Thursday 19 July 2018

Knock knock

I might as well go proper far-right and link to this comment by ‘namenotnumber’ on the Biased-BBC blog. It’s a list of tweets by Ezra Levant which highlight some of the hypocrisy surrounding the Tommy Robinson fiasco.
The reason I’m doing so is that although there are undoubtedly legitimate technical reasons for the current Tommy Robinson situation, (his imprisonment and so on, which certain admirable people have defended and taken pains to justify) the individual who blogs as “The Secret Barrister” has let himself/herself/xeself down by using some emotive, nay, pejorative language when recounting the background to the affair. 
I can even detect a whiff of  disdain in the first sentence: 
Today the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) heard the appeal of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (AKA Tommy Robinson).
The fact that TR uses a pseudonym (and we all know what his real name is) dwelling on it in that particular way seems gratuitous and a little bit rich coming from The Secret Barrister who wishes to remain pseudonymous.

Call me an ignorant fool who's indulging in a bit of whataboutery, but although I see (and sympathise with) Melanie's point, I have to say that if Tommy Robinson jeopardised the trial of the “men” accused of grooming and raping young girls by using pejorative language while live-blogging in the vicinity of the court, what does that say about the TSB and the reporter from the Independent he/she/xe praises :
“The excellent Lizzie Dearden of the Independent who provided a comprehensive live-blog of the hearing from the Royal Courts of Justice,”
...who seems to be doing something very similar (and, arguably, influencing TR's trial.)

Now that the police have been instructed to concentrate on hate-crimes far-right extremists like myself are apprehensively listening for the knock on the door. What hate-crime have I committed? I think being far-right is one.
Didn't Gabriel Gatehouse let his agenda hang out on Newsnight last night? If that’s impartiality, I’m a Dutchman.


  1. Gatehouse made a fool of himself by trying to show up a woman who correctly said what Sharia law is in relation to the legal age of consent,claiming he had superior knowledge to her (the woman was clearly not that well educated or confident to engage in such debate on camera, but she was right). Gatehouse claimed that this law was not enacted anywhere in the Middle East. Really? What about Iran for starters? And even if the "formal" law in many of these countries does not reflect Sharia, that is not the same as saying that Sharia isn't operating in those countries - it often is, and is tolerated by the authorities.

  2. Did Melanie Phillips admit to an interest, in that her husband Joshua Rosenberg interviewed Lord Leveson about contempt of court. Leveson was the first judge slated to hear the appeal. Without explanation that was changed. But only after it came out that in that interview with JR he explicitly stated Tommy Robinson was clearly, in his opinion, guilty of the offence. The interesting thing is that Leveson didn't seem, initially, to think that disqualified him from hearing the case! Such is the quality of our judges.


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.