concern that the big concerns of the voters, immigration and terrorism, might actually translate into some political action which seems to be very upsetting to the powers that be at the moment.
And they want to pretend that's not the reason as well.
They want to pretend that's not the reason why Brexit has come about.
They want to pretend that's not why it's come about.
It's come about for all these other reasons they try to put forward.
If you look at the countries in Europe currently that are not infected, Or infiltrated with Islam.
You'll see complete honesty from their leaders and their politicians.
You'll see Viktor Orban. You'll see Poland.
You'll see Czech Republic. You'll see Austrian leaders.
You'll see these countries now.
If Britain didn't have a 5% Muslim population, and we had a 0.1% or 0.2%, like some of these other Eastern European countries, our leaders would be identifying and telling the utmost honest truth about Islam.
The exact truth they've done the whole way throughout their history.
Our clergy, our politicians, our war leaders, they've always identified and told the truth about Islam, until the last 60 years, until the formation of the UN. We are living in the biggest era of deception that this country's ever seen.
We have something, and we're being told it's the complete opposite.
We're actually being brainwashed into believing it's the complete opposite.
But I think that when you look across Europe, and you look across the countries, even if you look, they have tried for so long to make us feel like a fringe.
Feel extreme. Feel like a fringe element.
The great thing about that demonstration we held the other day was I said on stage, we are mainstream.
They can pretend all they want.
We are the mainstream view.
The majority of people in this country have had enough, they're concerned, they're worried, they're fearful of Islam.
The majority of people are not buying your lies or your education system that's telling them it's a religion of peace or telling them that jihad means struggle.
The majority of people have a brain, they now have access, and they listen to a difference of opinions, which is what they're so worried about.
Well, and was, I think, entirely unanticipated when all of this stuff began to occur in the post-Second World War period in the 60s in particular and in the 90s when the first hate speech laws began to emerge.
I think they felt, well, we can control the narrative.
And then, of course, the Internet comes along, upsets that apple cart, and they're kind of, I think, scrambling to control a narrative because, you know, everybody tells you when you're growing up, well, you see, the government represents the will of the people.
And with the internet, the government can actually more clearly see the will of the people, and I'm not sure they like it at the moment very much.
No, they don't. And it's like, if you look at everything that's happening, and the best thing that came out of the Donald Trump election was fake news.
That's for me. Because everyone questions.
In fact, they don't even think they question.
They just don't believe the media anymore.
No one believes the media. And we've never seen a moment like that.
I remember growing up, the distrust that is there now, not the distrust, but the feeling towards journalists, the feeling towards the mainstream, the feeling that we know you're lying to us.
I just done an interview this week with a Russian mainstream broadcaster, and I told them, I hope the people in your country don't think that the people in our country are buying this nonsense that they're telling us.
I hope, really, you don't think we're that stupid.
When you read the BBC news headlines about poisoning using a Russian nerve agent, I hope you don't think any of us believe that.
We don't. The average person you speak to is not buying it.
But that may have been possible.
The average person probably would have bought it 30 years ago when we didn't have the internet and we're being told and conditioned certain things from the government.
They don't realise now that people just aren't buying it.
The same with the whole serious situation that he used chemical weapons.
What, once he beats ISIS, he'll use chemical weapons on civilians, would he?
At that moment, once he's defeated ISIS, they're pretty much running.
The American leader of the American army says that ISIS has been defeated, that Assad has won the war.
And you want us to believe at that moment he got chemical weapons out and started killing people.
It doesn't wash.
And yeah, and I think that the best thing is videos and platforms that are creating, and I take massive satisfaction at how many there are now.
I now watch so many different people, so many different platforms.
I met someone today to interview who's just doing the same.
So many more people.
Whereas I'd say nine years ago, it was a pretty lonely place on this subject.
Well, that's true. And it's funny too, because, I mean, you've been doing this for a while.
I've been doing this for a while.
And Tommy, I think that we are helping people to understand the nature of mainstream journalism and of the media.
Because if you become a...
Relatively popular, relatively influential figure outside of the gatekeepers of the mainstream media.
In other words, talking directly to the people using your webcam and all the 20 bucks worth of equipment it takes.
Then what happens is the media wants to have a chat with you.
You know how you have a really successful restaurant in a mafia neighborhood and the mafia wants to come by and have a little chat with you?
Nice restaurant you got here.
It'd be a terrible shame if something happened to it.
Hey, we'd love to help give you some publicity for your channel.
Why don't we have a little chat?
And you have a fairly cordial chat, which seems to go relatively well.
And then you read this weird...
Halloween mask distorted article of what actually happened.
You're like, oh, they're not my friends.
They're not curious.
They're not very nice people at all.
And so when you become popular outside of the gatekeepers or you become popular saying things that the media doesn't like, you get a very, very clear view of the kind of people who run the media, their integrity, their honesty, their curiosity.
Their basic decency and then what happens is you can help transmit that skepticism of the media that you experience as an out-of-the-box public figure and I think that helps people because most people they're not going to spend time in their life being interviewed by a mainstream media journalist or going on a talk show and then finding out what they're really all about so we can help communicate that skepticism because we've experienced it so powerfully and so directly.
And it's a great moment when, for example, the tens of thousands of people who travelled to London last Sunday, when they read the Guardian article and they say there was 2,000 to 3,000 people, straight away, for all those people that come, for all their families, all the people they speak to, they know that's a complete lie.
So then they're asking, well, why are they lying about that?
And I had so many people who said it was there.
For a lot of people, that was their first demonstration they've been on.
And a lot of people saying, well, thanks.
How am I now being called far right?
I went with my children.
I listened to so many different views, so many different people from different backgrounds, from different sexualities, from different everything.
And I'm being branded as far right.
So when they do things like that, when it's clear to see, I've done a couple of ones where I've live streamed without the journalists knowing.
I've done Sky and BBC. And oh, my God.
And as I'm sitting having a chat with them, he's actually telling me that the problem is that I shouldn't tell everyone because it's too alarming.
This is a BBC report one.
I said, so what do you think I should do?
If you think that me alerting people to what's happening is causing problems and frictions, he said, well, it's how you alert them and maybe certain things you should try and rein it in.
I said, you're a BBC journalist telling me that I shouldn't share the truth with people.
That's where we're at.
But when these things align for people to see, As I said, yeah, the internet's a great thing.
It's a bad thing and a great thing.
It's a great thing because it helps us expose the journalists.
Do you know what?
A journalist now, when they see me, I see them turning because they know I'm going to come up and start asking them questions.
And it's the simple ability to ask them simple questions.
I don't even have to try. I don't have to prepare.
I just ask them a simple question.
And I know by their reaction.
And the fact that they're unwilling to talk or answer and they try and walk away, that people at home can see themselves.
People can see. Why is he not answering?
What are they hiding? So yeah, I take satisfaction at being the enemy of the media.
Well, it's funny too, because I think people follow intelligence, conviction, good arguments, passion, courage, all that kind of stuff, because that's kind of what we need always in society to help move things forward.
I guess my fundamental question is, if you possess those characteristics, why on earth would you be in the mainstream media?
Can you speak your mind?
No, you've got a whole bunch of people keeping you on a very short leash.
Can you display courage? No, because it'll probably cost you your career.
If you have intelligence and conviction and passion, why wouldn't you just go to the unfiltered medium where you can speak directly to people who are interested in what you have to say?
Why would you want to go into this sort of rat's maze of obfuscation and confusion and baffling and Misdirection and euphemism.
If you have a direct message to say, just go say it to people and gather your supporters that way.
Why would you want to go into this weird, foggy, alternate maze of nothingness called the mainstream media?
I think people are really starting to see that the true truth-tellers are no longer in the offices.
They're in their bedrooms.
They're with a cell phone.
They're not with a big, giant camera.
There's a couple of families who three of their sons were mowed down, come out of the pavement, run over these three boys.
I have the video coming out in the next few days, or this week, hopefully.
Now, the come out of the pavement, it killed these three young lads.
They were 16 years old. It hit five of them.
It killed three of them. Now, the mum, one of the mums, Tracy, she was invited on Good Morning Britain.
From the start of their son's murder, when they've met the journalists, they've told the journalists, this was murder.
This is a police cover-up.
They're lying. This was a terrorist attack.
They've told the journalists where the police are lying.
They lied about this, they lied about this, they lied about this.
Now, all the way through this, I've done interviews with the family who said, we'd sit there and we'd sit down and tell the BBC, this is what's happened.
This is why we feel this is a cover-up.
They'd watch the news report and there'd be 10 seconds of them talking, which doesn't cover any of this.
They said that when they were invited on Good Morning Britain, they were specifically told, you cannot mention any of those things.
When they give a character, when they give a...
I went to their court case where the man was convicted of dangerous driving.
I went to the court case, and they had impact statements about the impact it had caused these three families to lose their sons.
Some of these 16-year-old boys had sisters, four sisters.
And I sat, I cried my eyes out for a week on this case, man.
And I sat and listened to the impact.
And they handed in their impact statements and they were okayed by everybody.
An hour before the court case, they've been given an impact statement where if this was the bit of paper, there's only two lines left.
Everything else has got black markers through it.
You can't say that.
You can't say that. You can't say that.
And she said, I can't say what impact it's caused me.
This is my impact statement.
You're actually trying to control absolutely everything.
And when it got to her giving her impact statement, she went to try and tell them, this is what's happened.
And she was shut down.
The court case stopped.
So I've watched as, not to say try and control the narrative, even when families, even when the police, and I've investigated this case, the police have lied.
Time and time and time again.
When three young boys have been killed, and if you look at, this is where the distrust comes.
When I met with these mothers, and still my heart feels for them now because they're never going to know.
They will never know.
Was it terrorism? Was it an accident?
They will never know because an investigation was never done.
No investigation was ever done.
They will never get the answers to these questions.
And what Tracy, the mum, said to me, since this happened to our sons, we've started looking online.
And we can't believe what we've found.
And when I explain this in the video we have coming out, I say, basically, when there was a house blew up in Barcelona, I don't know if you remember it, a massive explosion.
I've got the police statement from the time.
The police say it was a drugs factory.
Now, a number of days later, the owner of that house took a lorry and he'd run people over in Barcelona.
He killed 14 and injured 67.
In the back of his lorry was the bombs from the bomb factory, not drug factory, but the police report, the media, everything said drug factory.
Now, three, four months ago, a house blew up in Leicester, in England.
Now, the police report, which is all the newspapers report, said alcohol factory.
Five people were killed in the flat above.
Yeah, it was a shop.
It was a Muslim-owned shop.
The five names of the people who have been charged with manslaughter because it was an alcohol factory were Mohammed, blah, blah, blah, blah, Muslim names.
Now, what I try and make out of this video is no one believes you.
When you lied and said it was a drug factory, when it wasn't, it was a bomb factory, you've said it was an alcohol factory.
Was it? Well, isn't alcohol banned in Islamic teaching?
Wouldn't that be a bit of a contradiction?
We had a car mount the pavement in Scotland and run over children.
Within 30 minutes, the police found a statement appealing for the car, because they don't know who it was, but saying it wasn't terrorism.
But you can't know that because you don't know who was driving the car.
Now, this car that mounted the pavement and murdered these three boys, within 30 minutes, when the mothers have asked the police, how come you said it wasn't terrorism, when you hadn't investigated anything, the driver was in a coma, our boys were dead and dying, and you put out a statement in the media saying it wasn't terrorism.
How come? And the police would say, oh, we're sorry about that.
We're sorry about that.
I feel so much for these families because the amount of lies they're reading.
They're reading about Telford.
They're reading about Rotherham. They're reading about everything.
They're seeing the lengths the police and government go to to hide and suppress this, which in turn has completely convinced them That their children were murdered in a terrorist attack, that is a complete cover-up.
And they have no reason not to believe that because of the lies that they've been told.
They've been told that when their children were murdered, they got told that the driver was born in the UK. They get to the court trial and find out he comes in the UK eight years ago.
These little lies, why?
Why have you lied to us?
When someone's son has been murdered or killed in an accident or a murder, The police should be super careful about how they treat those families and the contempt and the disgusting treatment of these families.
When you see our video, it's actually I tried to introduce them on stage at our talk.
I couldn't. I couldn't talk because I was welling up even thinking about what they're going through, gone through, and the lies and the question of have there been another terrorist, 10 terrorist attacks last year?
Have there? Have we been told the truth?
Does anyone believe what happened at Grenfell?
No one. This environment has been created, not by us, by Hillsborough, by Telford, by Rotherham, by all of your lies, all of your lies, all of your cover-ups.
You've now created an environment where we don't trust you.
The public do not trust you.
They do not believe you.
They do not believe the media. That's a dangerous environment.
It's a dangerous environment, and you will end up with so many families, like the families I've done this most recent video with, who will never know.
And it's gut-wrenching.
It's gut-wrenching. The questions they want answers for, there was no investigation into their son's murder.
They literally, road traffic, right sound, open the road again two hours later.
And then the family have then gone and done their own investigation.
The passenger of the car, I don't say his name in the video, but he's a Muslim lad who was in the car as well.
They left the boys dying on the floor.
Now, after 10 minutes to research into him, to go through his social media profile, the families found out that he talks about Islam, terrorism, Palestine, me, how I should be removed, all of these things.
So then when the family contact the police and say, have you gone through the profiles of these two men?
Have you looked in? They said, why would we?
Why would we all? Because our three sons are dead.
That's why you should have.
But there's so many things that come out of this case.
Why wouldn't they? Sorry, Tommy, but I was just thinking about how when Lauren Southern tried to come into England, they went through all of her social media posts, didn't they?
These three dead kids.
Three dead kids. Why wouldn't they?
And why wouldn't they? And what they say, and the two boys who've done this in the car, sat in a car in the car park for two and a half hours on CCTV. They don't get out of the car.
The family have repeatedly asked, do they drive past and see our children, because there was a big children's party, and turn the car back around and come back and run them over?
And then the police have said, we don't know.
Where were they from when they come out of Asta car park to they hit our kids an hour and a half later, where were they?
We don't know. We've gone with the families, and we found CCTV cameras everywhere.
So they do know.
You know. You know because you've looked at the cameras.
You know whether they turned around manoeuvred.
You know, but you're not telling the family.
And all of this plays into or is part of the complete distrust and breakdown of trust in police, in government, in media.
And I wonder, and this is probably a question that's maybe impossible to answer, Tommy, but I mean, I've known some policemen, and they genuinely seem to want to solve crimes and protect citizens.
So it seems to me unlikely, this is just hypothetical, but it seems to me unlikely, Tommy, that...
This refusal to investigate, this refusal to get to the bottom of things, knowing the suffering that is going to cause a family already in grieving that's beyond imagination, I can imagine it's coming a lot from the rank and file, from the frontline people, that they actually do want to solve problems and protect their citizens.
And the question is, where is this paralysis coming from?
Where is this refusal to engage in the facts of the case coming from?
Well, Katie Hopkins, I believe, put a message out last week saying if you're a police officer, in the last few weeks, if you're a police officer and you're being told to do your job a certain way and there's difficulties, get in contact.
And she was inundated, inundated with police officers.
The rank and file police officers I meet are all very sympathetic to what's happening.
I've had them before.
In fact, I don't know if you saw the video where I was with my children in Cambridge.
And the police come in.
I'm out with my children.
I'm in a restaurant. And the police come in and say, you have to leave the city.
I said, what?
I'm like, what are you talking about?
Leave the city now or we'll arrest you.
I said, what for? I haven't done anything.
I'm with my kids. And they say, if you don't leave the city now, we're going to arrest you.
Now, I'm taking the police to...
I've got a four-day court trial booked for this harassment.
It's unbelievable when you watch the video.
My children become hysterical.
I'm just out with my kids. They become hysterical.
And when I've got the recordings, which we've just got, Cambridgeshire Police, which is the police force it was, They said that they deleted all their recordings.
But Bedfordshire Police, my local police force, who have apologised to me since and been so apologetic saying that we were outraged with what happened, I've got their recordings.
On their recordings, the police officer turned around to the other one and says, this is so embarrassing.
So he was so aggrieved with what he was having to do.
And I've got him on tape saying it.
I've got him on tape saying it.
I've got the statements from them saying how it didn't have to happen, it shouldn't have happened.
So this case will come up in September, where I think we'll see the police going against their superiors.
I had another court case where basically the police were trying to give me a five-year ban from all football matches.
This was just last year.
And they'd come to my house.
They took me to court.
Now, the Home Office, just so it's not going to be too complicated, The Home Office run a unit called the Football Policing Unit.
So they're not police. They're Home Office.
They're part of the government. Now, when they got to court, the leader of that police unit, the Football Policing Unit, stood up in court and said, We need him banned.
And the ban they were giving me, Stefan, was a map for five years.
I wouldn't be allowed into Luton Town Centre.
I wouldn't be allowed into a train station.
I had an entire map drawn of the entire Muslim community that I wouldn't be allowed to step my foot inside on a football banning order.
That's what they were trying to put on me.
So every Saturday when Luton played football, I would be banned from these areas for the entire day.
That's what they were putting forward.
Now, when the man from the Home Office, the policing unit, he got up and he said, yes, we need this because he's a risk.
Things can change like that in his presence.
He offends Muslims, all these things.
I'm sitting there thinking, I've done no crime.
I've done nothing wrong.
I'll take my children to watch football.
Now, when my barrister asked him, who's pushing this court case?
And he said, Bedfordshire Police.
When we got Bedfordshire Police, my local police force, up in the dock, they got the head of the football, head of the hooligan unit, who's an intelligence-based police officer, up in the dock.
And they said to him, we asked him, because I knew on earth, I thought I knew he'd go with his heart.
And he was asked, do we need to ban Tommy Robinson?
Is he a risk for your police?
And he said, no.
And the whole court just went silent.
And he said, OK, so what are we doing here?
And bearing in mind, the head of the policing unit has just lied on oath.
He said that Bedfordshire Police were bringing this court case against us.
So then they asked the lead officer from Bedfordshire Police, why are we here?
He said, we've been forced to do this.
And then the judge straight away just said, whoa, stop the case.
And if you look at the judges summing up, what went out in the papers, the judge said this was cagey, dishonest.
A case brought against me because it wasn't brought against me by the police.
This was the football policing unit who are the Home Office.
They're the government. Now, he went against them.
And this is all going to play out in my next court case in September, which, again, they've given us costs of 45.
But this is what they tried to do to stop me doing it.
Because in this court case, I've got both.
I've got the fact that the man lied on oath and said that it was Bedfordshire Police.
It wasn't. All of this is going to be played out again.
So the rank-and-file police officer, that police officer, when he stood up and said, no, he's not a risk, restored my faith in police because I just expected everything to be a stitcher.
He really put his job, his reputation, on the line to tell the truth.
And I think so many police now, I see by the reaction I get, I see by the reaction of the police officers who we worked with in the build-up for the London demonstration, a lot of them are feeling it as well.
A lot of them are feeling it as well.
And a lot of them are not happy with how they're being told to police things, whether it's common purpose, whatever reasons, whether they're scared.
After Stephen Lawrence was murdered, there was institutional racism in the Metropolitan Police Force.
That was proven. Now, the full 360 It's just gone so far that now there's institutional racism in the police force, but it's aimed at us.
And they've tried to level out a problem that they had, but they've gone full 360.
And every police officer is constantly scared because their career, if they get a black mark against their name for racism or anything like that, then it could be detrimental to the progression of their career.
So I think that the police are A lot of the time I complain about the police, but I always make a point of saying it's not the rank and file.
This is political policing.
The rank and file, their hands are tied behind their back a lot of the time.
They're being forced to do things and police things in a way they don't like.
Well, I mean, if you think about police officers who get into the business of protecting citizens, particularly the most vulnerable, I can't for the life of me imagine that there's a lot of them who went ordered to look the other way in Telford and Rotherham and countless other towns where these white working class girls were being tortured and raped and abused in horrifying, satanic ways. I can't imagine that they said, yeah, yeah, I mean, that's great.
This is what I joined the police for, was to look the other way when the most vulnerable members of society are being preyed upon.
I think that it was horrifying for the rank and file to have to look the other way.
I'm sure that there were sleepless nights, there were crises of conscience and so on, and they wanted to actually go and confront and arrest the guys who were doing this, but they were blocked.
So let's talk a little bit about what people...
I know that you are a thinker and you are a writer, but you're also an action hero, so to speak, in terms of what people should do.
So let's close off with talking about people in the UK who are concerned about this.
And I think this is a constant topic on people's minds.
And what is it that you would like to see happen in the UK to begin to turn some of these misdirections around?
The biggest thing, I don't blame people.
You know, people who say, I get people who come up to me every day and say, I follow everything you do, but I can't like you.
I can't share it because I've got this job or that job or it will upset these people.
I think the moment will come when that will all turn, when it becomes so acceptable.
I understand people because I was that person.
Remember, I wore a mask and used a fake name.
I wasn't ready to do this.
I didn't want to do this.
I was scared to do this. I was one of those people.
I think people need to understand now that the common feeling, the feeling amongst people and the general perception from the British public, you can talk about Islam.
You can identify the problems.
All I'd say if people can play their part, even if it's just sharing a video, Even if it's just sending it to your email list.
Everyone has a role to play.
Some people are going to have a more pivotal role.
Some people have already put themselves out there.
My issue would be, or my tactics have been, the whole time, if you're morally right, if what you're doing is morally right, even when I broke the law, and I've known I'm breaking the law, even when I went to America and I illegally entered America, I thought, if I'm morally right in what I'm doing, if the reason for me doing this, then do it.
And that's like now, if they bring in a new law that says you can't speak this new law, I'll break it straight away.
I'll break it on a platform that the whole world can see.
Because any law that infringes and stops us telling the truth must be broken, must be challenged.
Yeah. But that's what I'd say.
People can play their role. And don't be afraid.
Don't be afraid. Anyone who comes to our demonstration last Sunday, we want to organise another demonstration.
I want to organise a Trump welcoming in the early stages now of talking with my team about it.
But I want to organise such a massive event in London.
And I just say to people, just come along.
Don't believe the hysteria. Don't believe the media.
And get involved. Get involved in any way of educating people, whether it be your children, whether it be your friends.
Bring about the debate.
Bring about this discussion.
And it can be a big challenge now.
But I can guarantee you if people fail to act, it's going to be a much bigger challenge tomorrow and next week and next year.
So thanks so much for your time.
Really, really appreciate it. Just wanted to remind people to check out Tommy's books, Enemy of the State and Mohammed's Karam.
We'll put links to those below. The website is Tommy Robertson online.
And I guess you can go and put flowers on the grave of Tommy's Twitter account.
But we'll look forward to seeing what happens from your court case over that.
