Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 30, 2024 - Viva & Barnes

01:08:52

Live with Tommy Robinson - Abuse of Police Power and the Fight for Freedom! Viva Frei

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I think right in demanding that the record be set straight.
	The focus on him and his troubles, and he has had a troubled life with addiction and his tangled financial dealings, but that has nothing to do with anything except...
	As a vulnerability that the far right has.
	Tried to exploit a vulnerability that they saw that President Biden has and the Democrats have.
	And they have sought to exploit it in the most cynical and in some ways, effective way.
	I mean, because they've created this sort of atmosphere about him.
	And I get emails from people on the right who write to me about the Biden crime family and Hunter Biden, Hunter Biden, Hunter Biden.
	They've created this atmosphere.
	You know, when we talk about media credibility and how different it is now and how much we've lost, and I just sit here wondering if, number one, that's not a horse that left the barn a while ago.
	And I wonder if what we need to do is sort of chase that horse at a time.
	When so many people are not getting their news from established and respectable news outlets who are getting their news from TikTok and from YouTube and from other sources.
	And, you know, we have to, I think, first just...
	Re-establish ourselves as part of that conversation, as sources that people even go to regularly, let alone trust.
	And I think that's the first challenge for us.
	What you just said, sir, is among the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard.
	At no point in your rambling, incoherent response did you come close to anything that could be considered a rational thought.
	Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to you.
	I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.
	Holy hell, can you believe the abject stupidity that we just listened to?
	Hunter Biden's thinking of suing Fox News, apparently.
	For what?
	I don't know!
	Truth is the ultimate defense.
	Are they going to go with public disclosure of a private fact?
	Who the hell knows?
	Is Fox News going to bend over like it did with Dominion and pay whatever they're asking?
	Launder money from one entity to another because Fox News has arguably changed teams, turned sides?
	Who the hell knows?
	Oh my goodness.
	Yeah, Hunter Biden.
	It's a distraction created by the right.
	Can you imagine what they are accusing the right of manipulating that story?
	To fabricate drama?
	If there were any member of the Trump family with such a sordid past, with such compromising information out there, they would be jumping down their throats.
	They're jumping down Trump's throat on the theory that they think Eric Trump did cocaine.
	Holy hell.
	Set aside the criminal enterprise alleged that is the Biden crime syndicate, the Biden crime family.
	A crackhead son with the most compromising images on his phone.
	With new veneers, Lord knows who paid for them.
	Getting $50,000 a month from a corrupt Ukrainian energy company.
	However much from Chinese firms.
	I don't know.
	Hand over fist.
	Having his dad 10% for the big guy.
	And then they blame the Republicans or the conservatives or the GOP or the right of making this an issue because it's an issue?
	Oh, my good God.
	And reestablish the media as legitimate?
	You idiots, you've done this to yourselves, and no, you're never getting it back.
	Yes, people are going to be watching some crazy lunatic ranting at a camera from his car, me, or a live stream, because that's where they're going to get accurate information, responsible reporting, responsible investigation, and meaningful long-format discussion.
	Holy sweet, merciful goodness.
	Honey got high.
	That song.
	I didn't know that that was really Afro-Man.
	I thought everybody was a parody in that video.
	I didn't realize that that's actually Afro-Man making a classic parody on his old song.
	Yeah, no, no, no.
	People are freaking out because it looks like Trump's going to win.
	It looks like the media is irrelevant as they are.
	Mika Brzezinski and that freaking guy there who had his...
	Oh, God.
	Oh, God.
	Okay.
	Anyway, I could go on for a long time, but I have the guest in the background and it's Tommy Robinson.
	His real name is not Tommy Robinson.
	That joke is not going to get old.
	Got Tommy Robinson in the backdrop.
	And we're going to talk about a small victory against a weaponized system and other things we're going to talk about today.
	Hold on, let me just get my...
	I got a little tickle from my hair.
	So it's going to be a discussion on a small W and a broader context.
	Someone in the locals' community said, maybe I've got to put a description of our...
	The person that I'm interviewing, because not everybody knows.
	I take for granted everybody's seen every interview I've done, every video I've done on Tommy Robinson.
	He's a freedom fighter, period.
	And people don't like him.
	I think people actually think they don't like him.
	It's that they think they don't like him because they've been watching too much BBC, MSNBC, CNN, and crap media.
	He's going to talk about a small victory that he had before the court of magistrates coming out of England.
	But before we even get there, on the topic of freedom, people.
	Oh, I'm such an idiot.
	Hold on one second.
	I am so bloody neurotic.
	Yes, I checked the box.
	Okay, it says it's got a paid promotion.
	Because it does.
	And it's one that's very much in line with freedom.
	And what we're talking about, what comes before freedom?
	1776, 1775.
	1775 coffee.
	It's delicious coffee.
	And I drink it.
	And it'll put hair on your chest.
	And it'll wake you up in the morning.
	Because if you're a sleepy Joe with zero cognitive abilities, who...
	Oh my God, you got to get your jokes scripted for you and then deliver them and then have the media, the lying scoundrel scumbaggery of the media say, look how sharp Joe is.
	He's got great comic delivery.
	He's got accidental comic delivery.
	But setting that aside, if you can't think and you're a sleepyhead like Joe, you need some stronger coffee.
	You need to stop drinking woke liberal coffee and start your day by drinking Rumble's very own 1775 coffee.
	Why 1775?
	It came before 1776, people.
	Never mind that it'll be the best tasting coffee.
	Well, I don't have hair on my chest, but it's strong.
	It's none of that tea crap.
	If you like tea, maybe go have a...
	Well, okay.
	There was a UK and England joke in there.
	So instead of waking up tomorrow morning and drinking your mold-infested big corporation-owned woke ideology coffee that's probably making you sick from the pesticides they sprayed all over it, try Rumble's 1775 coffee, support free speech, and build a parallel economy.
	Which Tommy Robinson knows is necessary, and he knows it all too well.
	1775coffee.com forward slash Viva, promo code Viva.
	You'll get 10% off your first order.
	It's good.
	It's delicious.
	That's the website.
	It's in the description.
	And thank you very much.
	Parallel economies, people, because it's an all-out war on the politically disfavored as Tommy.
	Well, he's known for a long time.
	I was going back.
	Okay, I'm bringing him in.
	Tommy, you ready?
	Tommy.
	I was going back and looking at my videos from five, six years ago.
	First of all, I feel ugly.
	I feel like everything was a little bit awkward and cringy.
	But man, you've been going through it for over a decade now.
	Yep, over a decade.
	Since 2009.
	In the fire, since 2009.
	Well, I mean, some people are knocking...
	And this is my first victory!
	Say it again?
	This is my first victory!
	Tommy, people are like...
	Oh, go for it.
	Go for it.
	This week's my first victory.
	It's my first court case I've won.
	And I've had about 25 court cases that have all been nonsense, that have all been corrupt.
	And bang, this one just absolutely exposed them.
	So it's good.
	So people, I don't mean to laugh at your misery, but it's like the reflex.
	People are like, oh, is this a sign that things are going to change and the police are going to stop harassing Tommy?
	And I'm like, I don't think so.
	I think they're going to come after you harder and just make sure that they don't have a dyslexic officer writing up the authorizations.
	So let's get into this because we talked about it the last time.
	It wasn't that long ago.
	And you mentioned you were going to be in court.
	I don't remember if the restrictions that are imposed on you were related to this case or the one that's coming up in the summer, and I think it's the summer one.
	I was banned from London because of this case.
	Okay, so now, tell us what happened in a nutshell.
	I'm going to make sure our audio levels are good, but give us the context, because it's not straightforward for those who don't know.
	So the context is, since October 7th, we've seen massive...
	We've seen rallies in support of Hamas on the streets of the UK.
	We've seen a lot of trouble.
	We've seen blatant calls for jihad, calls for the gas and the Jews, desecration of war memorials.
	They then picked another date to do that, which was November the 11th, which is our Armatiz Day, our sacred day where we remember our armed forces.
	I made a rallying call for people to come.
	We couldn't rely on the police.
	We wish we could.
	We can't rely on them to police our streets because they literally hand the streets over to the jihadists, stand back while they commit crimes and do nothing about it.
	They can fly.
	Terrorist groups, flags, they do what they want.
	So on November 11th, thousands of men, after I made a call, come down to London to defend the Cenotaph to make sure that our sacred day was not disrupted by pro-terrorist scumbags.
	So that's what happened on November 11th.
	November 26th comes.
	Now, this would have worried the police and worried the government and the establishment, because they're quite happy to hand over the capital city to terrorists, and they don't want a counter to it.
	Now, when thousands of young English men come into London...
	And congregated on London, there was heated clashes with pro-terrorist supporters.
	Then on November 26th was the first anti-Semitism rally in response to the Jew hatred that we're witnessing in London.
	Now, the police would have never wanted, on November 11th, if I didn't bring our supporters anywhere near the Palestinian demonstrations, but as the dates went on, we kept saying, we've had enough.
	This needs to be stopped or people will come out and try and stop it themselves.
	So I think on November 26th, I went as a journalist to report on the anti-Semitism rally.
	I got into a cafe in London.
	I sat down and I was met by six police officers come in and said, you need to leave the city.
	So what are you talking about?
	Why do I need to leave the city?
	They said your presence here could cause people alarm and distress.
	Now, let me pause you there, because reading the ruling, I just couldn't get clear on two things of the timeline.
	Was there a pro-Palestine rally that day, or had there been ones previously in the same spot?
	There'd been one previously, not in the same spot, but there was one that day, but near Hyde Park, nowhere near this.
	Okay.
	So because all the pro-Palestinian rallies turn into violence and descend into riots, each one of them, they're violent each time, because of that...
	The police then get the power to use these dispersed orders that they can put on people and they ask them to leave a certain area for 24 hours.
	So they use the authorisation because of the trouble at the pro-Palestinian rally.
	They get this order and then they come in to use it on me at a pro-Israeli rally where there's no trouble, never been any trouble, nowhere near the pro-Palestinian rally.
	So they come in, they're abusing their power straight away.
	They use it.
	They say it's because of this to get the power.
	Then they come in and say, I have to leave the city.
	My presence may cause alarm and distress.
	I pointed out that the presence of Hamas, their flags, their terrorist slogans, their support, has caused our entire nation distress for the last months that we've had to watch.
	And now you'll hear 30 officers, mob bandits, because I and my reporting may cause alarm and distress.
	But the point, under this order, section 35 order, the next section says...
	There's certain reasons they can't give you the order.
	One of them being, if you're at work and you're paid to be there.
	I pointed out to the police many times, I'm a journalist, lads.
	I'm here to work.
	They may not like the fact I'm a journalist.
	The government may wish to control who's journalist and who not.
	I point out, I don't live under communism.
	I do not live under communism.
	I have a freedom of the press and freedom of assembly.
	And I actually read to the police officer the statement the police made the day before.
	Because at another pro-Hamas rally...
	A journalist was assaulted by the program as demonstrators.
	So at that rally, the police made a statement that morning saying the importance of freedom in the press, the importance of journalists to report freely without fear or intimidation is as important as the right of citizens to protest.
	So I read that to the police and say, you said this this morning.
	Now, here you are telling me, a journalist, I have to leave the city.
	Because I might cause alarm and distress, which doesn't make sense.
	And then I was having a breakfast.
	The police left the cafe.
	They hadn't issued me the order at that point.
	I then go to leave the cafe.
	I'm approached by about 30 police officers.
	There's a large crowd of pro-Israelis.
	It's insanity, isn't it?
	I don't mean to laugh.
	I'm going to pull up the video so I can play it.
	I put it in the vlog that I put out yesterday.
	Someone said, like, how many police officers or how many Bobbies do they need to arrest Tommy?
	And I said, apparently, all of them.
	But before we even get there, okay, so this Section 35 authorization, it exists under the Antisocial Behavior and Public Order Act.
	Something along those lines.
	I just know antisocial behavior is the first three words of it.
	Did they properly issue...
	The Section 35 authorization for the Palestine rally, for the pro-Palestine rally.
	That's where I sort of misunderstood, but I'm not sure if you know.
	They had one on the 24th.
	They showed us, we had a copy of their authorization, and it didn't start until 2 o 'clock on the 26th.
	But they had one on the 24th that started at 10pm.
	So the one they issued showed the date of the 26th.
	They said 10pm.
	So we produced our one saying, where's this one from then?
	Why isn't this in your notes?
	And the law is if they update the form, they have to redo it all in the system.
	There has to be a lock.
	There was no lock.
	So we've got one that says two o 'clock.
	Yours says ten in the morning.
	Why would we have one that says two o 'clock?
	If your authorisation didn't come in till two o 'clock, you arrested me at one o 'clock.
	So you didn't even have authorisation power to make the arrest.
	Do you know the police officer?
	In order to get the authorization, there has to be not, they call it a guideline, but there has to be a justification.
	So they can't just, they have to get it, it's for a specific event, for a specific circumscribed area, for a specific time frame, and certain criteria need to be met.
	So they had one, and they just basically recycled the old form, changing mutatus mutatus, but they didn't change everything, and they didn't go through getting the proper guidelines approved in order to issue a new authorization for the anti-Semitism rally.
	And the guidelines say, because it's important, because you're taking away a man's freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, and the guidelines from the Home Office, they have to, by law, read them and take into account your rights to Article 10 and 11 of the Human Rights Act, your freedom of assembly and freedom of speech.
	When the police officer got in the dock, I just thought they're going to lie their way through this, and they're going to say, oh, that's her fault.
	When he got in the dock and said, how come it says two o 'clock?
	And he says, yeah, well, I edited it on the day.
	And then they said, And then they asked him, what time did you edit it on the day?
	About four o 'clock.
	It's like, so you changed the time to 10am to make it legit and legal.
	And his words were operational learning.
	He stood at the dock and said, operational learning.
	You've just fraudulently edited a form in order to make it legal for why you've prosecuted me and banned me for six months.
	That's just one little mishap.
	That's one thing.
	But also on his authorisation.
	The police officer who authorised it didn't even have authorisation.
	The location I was in wasn't even in the map area that they were saying they had authorisation for.
	They walked me.
	Into the place that they then legally had authorisation the day before to arrest me.
	But all of these things, I didn't think any of these things would matter, if I'm honest.
	Because it's a judge.
	It's not a jury.
	Do you know what I think won this for us, if I'm honest?
	Because I've been in these cases.
	I met with my King's counsel the week before.
	He said, they haven't got authorisation.
	They've edited the form.
	They've done this.
	He named four legal things.
	Why this case collapses?
	I said, I'm sorry, but I've been here before.
	It doesn't collapse.
	So everyone was asking me what I'm doing afterwards.
	I was like, nothing.
	I'm probably going to jail.
	I've been in the political system.
	I've been here.
	Tommy, I'm going to bring this up just so everybody knows.
	This is the arrest.
	I don't know how many...
	So you seem like you're wincing.
	And I heard reports that you were pepper sprayed.
	I was pepper sprayed from point blank range.
	And in the police officer's statements, what's insane, which come out in the trial again, the police officers give statements saying that the crowd was shouting at me, shame on you.
	And it was a hostile environment for me.
	And that's why they were arresting me and taking me out of there.
	This is what their statements are saying.
	We played the video.
	It's a very calm crowd.
	When the police come to get me, the crowd are clearly shouting at the police.
	Shame on you.
	Shame on you.
	Leave him alone.
	We want him here.
	That's what they're saying.
	They have pepper spray me there.
	And are they cranking back on your arms?
	Like it looks like it's painful on your arms.
	They crossed in my arms.
	They point blank sprayed me in my eyes.
	After I was arrested.
	And show what words I say.
	Look at this.
	How many of them are?
	Do you know why he says he pepper sprayed me?
	I was about to break free from lawful custody.
	What are you talking about?
	I was handcuffed.
	People have to understand, the editing the document, it's not like...
	Correcting a typo.
	Even if you could do that to a lawfully issued document, it's more like changing the identity.
	This is like a permit.
	This is for a specific day, for a specific event.
	And after that, it lapses.
	And if you want to get a new one, you got to show why.
	So when he says, I'm just changing the date, the authorization they got was for a specific event, a specific date, a specific area, and for specific reasons.
	That expire after that date, area, and event is over.
	And I'm just changing it for another date when they hadn't gotten the proper authorization to be issued.
	So it's not just like a typo correction dyslexia.
	It's fraudulent fabrication of an unauthorized authorization to disperse.
	Can you go back to the video there of all those police officers?
	Let's have a look at that.
	Go back to that video.
	I feel like I'm rubbing it in your face.
	When you get a picture of the front of them, they've all got this body.
	They've all got a camera on here.
	They've all got a camera here.
	See this?
	Every one of them has got this camera to the left.
	So on the right-hand side is a radio.
	On the left-hand side is a body-worn camera.
	Look how many there are.
	All of them have lost the footage of the body-worn camera.
	I swear to God.
	When we got to the trial, the statement of one of them, mine dropped and fell off at the instant and we lost it.
	Statement of another one, I was using someone else so it was recorded over.
	The statement of Sullivan, the inspector, didn't even come to court.
	So every one of them lost body-worn footage.
	There's no body-worn footage which proves what was being said when I was handcuffed, which point they pepper-sprayed me.
	All of it's gone.
	All of it's recorded over.
	Even though our lawyers, within 24 hours, sent them legal documents telling them to keep every bit of footage.
	It's all gone.
	It's all gone.
	It's mental.
	I'm laughing.
	I've been through this so many times where usually I'm probably sitting in jail at a minute.
	Okay, now I'm doing one thing here, guys.
	Link to Rumble.
	Come on over because we're ending this.
	I'll put the entire interview up afterwards and you'll get to watch it there, but we're going to go vote with our feet and our dollars and our eyeballs.
	Come on over to Rumble, Viva Fry or VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	Ending on YouTube.
	Doesn't change anything from our end, Tommy.
	So they come up to you.
	They tell you, even the media still reports it to this day that the The anti-antisemitism participants.
	It's a protest against antisemitism.
	The media still says they didn't want you there.
	And when the police come up to you and they say, you're not a journalist, you're a former member of the EDL, and that you're not wanted there.
	First of all, are they smiling?
	Is it a wink-wink, nudge-nudge, they know what the hell they're doing?
	Or do they believe what they're telling you?
	Even with the EDL, I left the English Defense League in 2014 and started in 2009.
	That means that Years gone by since that.
	It's twice as long as I was even in it, yeah?
	And I'm not ashamed of starting the English Defence League.
	We were the organisation that brought all the issues to the forefront that no one wanted to talk about.
	We changed the whole concept of grooming gangs and the problems of Islam.
	We awoke a nation on that issue, yeah?
	So I'm not ashamed of it.
	But they always try to use that.
	When they say you're not a journalist, what also come out in this court case was I am a journalist, yeah?
	It also come out, and the police officer's words were, well, maybe I'm a bit backdated, because what...
	What was read out by the judge that the new guidelines for journalists is because of digital technology.
	A journalist, someone who takes news, puts it into publication and gives it to the public.
	I have been...
	So what I said to the judge there is I'm there to report on a demonstration.
	I've done European Union demonstrations.
	I've done nationalist demonstrations in Poland.
	My journalists took me to Austria.
	I've been to Germany, to France.
	I've been all over Europe doing my journalists.
	They may not like it, but I made this point to them and it really upsets them.
	I am a journalist.
	I'm actually a trusted journalist, unlike you lot, yeah?
	So people trust what I say.
	And I'm good at what I do, which you don't like.
	But I was there at the anti-semitism rally.
	I told them I'm a journalist.
	That's one of the points.
	So even on the four legal reasons why the case collapsed, from them giving me the order, my words, they said I refused to leave in all their statements.
	When we played the video in court, my words were, which way?
	As they all grabbed me, I said, which way are you telling me I've got to go, yeah?
	Then within 35 seconds, I was under arrest.
	Now, under that legislation, they have to give the reasonable time to leave.
	And you have allowed a reasonable excuse not to leave.
	Now, I said to the police officer, I need my colleague.
	The reason I need my colleague is he's got my car keys.
	So if you're telling me I have to leave this area, he's in there with my car keys.
	My car's down there.
	I can't leave, lad.
	His words?
	I don't care.
	You're nicked.
	You're nicked.
	Then pepper sprayed.
	But then it became apparent, which is what this was all about.
	Once I was charged, I thought, how can you charge me?
	Just accept the embarrassment.
	What you've done is wrong.
	Everyone's watched it.
	I've done nothing wrong.
	It's all live-streamed.
	But they charged me to give me conditions banning me from London for six months.
	So when we're saying I've won, have I won?
	My freedom's been limited.
	It's cost £60,000.
	What, $75,000 we've spent on this case?
	We're not getting that money back.
	I've been banned for six months.
	Arrested again on my daughter's birthday in March.
	Again, under their same conditions.
	So, yeah, I've had a victory in court.
	Yeah, the public can now see thanks to...
	And do you know what I think won it for me, to be honest?
	Citizen journalism.
	We had everyone who's anyone from citizen journalism sitting in court, yeah?
	So we had Voice of Wales.
	We had Mayor Tusi.
	We have Hopkins.
	We have Danny Roscoe.
	All these different self-styled journalists now.
	Live tweeting.
	Rebel Media sent Sheila Gunn read over.
	Live tweeting every word that was getting said in the case.
	So as the judge, as the police officer was admitting he changed the form, as he was admitting there was no lawful order, this was going out everywhere on so many different accounts.
	Now usually, a few years ago, the media just wouldn't have reported this.
	The pressure wouldn't have been on the judge.
	I think citizen journalism helped with this case, because by the time I walked out of court after the first day, the BBC were then reporting that the police officer had lied.
	I was looking at it thinking...
	This has never happened.
	They lie in every case.
	I've been through every case.
	This just doesn't happen.
	And then when the judges ruling come in, but they also, so they have to give you time to leave.
	They didn't.
	If you're a journalist, they can't give you it anyway.
	But even their statements, I was about to, the reason UCS cast me, I was being violent.
	And I was about to escape lawful custody.
	I was handcuffed with, as you've seen, 30 police officers.
	So it's just lies.
	But they've got away with those lies so many times.
	Okay, so the day of, they pepper spray you for whatever the reason.
	I mean, I don't know who initiates that.
	They cuff you, they arrest you.
	How long were you detained for after the actual arrest?
	24 hours.
	I was released after 24 hours, and my conditions were not to enter inside the M25.
	That's a huge area.
	It's the whole of London.
	So bearing in mind, Section 35 order gave them power.
	Which is an infringement, and they realise that.
	That's why you have to meet all these guidelines.
	In the Home Office guidance, it explains to them, you know, the police officer, when he was getting interviewed, he was getting interviewed on the dock, and they said, have you read the Home Office guidance on this?
	And he said, no.
	And my King's Counsel gets his statement up and says, you've quoted it in your statement, yeah?
	And he said, that was copy and pasted by my senior officer and put it into my statement.
	And I'm sitting there looking at my sister like, Did he just say that?
	Is this for real?
	Are they actually...
	He was so honest.
	I have to respect the officer.
	He made his lies.
	And then he said, so you didn't read it?
	He said, no, I've never read it.
	He said, you've never read it?
	How could you have took into account his Article 10 and Article 11, Human Rights, if you didn't even read the guidance?
	And he just said...
	He was very honest.
	So they bailed me.
	They charged me, bailed me, not to enter London at all.
	I then challenged that.
	The best thing about it...
	This is.
	I've made this into a film.
	So I documented all of this.
	Two-tier policing, corrupt judiciaries, this lawfare being used against citizens who are challenging government or establishment narratives is a weapon playing out across the West.
	It's a weapon being used.
	So this has gave me the best opportunity to put together a...
	A fabulous film which I've done.
	Not just looking at me, but looking at how they abuse this.
	They create fraudulent charges.
	So they're not bothered.
	They don't care about this embarrassment.
	They've controlled me for six months.
	I've not been allowed to interview people.
	I've not been allowed to demonstrate.
	Any demonstrations, I'm not allowed to demonstrate, not allowed to promote demonstrations.
	They're my conditions where I go to jail for six months based on no case, no evidence.
	And they've done this.
	For 15 years, yeah?
	There's not been one stage I haven't had these conditions.
	I actually bring back, and I actually, in this film I've made, what I say is you may think this is something new.
	They've just handed over the streets of London to Islamist pro-terrorist groups, yeah?
	This is nothing new.
	In 2011, I organised a charity walk, walking across London.
	The night before, Scotland Yard come to see me in Luton.
	They sent two officers.
	They sat down and said, Tommy, you cannot walk.
	Walk through Tower Hamlets.
	Tower Hamlets is a borough of London, yeah?
	I said, what are you talking about?
	And they said, you can't walk through Tower Hamlets.
	We don't want you to walk through Tower Hamlets.
	I said, why can't I walk through Tower Hamlets?
	And they said, the imam from the East London Mosque has told us he won't be able to control the youth if you're allowed to walk through Tower Hamlets.
	I said, forgive me, but I don't really give a shit what the imam says, yeah?
	And they had a map.
	They had a map.
	They're showing me this map, yeah?
	And they want me to...
	Oh yeah, this is for real.
	Look, I'm walking from A to B. They want me to walk all the way round, an entire borough, yeah, to get to the end point, adding on like eight miles or something.
	I said, I'm walking from A to B, yeah, on a charity walk for a dying two-year-old child, yeah?
	What are you talking about?
	They said, well, in East London, at the borough town, there's lots of mosques.
	I said, we're sat in Luton.
	There's 45 mosques around me now.
	I walk past them all the time.
	What are you talking about?
	It's where I live.
	And then the next day, you will not believe this footage.
	And it's in my documentary.
	As I get to the Borough of Hamlets, I'm walking with the police.
	We get near this subway thing.
	The police step back.
	Two plainclothes men come in.
	They walk next to me.
	Bang!
	They assault me.
	I step back, put my hands up.
	What are you doing?
	What are you doing?
	The police all rush in.
	They let the two men walk off and leave.
	I'm saying on camera, he's just assaulted me.
	Why are you letting him leave?
	And they put their hands on us.
	And she's got an earpiece in.
	And she looks ridiculous.
	And I say, what are you doing?
	They've just assaulted us.
	Are you going to nick him?
	And she says, stop there.
	I say, are you going to nick him?
	Because he's walking away.
	Why are you letting him walk away?
	She says, I'm going to be arresting you, Tommy.
	And I'm like, what?
	What are you arresting me for?
	Obstruction of a police officer in the line of duty.
	This video went viral at the time.
	But those are two undercover police officers sent in.
	This happens on the border of Tower Hamlets.
	Allgate East, Tower Hamlets.
	So I'm arrested.
	I don't get to walk through Tower Hamlets.
	I'm arrested.
	I'm charged.
	Even though the video shows me being assaulted, I'm charged.
	I spend nine months with conditions not to enter the borough of Tower Hamlets.
	And I go to court three times.
	Until we get to court and it's kicked out.
	So again, fraudulent cases, appeasement to mob rule of the Islamic community.
	They're scared, so they take away our rights, set you up.
	So I look back at multiple cases and give multiple examples in this film of lawfare being used to control criticism or any voices that they don't want heard.
	Tommy, hold on.
	Let me go here.
	This is the trailer that you sent me the other day, right?
	This one here?
	See, there's no audio.
	You can't hear any audio right now, right?
	No, let me send you an audio.
	I'll send you an audio.
	No, no, no, no, no.
	I've got audio on my end.
	I think it's a StreamYard issue.
	Bottom line, look, I'll go through it, Urban Scoop.
	It's good dubstep techno music, but the question is, is freedom of speech or is freedom of the press gone?
	Freedom of spray.
	It's great.
	I'm going to upload it to locals afterwards if I haven't already done it.
	Sorry, would I play it for whatever the reason?
	There's no audio.
	Tommy, when you get pepper sprayed, I've never been pepper sprayed, but I've come in contact with pepper spray balls.
	It doesn't just burn the eyes.
	Do you have trouble breathing when you're...
	It burned my hole.
	Obviously, I didn't know what it was because I don't expect to be pepper sprayed.
	So at the time, I don't know what's been thrown in my face.
	Obviously, as I'm handcuffed, my head's down.
	There's a video of it happening.
	My head's down looking down.
	He puts it there right next to my eye and sprays my hole.
	It felt like my whole face was burning.
	My whole face was on fire.
	It was on fire, man.
	And then I couldn't see anything.
	Because I'm handcuffed, I'm not trying to get it out of my eyes.
	I'm saying, wipe my face.
	Wipe my face.
	And then I get in the back of the police van.
	And there's a video.
	I don't know if you've seen it.
	I get in the back of the police van.
	They walk me across.
	I can't see anything.
	They put me in the back of the police van.
	I say, unhandcuff me.
	I'm in this cell in the back of the police van.
	So they unhandcuff me.
	And then when they unhandcuff me, I mean, I sit down and I get my phone out and I do a quick video.
	And I can't see.
	I said, look at this.
	Look what they've done for nothing.
	For reporting.
	I come as a journalist.
	And then I asked the police officer.
	So I didn't know who'd done it.
	And I said, who'd done that?
	And as I get to the police station, I'm standing in reception.
	I said, which officer pepper sprayed me in the face?
	And the bloke said, no, I got some of it in my face as well.
	When I watched the video back, it's the one who was standing with me.
	The coward who wouldn't admit it.
	He said he got some in his face.
	He point blank, when I was already subdued, already arrested, pepper sprayed me.
	And in the documentary, I used their own documentary.
	So I've got a police documentary where they have to do it from five metres.
	So I used them saying it.
	It's against the law to do it from within five metres because of the dangers and that.
	It's like you've done it from point blank range.
	I think it's this video here.
	Let's just see it.
	I think this is it.
	I'm not 100% certain.
	I think we're...
	Right there, right there, right there.
	He's shaking it.
	Okay, so that was it, but not the best of angles.
	So it was the heavy set.
	And so they haul you off.
	You spend 24 hours detained.
	They release you.
	They give you these conditions, which you've been living under for a long time.
	Say that again?
	I challenged them.
	So I went to court.
	So I thought for the film, and I'll explain what I was doing.
	For the film, I want to show everyone I've exhausted every legal avenue.
	To have my rights back to me.
	So I challenged, with the best representation you can get, I went to a court judge and said, because bail conditions have to be proportionate to the offence and proportionate to the crime.
	So banning me from the entirety of London, my KC said, my King's Council said, well, this isn't proportionate.
	This is ridiculous.
	They're never going to be able to justify this.
	We went into court.
	The judge, his name was Snow, said, no, that's it.
	You're banned from London.
	You're not coming inside London.
	It was so abrupt.
	I said, what about if I have to work in London?
	What about if I have to take my children to London?
	What about any of these things?
	It doesn't matter.
	So we appealed it again.
	That cost about seven grand.
	I appealed it again to another judge.
	We get down in front of the other judge.
	He reads out in front of us saying, oh, this is only to be heard by Judge Snow, which is the judge we've seen previously.
	So they transfer it back to him.
	He's sitting in front of him and he said, I've already made my decision on this.
	I said, yeah, but I need to work.
	So what about...
	And we went through it again.
	So he amended the order and said, you can now contact, and he gave a unit within the Met Police Force.
	My police officer was PC Sharp, a Muslim police officer.
	So if I want to come into London, I have to contact him.
	Anyone I'm meeting, I have to give their phone number, the location we're meeting, the time we're meeting.
	Then he will decide if we meet.
	Now, one of the people we were meeting was an MP.
	So in the documentary, we interviewed the organiser of that event, who's actually Lord Pearson from the House of Lords.
	Woods' personal assistant.
	So he sets a meeting up, yeah?
	I'm going into London, so we contact and say, right, I've got an interview with an MP at an event in London.
	It's a ticketed event.
	He, PC Shah, rings up the organiser and says, why is Tommy Robinson coming?
	He said he's invited as a journalist to cover the event, yeah?
	He then makes a decision, no, I'm not covering that event.
	So he refuses my ability to do my job.
	In that week, I asked for three instances for the documentary I was doing as well.
	I said, I want to go to the Christmas lights switch on with my children.
	No.
	And then what happens is it's my daughter's birthday.
	Some people say this is stupid.
	My daughter's Luton Town Mad, football.
	She's my youngest.
	I've missed their birthdays.
	I've missed Christmases because I've been in prison at different times.
	I asked her, darling, what do you want to do for your birthday?
	And Luton's season, you may not follow football, but we are in the Premier League.
	The smallest club.
	We've made it into the Premier League.
	It's insane, yeah?
	And we're fighting for our survival.
	So I said, what do you want to do, darling?
	She said, we're playing Crystal Palace away on my birthday.
	I said, okay.
	She said, I want to go there and bring some of my friends.
	So I said, all right, darling.
	I'm not actually allowed in London, yeah?
	So I said, I'm not allowed in London.
	But I will go to London.
	I will take you, yeah?
	But as long as you understand the risk, I understand the risk.
	I know what I'm doing.
	I want to spend her birthday with her.
	So I hired a party bus.
	I took my daughter and 12 friends, which you're going to see this on the documentary, yeah?
	I take my daughter and 12 friends.
	We go to a TGI Friday's restaurant.
	We have dinner, right?
	We all sing happy birthday.
	We get a cake.
	Yeah, it's no hooligan day out here.
	It's a family day out.
	How they can have bail conditions that can prevent me doing this is insane.
	I go to the football.
	I come out of the football with a load of kids.
	Boom!
	The police come from everywhere.
	You're not allowed in London, I said, mate.
	I'm on my way home now with my children.
	I've been to watch a football match with my daughter.
	They arrested me.
	They've remanded me into custody.
	48 hours.
	So I had to get remanded.
	Then this was Saturday lunchtime.
	I got remanded.
	Then I go to court on the Monday.
	And it cost another £6,000.
	I go to court and the judge says he was remanding me to prison.
	And I expected that.
	I thought they're going to send me to jail.
	But I think if they did send me to jail...
	Then in my film and what the public are going to see is the lengths they will go to, the authoritarian state we have, which is imprisoning the journalist for going to do his job and then taking his daughter out after already refusing my ability to do that.
	So I'm arrested.
	I come out of court.
	When I walk out of court, I say, let's just understand it.
	What the Metropolitan Police stance is.
	This is OK.
	We cut to all the terrorists.
	This is OK as they desecrate war memorials.
	But this, which is 12 little kids singing happy birthday.
	It's an arrestable offence in London because...
	So that's a...
	Yeah, so every condition, I challenged it and I went to court, tried to get my rights back, just refused it.
	So then I got out.
	That judge let me out.
	He hurts because what King's Council said is these bail conditions are meant to prevent crime.
	He's out on a family day out with little kids in a party bus.
	But why are there even these restrictions?
	And that judge agreed and he released me.
	How did they...
	How did they even find you the night with the party bus?
	It's like they're just surveilling you for the sake of it.
	But they've got real crime going on.
	That much we know.
	The trial itself is very interesting.
	How many days did the trial last?
	The trial was two days.
	The best thing was...
	We've gone to court...
	They've adjourned it.
	They've adjourned it.
	Because that's what I knew they'd adjourn it.
	They won't let it happen quick because they won't be banned from London.
	That's the purpose of this.
	It ends up taking six months, yeah?
	Ends up taking six months.
	But when we were setting the date for trial, I'm sat in the court dock and I messaged my solicitor because I frequent from different countries.
	I don't base myself here.
	I can't.
	So I come back and forward.
	So I messaged my solicitor saying that when they said it's a two-day trial, I said, I'm back in London.
	I'm back in England.
	Do you know what?
	I missed my flight when I was abroad.
	I had to fly to Birmingham because I live in Luton, 30 miles north of London.
	Because of my bail conditions, I wasn't allowed to fly into any London airports.
	I had to fly to somewhere totally different because bail conditions prevented me.
	They messed up everything.
	But anyway, I'm sitting there and it's the 22nd and 23rd of April.
	I messaged my solicitor saying, I'm back in the country, 22nd and 23rd of April.
	Please try and get my trial for that date.
	So she stands up and she says, well, the date that suits us and our legal team and our client, we can all make it on the 22nd and 23rd of April.
	And they agreed the trial date and I sat there laughing my head off.
	That's St. George's Day.
	So the 23rd is our national day to celebrate who we are as Englishmen.
	So it's where all Englishmen take the day off.
	We all go out and celebrate.
	So I messaged my solicitor saying, you just got my trial date.
	The end of my trial is on St George's Day.
	The police are going to, when they must have realised, they tried to change the trial date.
	And we had a legal argument over that.
	Because then they're thinking, because thousands come into London on St George's Day.
	There was thousands and thousands there.
	We had a great day after my court case.
	But yeah, the trial was two days.
	The first day was their officers getting questioned.
	And at the end of their officers getting questioned when everything was unlawful, their prosecution...
	Said, Your Honour, I'm going to step back.
	I need to take some guidance on whether we even continue at this point.
	Because his client is the police.
	So he's working.
	The prosecutor's working for the police.
	So he's gone back to the police basically saying, you've got to collapse this.
	You can't make it.
	You've got no case.
	They refused.
	So all the citizen journalists said, Judge, the prosecutor is deciding whether to collapse the case right now.
	And the police have obviously said, no, you can't.
	So then they continued with the trial.
	And then they continued.
	And then it was a judge's decision to kick it out before continuing.
	So the judge then said, I'm going to make a judgment tomorrow morning when I come in here on whether I continue this trial from what I've heard.
	So he didn't even get into a trial.
	Once a judge had heard, and I thought he's just finding a way out for them.
	But then he didn't.
	He actually, because all the judge had to say is I'm dismissing it.
	He didn't have to give a written judgment.
	The term was, oh geez, what's the term?
	No case to try?
	There's a term where there's not even a controversy because there's no...
	There's no case.
	Now the question is this.
	So he did not have to issue the written decision.
	He did it anyhow because I think for two reasons.
	One, I don't think to help you, but rather for anybody who wants to criticize him, he needed to motivate the decision.
	But he went a step further that said, look, the authorization was invalid.
	He didn't call it fraudulent.
	He came down hard on the cops, but not as hard as I would have wanted.
	But he says the authorization, the order for dispersal was invalid, period.
	So there's no case here.
	Even if it were found to be valid, I find that they did not consider the guidance, the guidelines appropriately, such that no reasonable court would find guilt regardless because you didn't think out.
	Or justify issuing the authorization, even if it were valid.
	But was the judge visibly unhappy with the police?
	Or was he doing his best to allow them to say things?
	No, he was visibly unhappy.
	At the end, he was visibly unhappy.
	And the media just reported wrong date.
	You've read the judgment, yeah?
	The media just reported wrong date.
	BBC.
	But there's actually, there's a black belt barrister.
	His name's Black Belt Barrister on YouTube.
	And he picks cases in the UK that are of interest.
	He's a legal barrister.
	And he goes through them all.
	And he actually picked up on this and he made a video saying, here's what the media aren't actually telling you.
	This wasn't about a wrong date or a form.
	There's a lot more.
	And he went through the judgment.
	Why is he going through?
	And he actually says at the start of his video, he's obviously not aligned to me in any way on my politics.
	He says, why have the media not covered this?
	Why are they not actually concentrating on this?
	Even like main TV shows, they didn't.
	This is how they cover it.
	Collapses over police paperwork, and we scroll down.
	He says, no case to answer.
	That's it.
	Bam.
	Following the verdict, and that's it.
	They skipped that very important last paragraph, which I highlighted in my analysis yesterday, my very, very superficial analysis.
	The judge said, look, even if the paperwork were done properly...
	It was abusive, capricious, willy-nilly, and no reasonable judge would convict.
	The question is this now.
	I don't know what the laws are like in the UK.
	Can you sue for civil rights violations now that the arrest, detainment, and bail conditions have deemed to be unjustified?
	You can't sue for your money back.
	You've spent it on legal fees.
	But you can sue for the wrongful and the embarrassment of what happened.
	The first two companies I've spoke to have refused to represent me.
	How mad is that?
	The first two companies, it's a closed case, yeah?
	But they do not want to represent me.
	That's how politically correct this...
	So I've just received a number this evening for someone who I've told may be a bit more sympathetic.
	And they don't need to be sympathetic.
	You're just meant to be a solicitor.
	You're not meant to represent people you agree with.
	You're meant to represent them if there's wrongdoing.
	This is legally wrong, lawfully wrong, criminally wrong, I'd say, on what happened that day.
	And now I've got lawyers refusing to...
	Represent me based on political correctness again.
	So yeah, I can.
	I will find a way.
	And they should just pay damages for the embarrassment, the humiliation, etc, etc.
	But I don't think that's good enough, if I'm honest.
	It's a malicious trial.
	They should have to pay every penny that's been spent, which my supporters put me in a position.
	I called out to my supporters to have the best defence.
	I don't believe if I did have the best defence, I would have...
	The lawyer would have even bought up all of these and got the forms and gone to lengths they went to.
	I had Carson Kaye, one of the best law firms in London, and I also had Alistair Williamson, who's rated one of the best king counsel in the country.
	I went into a gunfight with a gun, whereas usually I go into a gunfight with a knife and get mad every time.
	So at this time, my people supported me, but every penny should be paid back.
	I should not be out of pocket.
	I'm not happy.
	I want the judge done who took my rights away for six months.
	That's what I want.
	I don't think it's right.
	I don't think it's right if my freedoms were taken for six months and which city I could go to.
	And the thing is, which I show in the film I'm making, this is nothing new.
	This has happened nonstop.
	And it will happen again.
	It will happen again.
	It's only a matter of time.
	It will happen again.
	But I can now organise.
	I haven't been organised.
	I'm organising for the 1st of June.
	Very nice.
	And now...
	So you have a number of other pending legal issues that are still ongoing, correct?
	So I have, which I haven't heard back from the Attorney General.
	So the Attorney General, the British government, their lawyers, contacted my lawyers about a film that went out in America.
	It went out at a cinema in Florida, which was called Silenced.
	Did you get a chance to watch that?
	Oh yeah, I watched it.
	Now, I'm not asking the question as to how it got leaked.
	My understanding is that you were not allowed publishing it.
	And it did get leaked, and then I suspect that pissed off the powers that be in the UK that had a publication ban of sorts on that documentary.
	So the judge gave me an injunction.
	I got covert recordings proving people were paid, yeah?
	We've got to back it up because people are not even going to know the context.
	The documentary Silenced is about the Syrian...
	The fake news about the Syrian boy in the UK that got into a schoolyard fight with another kid who was white.
	The kid poured a cup of water on his face and said, you don't have very much to say now, do you?
	And then the media ran with that story the way they ran with the Nicholas Sandman and the Covington kids story here, said the kid was a racist, was waterboarding the kid.
	It was a racially motivated attack of a rich white kid on a poor Syrian refugee.
	Piers Morgan comes out and calls the kid vermin.
	Worse things as well.
	And then so the media ran with it.
	Politicians ran with it.
	It went international.
	And the truth of it was that, and I won't put words in your mouth, this is my summarizing, is that the kid, the Syrian refugee, was a bad apple, to put it mildly.
	Was assaulting women.
	Was a bad kid.
	And everybody knew it.
	And then you went and tried to get the real story.
	You had an injunction slapped against you in terms of covering it.
	You got people undercover to admit exactly what went on, that people were paid to be quiet, that people were threatened into silence, all to protect the ideology behind this, that you can't have a Syrian refugee actually be a bad apple because it might cause people to question foreign policy.
	And you had this documentary as evidence for your trial and you got an injunction saying you cannot show that documentary.
	And surprise, surprise, all the people who spilled the beans under secret recording were not prepared to come to trial.
	Yeah.
	That's basically it.
	That's it.
	That's it.
	You summed it up perfectly.
	So all the evidence that the public, the judge put a ban on the public seeing any of the evidence.
	And if they were able to see the evidence, he told me that I'd get two years for contempt of court.
	So when the film was released, obviously...
	For me, it's panic stations because it's two years.
	Two years for me is you'd serve 12 months on solitary confinement or I'd get killed by Islamic jihadist gangs in jail.
	So it's not good.
	So I was worried.
	I was stressed about it.
	I left the country.
	I sat abroad.
	I started creating a podcast because I like to create my content and keep my content going.
	So I sat away for six months seeing what was going on.
	I hadn't lived in the UK anyway.
	So I sat away for six months and then I decided to come back and I come back and I wasn't arrested and nothing happened.
	I was back here for eight weeks and then I decided to organise the first rally on Armatiz Day, what I spoke about on November the 11th.
	And literally two days after I announced that rally, the government's solicitors contacted my solicitors and said that they are contemplating prosecuting me for contempt of court.
	I think I was supposed to cancel the rally or really give a shit, but I just replied saying, if you actually wish to draw the world's attention to the film.
	Then, yeah, you prosecute me.
	So I will go to court.
	It's not going to be me who's embarrassed.
	Yeah, I'm going to have a tough time.
	I'm going to go to jail.
	But it's going to humiliate you, the establishment.
	It's going to prove your corruption of the court.
	The thing is, we're all seeing politically weaponised courts targeting Donald Trump.
	Right now it's happening in America.
	What I managed to do was document and covertly record and prove, matter of fact, there's no grey area, 100%.
	That's a corrupt building, yeah?
	That's a corrupt judge.
	There's no way he could have come to that.
	It's impossible.
	The evidence speaks for itself, yeah?
	But I did, and then gave me a reporting restriction and an order that no one could see it.
	So that film was leaked.
	I didn't put the film out.
	I could have put the film out any time in two years prior.
	I didn't put the film out, probably because I said before, I think I failed myself as a journalist, because I shouldn't have been worried about the prison sentence.
	I should have just, because if you worry about consequences, you'll never bring about change.
	I had a bomb in my hand, and that bomb...
	It's, I think, enough to destroy the reputation of the judiciary in the UK on the world stage.
	And if they do decide to prosecute me, which my solicitor said, this is the first stage.
	This is them letting you know.
	And it can take four, five, six months.
	It's the government solicitors.
	So I'm still waiting for a court date to enter court on that film.
	Is the court date for contempt for violating the injunction or is it an appeal on the merits of that case?
	No, it's a contempt for violating the injunction.
	Wow.
	And they're going to say that you violated the injunction sort of indirectly because the documentary was leaked and they attributed it to you?
	The wording of the injunction against me doesn't matter if someone else releases it.
	It doesn't matter if it's leaked.
	It doesn't matter.
	The wording was so strenuous, so strict that it covers all angles.
	If that film goes out...
	They can bring me into court.
	The problem for them, the problem I believe for them, is they're just going to bring the world's attention to it.
	I hope now, especially now I'm back on social media, and it was a week that they'd done this a week I got back onto Twitter.
	So I'm back on Twitter.
	I'm reaching again.
	I think my video views were 12 million in the last seven days.
	Media views 12 million, 60 million reach.
	I'm back with a voice and a platform.
	They took that away from me for five years.
	Still banned from every other social media.
	Still banned from YouTube.
	I have rumble, but I'm back on so I can get my voice out there again.
	If they put me through the court system on this film, I will make sure the entire world, and I hope other people, other commentators like yourself, will make sure the entire world sees this.
	So what do I do in my activism to bring about change and highlight corruption?
	And this is the best opportunity if they bring me to court.
	It'll be crap for me.
	It'll be terrible.
	But for our cause, it'll be the best thing that could happen.
	The case, I drew the analogy, it's exactly like what Covington kids or the Covington Catholic Nicholas Salmon would have been if there weren't the pushback that there was in the States.
	It doesn't seem that it exists in the UK, or maybe the identity politics in the UK case would have produced the same outcome here, had it been the same.
	But what is the status of that kid?
	The kid, he's a Syrian kid, a Syrian refugee who...
	By all accounts was a total shit disturber at a school that has since, the school since closed down, right?
	I closed the whole school down.
	None of the teachers have worked again from this story.
	They shut the school down.
	The head teacher, when I went and found him, this is four years later, four years now, four or five years, they've never worked a day.
	None of the top people at school have worked a day since.
	The headteacher worked there for 20 years.
	They come in when the story blew up.
	Bearing in mind, the story blew up.
	The truth is the Syrian child's problematic.
	He gets invited to Parliament by the Home Secretary.
	He's lauded on every TV station as an innocent, beautiful young kid.
	The truth is the total opposite.
	So they can never let that truth get out.
	It would humiliate them.
	So what did they do?
	They go up to the headteacher, which I've got him on.
	Covert recording telling me, he says, they, this company, there was a United Nations meeting, and Theresa May, our Prime Minister, was talking about this story at the United Nations meeting, yeah?
	And then they come into the school, they pull him in, they blackmail him, he says, into signing a non-disclosure agreement.
	They paid him off big money into signing a non-disclosure agreement, and then they escorted him off the school property.
	He's never worked a day since.
	Now, part of his agreement...
	Because he's not allowed any contact with any other teachers.
	He's not allowed to talk about this ever again.
	He turned.
	I could have done a documentary about that one man and that teacher because I interviewed other pupils who said that teacher saved their life.
	Having an opportunity to go and speak to that man when I was suicidal and self-harming saved my life.
	That teacher, when I interviewed him, says I joined education to help poor children.
	That's why I joined, for the right reasons.
	And look what they've done to me.
	They hung him out.
	He never worked again.
	He actually turned to alcohol and he had a breakdown after that.
	So the collateral damage did not matter for every schoolteacher.
	They closed the school down.
	They shut the school.
	They shut the school.
	Now, apparently, they'd been wanting to shut the school for a while and they wanted to merge it with another area.
	There was always massive opposition to it.
	So when this blew up, boom.
	Get rid of the school.
	Give them all non-disclosure agreements.
	Silence everyone.
	Even the chair of governors was silenced.
	Everyone was silenced.
	The other English kid was suicidal, had a terrible...
	He still has a terrible time.
	I still have him.
	He comes to live with me for two years, three years.
	There was a girl who said she was assaulted by the kid hit with a hockey stick.
	There was a guy in the documentary who claimed he was paid, what was it, £18,000 to shut up?
	You got that on record?
	An Asian teacher.
	So when I knocked with a camera, obviously I know what the kid was like.
	I've got the school records.
	He gets caught with a knife and screwdriver at school.
	He stabs another pupil.
	We're all told he's innocent.
	So I went round all the teachers' houses asking two questions.
	What was Jamal like?
	And what was Bailey like?
	Bailey was the English kid.
	So what were they like?
	So when I knocked at the Asian teacher's house, he just came out and said, Tommy, I took the money.
	And I've got a button camera.
	And I'm thinking, please be recording.
	Please be.
	Because sometimes...
	These button cameras don't record.
	Audio doesn't record.
	So I'm thinking, please be recording.
	He says, I took the money.
	I said, what do you mean you took the money?
	He said, they paid us.
	I said, who's they?
	Kirkley's Council.
	And in the documentary, we look.
	Kirkley's Council was run by an Islamic Muslim gentleman whose brother was the lead imam, radical imam, yeah?
	So they're in control of the council as well.
	I put in a Freedom of Information request.
	They spent £275,000.
	Buying the silence.
	So he tells me he got £18,000.
	He wasn't even involved.
	He wasn't even involved.
	Not really.
	But he knew because he was the head of isolation unit.
	When I went to ask him, he goes, Jamal, come up the isolation unit to beat a girl up.
	And I'm thinking, all I said, which they sued me for, all I said was that he threatened to stab someone.
	Yeah.
	Turns out he did.
	I said he threatened to stab someone and he attacked a girl.
	Now, when they sued me, they banged.
	This is for defamation because they're saying what you're saying about the kid is false.
	And you get all of this on...
	Everybody has to appreciate...
	This is exactly like the Covington Catholic situation where everyone ran with a narrative that turned out to be wrong, but it was so deeply embarrassing and there were other reasons to weaponize this politically.
	Your reporting from day one is that the kid, allegedly, the kid who was pouring the water on him...
	Was doing it because the kid threatened to sexually assault his sister.
	And as he's dumping the water on his face, it wasn't waterboarding.
	He says, you don't have much to say now.
	Or what do you have to say now?
	And so you come out with this story.
	They sue you for defamation.
	Truth, I still think, is the defense for defamation in the UK.
	But maybe you have some wild, similar laws that we have in Quebec.
	I fought truth.
	First of all, I tried to fight.
	Well, I've got the evidence.
	I've got the mum's messages to me showing the pictures of her daughter beaten up.
	I'm a journalist.
	So if someone tells me something.
	Which they did.
	Pupils told me things, and I reported it.
	I don't need truth anyway, because I've reported what I was told, yeah?
	But they refused that, said, no, you can't have that argument.
	So then we fought truth.
	I bought five pupils who I've never met, came to court and testified.
	One young boy who he called his mum the white said, now listen to this.
	This is the insane thing.
	Jamal gives evidence.
	And in that courtroom, he says, oh, I was victimized.
	I was this.
	And when Tommy Robertson reported my life, I was terrified.
	All the headlines of all the newspapers were what he was saying.
	The next day, the five pupils are there to testify against Jamal.
	When the first pupil gets up to testify against Jamal, the mainstream media got up and left court.
	I looked at the judge.
	So not one single thing, not one allegation.
	Bearing in mind the first child says he called my mum a white slag and then attacked me.
	That boy was 11. Jamal was 14 or 15, yeah?
	The next girl stands up and says he spat in my face and slapped me.
	The next girl stands up and says he beat me up with a hockey stick.
	The next pupil says that I saw him beat her up with a hockey stick, yeah?
	Another teacher said females couldn't talk to him.
	He was aggressive.
	Then the school records show he gets caught with a knife and screwdriver.
	I go to another pupil's house, a little black boy, and I wear the camera.
	He gets stabbed by him at school, draws blood.
	I've got the school record.
	That says he drew blood in a stabbing incident.
	But the judge ruled everything was a lie.
	That's what the judge's ruling was.
	Everything.
	The five pupils come to court, committed perjury.
	That's what he says.
	They all lied.
	And the only person telling the truth was Jamal.
	Now, when I...
	I represented myself, yeah?
	Because I'd already spent £100,000.
	I spent £100,000.
	I had no more money.
	I represented myself.
	I got up to question Bailey McLaren, the English boy.
	I said, I've gone through your school records.
	Do you know how many...
	Incidents of lying.
	Because there's a record on their school records for lying.
	Do you know how many incidents of records of lying you've got?
	Because he had a bad school record, Bailey did, as well, yeah?
	He was a bit of a troublesome child as well.
	The white boy who poured the water on him.
	And I said, do you know how many incidents of lying you've got?
	He said, how many?
	I said, none.
	Jamal, littered, lying, lying, lying, lying.
	So his school records proves he's a liar.
	The teachers on camera, one describes him as a liar about 20 times, yeah?
	But the judge found the only person out this entire trial to be telling the truth was a Syrian refugee.
	He didn't bring one person to court to give evidence.
	His own caseworker, in the emails that we got possession of, said Jamal is not the innocent party he portrays himself as.
	That was his caseworker.
	But the injustice I felt at the end of this trial to then produce all the evidence, win the case 100%.
	There's no jury.
	He's just a judge.
	He rules that five pupils lied.
	The seven teachers on covert recordings were all lying.
	And he's one of the most intellectual minds in our country.
	He's the head judge for media at the High Court of Justice.
	He says, sometimes people just lie.
	They don't need a reason to lie.
	They just lie.
	I'm like, are you for real?
	I couldn't remember.
	I thought I was mistaking that for the case with the New York judge in Trump's case where he's talking about Michael Cohen, the convicted perjurer.
	And he says, yes, true, some fact finders might have given a bit of a hard time to a convicted perjurer, but it's not because he's a convicted perjurer that he lies all the time and I think that he's telling the truth now.
	This is in the Trump case.
	In another case, I mean, it's just, it's motivated reasoning.
	Whatever conclusion they want to come to, yeah, liar, liar, and I don't have to explain why.
	And in defamation, it only has to be based on probabilities.
	So you don't even have to, it's not as much of a result as in criminal cases.
	It just has to be probability.
	So what I said was he threatened to stab someone, which is what the young English child said.
	Well, that's not defamation because his school records show he did stab someone.
	And his school records show that he had a knife and a screwdriver caught in position off at school.
	It's like, how can you rule against me?
	But he ruled against me because the purpose of that case, which is lawfare, was to destroy me.
	It was to take everything I own and to leave me with nothing, to put my family in a non-safe environment, to make sure that they're reliant on the state.
	Because if they're reliant on the state...
	Then they're housed by the state, which puts them where?
	They're not safe.
	They know that.
	They know what they were doing.
	But that is law.
	And Katie Hopkins, if you know Katie Hopkins, they took her home.
	They've done exactly the same.
	It was in the documentary where one of the, I think it was one of the girls who complained or talked about the kid.
	Did they house her in a very, when she had to leave her house, they put her in a very questionable part of town?
	No, Bailey.
	So the lead imam travels past 40 other mosques.
	I don't know if you remember.
	In the UK, there was a school in Batley where a teacher spoke about the cartoon of Mohammed.
	Now, mass protests come outside the school by Mufti Pandur.
	Mufti Pandur was the religious imam who rallied mobs of men outside the school.
	That school teacher from two years ago, three years ago maybe, maybe three, four years ago, is still in protective custody now.
	Because his life's in danger.
	Now, Samuel Paty was another schoolteacher in France.
	They cut his head off in the school.
	The Muslims cut his head.
	Kids were involved in setting up.
	They cut his head off in the school.
	So this schoolteacher, an English schoolteacher, none of our politicians stood by him.
	He had a free speech discussion.
	He is still in protective custody of the state right now because his life's in danger.
	The imam who led those protests outside the school is a man called Mufti Pandur.
	Mufti Pandur is in charge of certain sects of mosques.
	He's in charge of them, yeah?
	When Bailey, the white boy, had all these threats against his life after this incident with the Syrian refugee, Mufti Pandur brings a mob of Muslims from another town outside the school gates.
	Bailey's family are taken into hiding from the police.
	The police take them to the most Muslim populated area of a city called Leeds in Beeston.
	The mosque opposite where they house him is run by Mufti Pandur, the imam who's got the mob of men outside the school.
	You couldn't make it up.
	You just couldn't.
	But then when you get to the hierarchy, which we look at in the documentary, who's in control of the council?
	Who's in control of all of this?
	Mufti Pandur's brother, Shabir Pandur, who is now...
	Since our documentary had to resign for fraud.
	So Mufti Pandur, the religious imam extremist who's rallying all the mobs of extremism, his brother's in control of the council.
	His brother signs off the cheques for £275,000 to pay the teachers to not open their mouth about this case.
	So the whole time, their other friend, their other friend who's a celebrity Muslim lawyer, is the one who fronts the case against me.
	He brings me to court, their other mate.
	Whilst they're all silenced and no one can tell the truth, I'm put through the legal system and ruled against, and not even allowed to tell anyone.
	Not even allowed to show anyone the evidence.
	They've got it all sewn up.
	And then the headlines now, if you go online, Tommy Robertson lies about Syrian refugee child.
	It's like, no, I didn't.
	I didn't lie.
	I stand on that hill and I'll die on that hill.
	Made the decision not to back down on that case for that young English kid because you ruined his life.
	You portrayed him as a racist.
	He comes, I don't know if I've told you this.
	When I went up there, so I went up to interview the family.
	The mum's crying and she's crying and she's in a hotel hiding, yeah?
	And I said, she said, Tommy, I've spent all our Christmas money, yeah?
	I said, where are you going to go?
	She said, I've got nowhere to go, yeah?
	They live four hours from me.
	I said, all right.
	I said, I'm going to come back up and pick you all up tomorrow.
	She had two little sisters.
	I said, I'm going to come back and pick you all up tomorrow.
	You can come.
	I'll get you somewhere safe to stay, yeah?
	So I go pick them up and I put them in my house, right?
	They're in my house for six months at the time, yeah?
	The little sisters.
	The little sisters.
	Only then, so Bailey, Christmas Eve, and I've got this, I'll show this in the film, in the mental health records, in the cast.
	I think that's the mental health group.
	He barricades himself inside a room and tries to kill himself.
	Yeah, the little kid, the school kid.
	He was a school child, tries to kill himself.
	No one cares about that.
	No one would have cared if he did kill himself.
	Because all they cared about was pushing their narrative of open border immigration, celebrating.
	And obviously, Bailey being English must be racist.
	Syrian refugee must be a victim.
	Cultural Marxism.
	That's what they cared about.
	Bailey come to live with me.
	He lived with me for three or four years after that.
	His mum and that moved back up in the area they were from.
	He stayed down here.
	He got work, got an apprenticeship.
	But he still struggled the whole way through it.
	He had to leave his whole family.
	He had to leave everything.
	And no one cared.
	So I said at the time, they were like, apologise and pay £50,000.
	I'm not apologising.
	I'm never apologising.
	And Bailey, I think he was messaging me yesterday.
	And when this court case came, he's like, this is all my fault.
	I said, it's not your fault.
	You've done nothing wrong.
	You're just a kid at school.
	This is not your fault.
	You've done nothing at all wrong to warrant this.
	The attack, I've got, my son's now the same age as Bailey was at that time.
	I don't know how that kid dealt with the world against him like that.
	The world was against him on this film.
	He was the most wanted man because he was portrayed and lied about as a racist bully.
	And he wasn't.
	He was a nice kid.
	A really nice kid.
	Is the case dead in that it's beyond appeal?
	The judgment is the judgment and there's no further appeal possible?
	There's no further appeal possible.
	So I'd spent £100,000 on that case.
	I then represented myself.
	And I'll tell you, at the end of that trial, I was drained.
	Absolutely dead.
	They ruled against me.
	As you see in the film, they sent people to my family's home.
	It resulted in my divorce.
	This whole thing ruined my life.
	And at the end of that case, I was so just, oh man.
	And then they put the injunction that I couldn't show people.
	It's like, so now the media can run with the lies that I didn't tell the truth.
	And I told them, in fact, the truth was far worse.
	As soon as I went up to Huddersfield and started speaking to teachers, I was like, they're suing me.
	They're suing me.
	He's far worse than what I said.
	Look what I'm finding out now.
	So, yeah, but again, that's what I'm used to with the politicisation of the judiciary.
	That's why this case was such a surprise for me, man.
	Such a surprise.
	A mild silver lining.
	Tommy, do you have a few minutes if we were to go to Locals and do a little Q&A, like people can ask you direct questions?
	I'm free.
	I will not abuse of your time.
	Let me just do one thing and I'll read because there are a bunch of questions in Rumble.
	But come on over to Locals, people.
	I wasn't brave like Tommy, so I moved to Canada over 20 years ago.
	Oh, the irony, says QFrager.
	Hey, Tommy, I'm from Dorking.
	Is that a real place?
	And used to go to Luton like Tommy.
	Hold on.
	I hear myself.
	There we go.
	Stay safe, mates.
	Then we got MMAGA1 says, what a legend.
	Tommy's no slouch either.
	Thanks for fighting.
	Thanks for fighting, guys.
	I can't take credit.
	I can only interview the guys who...
	I don't know how you do it, Tommy.
	The man under the stairs says, support from Northern Ireland, Tom.
	No surrender.
	That means production or prod.
	Oh, proud.
	From the north, we stand with you.
	Oh, okay.
	Sorry, sorry.
	I thought maybe it was Proud and the view was missing.
	Ginger Ninja says, much prefer today's guest from yesterday's.
	It's good to hear the other side.
	Funny, the guy running for the judge admits civilly disobeying anti-Second Amendment laws, but I guarantee he'll jail others for doing the thing.
	Ginger, thank you.
	That was a guest we had yesterday.
	So what I'm going to do now, I'm going to end this here.
	It doesn't change anything from our end, Tommy.
	I mean, locals, Rumble, come on over to locals.
	I'll give everybody the link one more time.
	I know there's questions there and I want to...
	We'll have a little time there.
	It'll be good.
	Okay.
	Hold on a second.
	Link here.
	And I'm going to end it on Rumble.
	And I will see you all tomorrow for sure.
	Tommy, stay here.
	And 3, 2, 1. Ending the live stream.
	And we're on Locals.
	Okay.
	Now, in Locals, get your questions in, people.

▲