Tommy Robinson

[AlterEgo]

I'm not sure he's even the product of issues. He's an attention seeker. And it's disturbing that anyone takes him seriously.

Conventional wisdom is that anyone using multiple names is probably up to no good. Beyond that, he ran tanning salons, has entirely unjustifiable views, and had a colin the caterpillar cake for his last birthday (at a very middle class Beefeater).

Wow that’s a terrible slur.

Can you evidence that he was seen inside a Beefeater with a Colin Caterpillar cake?

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Looks like Tommy might be getting himself some company in the stint if any of the five arrests lead anywhere in this case. Course if the courts and police had any sense, they'd keep them away from each other, cause I can safely assume that I don't think any of us would fancy seeing an event like one particular incident in 1990 at Strangeways.

Five police officers were injured as a demonstration in London in support of jailed ex-English Defence League leader Tommy Robinson turned violent.

Riot officers were deployed as hundreds of protesters blocked the roads around Trafalgar Square.

Five arrests were later made after Robinson supporters took over a sightseeing bus, and missiles and smoke bombs were thrown.

Robinson, 35, was jailed for contempt of court last month.

Appearing at Leeds Crown Court under his real name of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, he was sentenced to 13 months on 29 May after broadcasting on social media about an ongoing trial at the court.

A judge told Robinson, from Bedfordshire, his actions could cause the trial to be re-run, costing "hundreds and hundreds of thousands of pounds".

Suddenly I'm feeling a greater reluctance to go easy on the man for his actions by just calling him misguided and irrational. At this point it's more reasonable to suggest that he's too reckless for his own good. His desperate attempts to try and assist justice has just lead to a possible trial re-run, which will cost the taxpayers money. No matter how well intentioned his actions may be, the results are what matter, and as we can see the results are now potentially hindering the justice he may well have so craved. I get he values his free speech, but he needs to learn that sometimes it's just best to keep his mouth shut. If he did that and abstained from broadcasting the trial then this may well not have happened. Never mind the fact he was breaking the law in contempt of court anyway.

 

[mmh]

I just hope Tommy Robinson, or Stephen Yaxley-Lennon if we insist on calling him by his real name

I hope people stop doing that. It brings nothing to the conversation at all. He's known by his nom de plume, and regardless of whether he's guilty or not, or an arsehole or not, it's pointless.

 

[yorkie]

... No matter how well intentioned his actions may be, ....

Nonsense.

His actions were ill-intentioned and he knew exactly what he was doing.

 

[mmh]

I'm not sure he's even the product of issues. He's an attention seeker. And it's disturbing that anyone takes him seriously.

Conventional wisdom is that anyone using multiple names is probably up to no good.

Mahatma Gandhi and Katie Price, take note.

Beyond that, he ran tanning salons

Katie Price, take double note!

 

[farleigh]

Did Gandhi use mulrtple names, or did he do the caterpillar cake thing?

 

[DarloRich]

try and assist justice has just lead to a possible trial re-run, which will cost the taxpayers money. No matter how well intentioned his actions may be

Why cant you and others grasp this very simple concept: Yaxley Lennon was NOT trying to assist justice nor were his actions well intentioned.

I hope people stop doing that. It brings nothing to the conversation at all. He's known by his nom de plume, and regardless of whether he's guilty or not, or an arsehole or not, it's pointless.

Why? His name is Yaxley-Lennon. Look up R v Yaxley-Lennon. He was jailed under Yaxley- Lennon. He has not changed his name despite what his stage name may have you believe.

 

[SteveP29]

Again the people who are clearly on the left here are more concerned with the 'thicko/Gammon/yob/EDL' reaction than the fact that there are cases of groups of men from particular ethnic backgrounds who prey on vulnerable people.

I'm more concerned about justice being served, whether they're white, black, brown, yellow, sky blue pink. Seeing justice take its course is paramount. If some bucknugget like Yaxley-Lennon disrupts or prevents that from happening, then it is only right and proper that he become a part of that justice system.
I'm sure you'd be more than chuffed if your children were the victims here and the actions of this dickhead caused the person(s) responsible to be acquitted.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Looks like Tommy might be getting himself some company in the stint if any of the five arrests lead anywhere in this case. Course if the courts and police had any sense, they'd keep them away from each other, cause I can safely assume that I don't think any of us would fancy seeing an event like one particular incident in 1990 at Strangeways.


Suddenly I'm feeling a greater reluctance to go easy on the man for his actions by just calling him misguided and irrational. At this point it's more reasonable to suggest that he's too reckless for his own good. His desperate attempts to try and assist justice has just lead to a possible trial re-run, which will cost the taxpayers money. No matter how well intentioned his actions may be, the results are what matter, and as we can see the results are now potentially hindering the justice he may well have so craved. I get he values his free speech, but he needs to learn that sometimes it's just best to keep his mouth shut. If he did that and abstained from broadcasting the trial then this may well not have happened. Never mind the fact he was breaking the law in contempt of court anyway.

Glad to see you're coming round, but for the 835th time: this case has nothing at all to do with free speech and everything to do with ensuring that criminal convictions (even, or perhaps especially when it comes to real scumbags) are safe.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Why cant you and others grasp this very simple concept: Yaxley Lennon was NOT trying to assist justice nor were his actions well intentioned.

It’s me giving him the benefit of the doubt by suggesting he thought breaking the law was a price worth paying for doing what he thought was right. Nobody is denying the fact that even he knew he was guilty and what he did was wrong. A man who steals bread to feed a starving family knows it’s wrong but he thinks it’s worth it so his family doesn’t starve.

We can argue over his intentions all day really, but either way it doesn’t take away from the fact that his stupid stunt didn’t work and now he’s landed himself a stint in jail and disrupted the trial he was trying to broadcast. Really his intentions don’t really matter to me, because the results are what matter, and as you may have guessed by the whole post of the BBC article, they’re not ones I’m pleased with.

Glad to see you're coming round, but for the 835th time: this case has nothing at all to do with free speech and everything to do with ensuring that criminal convictions (even, or perhaps especially when it comes to real scumbags) are safe.

What do you mean coming round? At no point was I ever on the side of Tommy Robinson, nor did I ever even mention it as a free speech issue! All I’ve really said was that he’s got his influence because he’s doing reports on grooming gangs that were poorly dealt with by relevant authorities. But as I also said in my original post and several times, I’ve little sympathy for a man who breaks the law after being warned several times. I also said that if he’d kept his mouth shut then things wouldn’t be as they are. The mention of free speech was merely a tongue-in-cheek remark since it’s what his supporters think it’s all about. I’ve been simply given him the benefit of the doubt about his actual intent. All I care about is getting the other trial done with again, and hopefully we don’t have another twit trying to be a crusader of justice.

 

[yorkie]

It’s me giving him the benefit of the doubt by suggesting he thought breaking the law was a price worth paying for doing what he thought was right. Nobody is denying the fact that even he knew he was guilty and what he did was wrong. A man who steals bread to feed a starving family knows it’s wrong but he thinks it’s worth it so his family doesn’t starve.

He did it because he knew he would be jailed and he wanted the publicity of that and he wanted his supporters to be enraged by it.

We can argue over his intentions all day really, but either way it doesn’t take away from the fact that his stupid stunt didn’t work and now he’s landed himself a stint in jail and disrupted the trial he was trying to broadcast. Really his intentions don’t really matter to me, because the results are what matter, and as you may have guessed by the whole post of the BBC article, they’re not ones I’m pleased with.

On the contrary. His plan did work! He has successfully got the publicity he craves and successfully got his rabble of racist supporters protesting.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

On the contrary. His plan did work! He has successfully got the publicity he craves and successfully got his rabble of racist supporters protesting.

At the cost of disrupting justice? No idea what he expects to gain in the long term really. But then again, he passed the point of being considered smart when he violated his first warnings.

 

[yorkie]

At the cost of disrupting justice? No idea what he expects to gain in the long term really.

Publicity, anger (among his thick racist supporters) leading to protests by the racists, and more division in our society...

 

[mmh]

Why? His name is Yaxley-Lennon. Look up R v Yaxley-Lennon. He was jailed under Yaxley- Lennon. He has not changed his name despite what his stage name may have you believe.

I know that's his name. It's no different to, for some examples, the people who used to insist on calling Tony Benn "Anthony Wedgwood Benn." Or Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson. Or calling George Osborne "Gideon".

It serves no purpose.

 

[DarloRich]

It’s me giving him the benefit of the doubt by suggesting he thought breaking the law was a price worth paying for doing what he thought was right. Nobody is denying the fact that even he knew he was guilty and what he did was wrong. A man who steals bread to feed a starving family knows it’s wrong but he thinks it’s worth it so his family doesn’t starve.

We can argue over his intentions all day really, but either way it doesn’t take away from the fact that his stupid stunt didn’t work and now he’s landed himself a stint in jail and disrupted the trial he was trying to broadcast. Really his intentions don’t really matter to me, because the results are what matter, and as you may have guessed by the whole post of the BBC article, they’re not ones I’m pleased with.

There is no doubt to give nor any need to argue over this intentions. They are clear. Stop trying to defend him.

He wasn't trying to foster public debate on the issues nor was he battling for free speech or any other rubbish. He was trying to, directly or indirectly, connect those of the Muslim faith with child abuse and by extension try to develop some kind of conspiracy theory that "leftists" seek to defend brown people over our own pure, innocent, white children, increase his own publicity, keep his "brand" relevant with his fellow alt right nut jobs AND sir up racial hatred.

I know that's his name. It's no different to, for some examples, the people who used to insist on calling Tony Benn "Anthony Wedgwood Benn." Or Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson. Or calling George Osborne "Gideon".

he was sentenced under the name Yaxley-Lennon. It is entirely correct to refer to him in those terms. I would be more worried about his behaviour than worrying about his name but each thier own.

PS I wonder why he feels the need to use a more common sounding name..................

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Stop trying to defend him.

At no point have I been trying to defend him. Giving someone the benefit of the doubt over their intentions is not the same thing as defending someone. I’ve said several times his intentions didn’t matter to me either way since it’s the results that are what important to me. If I’d have been defending him I’d have already gone about how he should’ve been freed already, when as stated several times I’ve got no sympathy for him because I feel he deserved what he’d gotten.

At this point I’m honestly starting to wonder if you’re deliberately ignoring those parts of the posts or if you are wilfully misunderstanding what I’ve been saying for the sake of establishing some kind of righteous moral superiority. I’ve tried to tell myself that wasn’t the case but the fact your relishing over something I’ve already said didn’t matter to me as much as the outcome is giving me a really hard time doing so.

I’ve said SEVERAL TIMES that what the man did was stupid, how he’s at best misguided, irrational and too reckless, how his intentions do not matter to me since the results are what matters, and how I’ve little sympathy for a man who breaks the law after several warnings. But because I even dared question his motives possibly being something other than hate-driven, I’m suddenly some kind of EDL sympathiser who defends the actions of someone whose disrupted the justice system and cost the taxpayers money.

 

[bnm]

PS I wonder why he feels the need to use a more common sounding name..................

Coz it sounds moor Ingerlish innit.

Can't have people questioning his 'Lennon' Irish ancestry now can we?

 

[WelshBluebird]

I do find it quite ironic that these people marching and causing violence in the name of getting someone freed from jail despite being found guilty (and pleading guilty) of breaking the same law multiple times are the same people who love to shout about how those moving to this country should respect and abide by our laws. Does that not apply to one of their own too?

 

[DarloRich]

Giving someone the benefit of the doubt

There is no benefit to give in this case. He pleaded guilty to the offence. He knew what he was doing, he knew he had been given an unambiguous warning as to future conduct and he set out to launch a publicity stunt without any regard to the impact on a very serious trial.

His motives in doing so are also clear and are also very important. I find it odd you can not see this and seek to find some reason to excuse or explain them. Why, for instance, does a blatant attempt to stir up race hatred not matter to you? Why, for instance, does an attempt to portray all members of the Muslim faith as serial child abusers not concern you? Why, for instance, does a riot in London caused by his supporters not concern you? Why, for instance are you only worried about the impact on the tax payer rather than the impact on the victims of collapsed trial?

These are the results of his intentions. It seems you are more worried about him being stupid rather than the more concerning underlying views, motives and ideology.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I know that's his name. It's no different to, for some examples, the people who used to insist on calling Tony Benn "Anthony Wedgwood Benn." Or Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson. Or calling George Osborne "Gideon".

It serves no purpose.

Full disclosure: I referred to him by his given name initially, subsequently that name was offered by my phone so I stuck with it because I'm lazy!

 

[takno]

I’ve said SEVERAL TIMES that what the man did was stupid, how he’s at best misguided, irrational and too reckless, how his intentions do not matter to me since the results are what matters, and how I’ve little sympathy for a man who breaks the law after several warnings. But because I even dared question his motives possibly being something other than hate-driven, I’m suddenly some kind of EDL sympathiser who defends the actions of someone whose disrupted the justice system and cost the taxpayers money.

The whole fantasy that there is some kind of massive problem with muslims abusing children and "the establishment" and "the left" and all sorts of other groups are trying to cover it up is a poisonous fiction. That's really the most important point for me in the whole affair, and it's way too easy for people to end up believing the core lie because they've been allowed to divert their thinking onto the Yaxley-Lennon sideshow.

I'd say the people peddling or buying into that lie are a mixture of people who fell for it wholesale and believe that they are doing something to help the kids, people who don't believe it but want to whip up trouble in support of their own agenda, and people who just like to meet up on a Saturday for a fight.

I think Yaxley-Lennon is probably 90% in it for a fight, and as such is much the same as most Socialist Workers. They're fringe elements that use politics as an excuse for their punch ups, just like they used football in the 80s. Really that wouldn't matter if modern technology hadn't given the clowns a platform to talk. The problem is that they've formed a toxic alliance with sweet-talking extremists with wild anti-muslim and nationalist agendas, and are spreading a pretty unpleasant message.

Sure Yaxley-Lennon isn't some kind of evil genius, he's just a very naughty boy. He's obviously running around leading some kind of fantasy life where he's a brave hero, just one more ridiculous video away from saving the world. At that level I could probably agree with you that he's not bright enough to have thought of getting locked up as a martyr - I would far more easily believe he had no idea what he was doing and why there were rules, and has got completely out of his depth. Even the people who got arrested over the weekend are just idiots on a bus - there is no meaningful political element to what they did and they should get locked up for it as they would for any other assault and criminal damage.

The problem really isn't that people are making a convincing case that this is a free-speech issue or that Yaxley-Lennon is a martyr. The problem is that people are talking about that, even though 99% of people seem to be rubbishing it. All the time they are doing that the big lie, the one about most abusers being muslims and about how "the establishment" are covering it up, seems to just sit there unquestioned. If you let lies like that linger while you discuss the petty motivations of a small-time thug then it becomes the unquestioned narrative of the day, and then we're all screwed.

 

[Samuel88]

The funny thing is that his knuckle dragging supporters would be calling for his hanging if he wasn't white with the things he's been convicted of, drug dealing and such.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

His motives in doing so are also clear and are also very important. I find it odd you can not see this and seek to find some reason to excuse or explain them.

I don't. I'm just not automatically jumping to the conclusions of it being based solely on hatred. The fact is, he might just have been delusional enough to believe that knowingly breaking the law was worth it so just so he could report on an issue he's been keenly following, or he may well have been motivated by hatred, or he could just desperately want to stir up publicity. For all we know, he might have had all three in mind, since it would likely give him both the publicity, the desired stirred up hatred, and even a backup excuse of having good intentions as a reason to do what he did. Either way, he still deserves to be behind bars at this point.

Why, for instance, does a blatant attempt to stir up race hatred not matter to you? Why, for instance, does an attempt to portray all members of the Muslim faith as serial child abusers not concern you?

Actually at this point I'm just waiting for an inevitable story about some people being unable to distinguish individuals from their race groups and attacking a member of the British Asian community and/or a Muslim just because they are of the same community as the respective rape gangs in this case. If they really want to operate like that then the least they could do is look to themselves and see they're of the same community of the paedophiles in Thatcher's cabinet. If they're Christians maybe they can also see how they're of the religion of child-abusing priests as well.

Why, for instance, does a riot in London caused by his supporters not concern you?

Not sure you've noticed, but it does. I even went as far as to share a story about police officers being hurt at the protests, even suggesting that imprisoning any of them together with Robinson could very well end up like the prison riot at Strangeways (presumably you know about that).

Looks like Tommy might be getting himself some company in the stint if any of the five arrests lead anywhere in this case. Course if the courts and police had any sense, they'd keep them away from each other, cause I can safely assume that I don't think any of us would fancy seeing an event like one particular incident in 1990 at Strangeways.

Why, for instance are you only worried about the impact on the tax payer rather than the impact on the victims of collapsed trial?

The taxpayer comment was written to make a point of how his actions have a wider effect on a lot of us even if it doesn't directly involve us. As for the victims of the collapsed trails, that's probably all the more reasons to be annoyed at this twit thinking he's some kind of crusader. Also, it's not like I've been happy that the collapsed trial has happened. Quite the opposite if you see below...

Having said that, if they ever were brought to justice, last thing we'd want is Robinson doing what he did here and potentially disrupting the whole process just because of his own irrational actions driven by the desperate desires to do what he does

No matter how well intentioned his actions may be, the results are what matter, and as we can see the results are now potentially hindering the justice he may well have so craved.

We can argue over his intentions all day really, but either way it doesn’t take away from the fact that his stupid stunt didn’t work and now he’s landed himself a stint in jail and disrupted the trial he was trying to broadcast. Really his intentions don’t really matter to me, because the results are what matter, and as you may have guessed by the whole post of the BBC article, they’re not ones I’m pleased with.

All I care about is getting the other trial done with again, and hopefully we don’t have another twit trying to be a crusader of justice.

I think you can tell at this point that I'm not at all happy about the collapsed trial because of the disruption of our justice system and hindering the whole process. I don't care what his intentions may be, stuff like that doesn't help anyone involved in the trials in the slightest.

These are the results of his intentions. It seems you are more worried about him being stupid rather than the more concerning underlying views, motives and ideology.

Not quite. It his willingness to act upon his intentions that caused all of this. You can very well have intentions that you do not act upon. Regardless though, the underlying views, motives and ideology of a man also does not concern me so long as there is no direct incitement of violence or violation of human rights, or at the very least doesn't act upon those said views should they hold them. Now I will question how they are able to rationalise such views of course, and I myself wouldn't turn down the opportunity to debate Tommy Robinson just to see where he comes from and how he is able to rationalise what he does and how he sees the world. Only problem is that I don't know how long I could tolerate his vibe of sounding like he's about to get into a fight at the pub. Not to mention, his supporters would probably be calling me all sorts just for asking reasonable questions and for daring to challenge their noble all-knowing messiah. I'd also quite like to have a word with that Nick Griffin and Paul Golding of Britain First as well. It definitely seems like the latter cannot differentiate between an individual and their ideology.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

I do find it quite ironic that these people marching and causing violence in the name of getting someone freed from jail despite being found guilty (and pleading guilty) of breaking the same law multiple times are the same people who love to shout about how those moving to this country should respect and abide by our laws. Does that not apply to one of their own too?

Maybe there is a part they're not telling us about in their beliefs that state they are our laws to break but nobody else's, therefore only people born and living here can break them, because... English nationalism? Don't worry, I find it stupid as well, so you won't be alone if you want to scratch your head in confusion.

 

[BlythPower]

Drove up and down the M40 yesterday, absolutely 'charming' banner posted in a roadside field. "UKIP supports Tommy Robinson - imprisoned for exposing grooming gangs" and on the other side, "Pray for Tommy Robinson". Don't know which Oxfordshire-based shower put them there, but at very least they're purposefully missing the point. And if they actually speak for UKIP...that's going to go well isn't it?

Heading North up the M40 Sunday lunchtime, someone had sprayed a spurting c**k onto the billboard. N.B. Not a portrait of 'Tommy'.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

I'm going to add to this, however this is from a neutral point of view and I've added proof to back up my post.

Since the arrest of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon I.e. Tommy Robinson people from all walks of life have got behind him. Doesn’t matter if their centre left, centre right or even centre, it’s the fact that Stephen Yaxley-Lennon has had the balls to stand up and say what most people are thinking.

Exhibit A - a Sikh siding with Stephen Yaxley-Lennon / Tommy Robinson.

OK, he may now been seen as a martyr by some but should he been killed whilst in prison, his views as a martyr will only grow stronger.

Exhibit B - Paul Weston’s view on the Orwellian arrest of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon / Tommy Robinson.

Exhibit C - Paul Weston’s view on the media, of which one reporter - a Matt Millington (former On The Aire reporter for Made In Leeds TV) who now works for LeedsLive went and put Stephen Yaxley-Lennon’s own family and children at risk by publishing Lennon’s home address. I am lead to believe that the said article which featured Yaxley-Lennon’s address has since been taken down.

Surely there may have been things in the past that he (Lennon) has done which may have been questionable, but the fact is this - without him raising such an issue and a sensitive one at that, how long could it have been before someone higher up found out that their own daughter had been raped by some big bearded male of Asian descent, but would have been told to keep quiet about it as they would have been labelled as racist by the Liberal left?

Exhibit D - Sarah Champion also raised the issue and later quit the front bench.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40952224

My mates father is a Labour supporter, yet he fully agrees to what Stephen Yaxley-Lennon has done to expose the grooming gangs. So its not all a “far right” thing as many are lead to believe but a thing that affects the whole political spectrum.

 

[Samuel88]

I'm going to add to this, however this is from a neutral point of view and I've added proof to back up my post.

Since the arrest of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon I.e. Tommy Robinson people from all walks of life have got behind him. Doesn’t matter if their centre left, centre right or even centre, it’s the fact that Stephen Yaxley-Lennon has had the balls to stand up and say what most people are thinking.

Exhibit A - a Sikh siding with Stephen Yaxley-Lennon / Tommy Robinson.

OK, he may now been seen as a martyr by some but should he been killed whilst in prison, his views as a martyr will only grow stronger.

Exhibit B - Paul Weston’s view on the Orwellian arrest of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon / Tommy Robinson.

Exhibit C - Paul Weston’s view on the media, of which one reporter - a Matt Millington (former On The Aire reporter for Made In Leeds TV) who now works for LeedsLive went and put Stephen Yaxley-Lennon’s own family and children at risk by publishing Lennon’s home address. I am lead to believe that the said article which featured Yaxley-Lennon’s address has since been taken down.

Surely there may have been things in the past that he (Lennon) has done which may have been questionable, but the fact is this - without him raising such an issue and a sensitive one at that, how long could it have been before someone higher up found out that their own daughter had been raped by some big bearded male of Asian descent, but would have been told to keep quiet about it as they would have been labelled as racist by the Liberal left?

Exhibit D - Sarah Champion also raised the issue and later quit the front bench.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40952224

My mates father is a Labour supporter, yet he fully agrees to what Stephen Yaxley-Lennon has done to expose the grooming gangs. So its not all a “far right” thing as many are lead to believe but a thing that affects the whole political spectrum.

As for exhibit A it is a well known fact that many Sikhs have a dislike of Muslims. There were one or two token Sikhs in the BNP, and they are expressly forbidden from taking part in some Islamic practices such as eating halal food

 

[nlogax]

Cheers for the pro-Robinson arguments but I'm more likely to be swayed by an internet sale of perpetual motion machines or a cruise to the very edge of the flat earth.

Robinson is a racist, deluded thug intent on spreading hate and division, using the inherent prejudices of others to further his vile cause. Anyone that believes otherwise needs their head or motives examined.

 

[EM2]

...it’s the fact that Stephen Yaxley-Lennon has had the balls to stand up and say what most people are thinking.

I doubt that very much.

 

[DarloRich]

I'm going to add to this, however this is from a neutral point of view and I've added proof to back up my post.

no it isn't. BTW top marks for linking to the leader in the UK of Pegida. Shows your stance better than words alone.

Since the arrest of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon I.e. Tommy Robinson people from all walks of life have got behind him. Doesn’t matter if their centre left, centre right or even centre, it’s the fact that Stephen Yaxley-Lennon has had the balls to stand up and say what most people are thinking.

And most they been proved wrong. He isn't a journalist or free speech defender and there is no conspiracy. He is a common criminal and agitator for unpleasant views who rightly went to prison for his crimes. It is such a shame that he didn't find time to agitate outside the trial of various EDL nonces. I wonder why....................

Exhibit B - Paul Weston’s view on the Orwellian arrest of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon / Tommy Robinson.

There wasn't an "Orwellian" jailing of Yaxley-Lennon. He broke the law while serving a suspended sentence and he was sent to prison for that crime. I listened to 10 seconds of that interview and the presenter immediately tried to link the arrest and imprisonment to the fact that a brown person was home secretary. It is balderdash of the highest order. It is sad you lack the ability to see thorough the rubbish you lap up. There is no conspiracy despite what alt right nut jobs want you to believe.

Surely there may have been things in the past that he (Lennon) has done which may have been questionable,

No - there are many things in the past that he has done that are criminal - as shown by his long criminal record.

without him raising such an issue and a sensitive one at that, how long could it have been before someone higher up found out that their own daughter had been raped by some big bearded male of Asian descent

Straight out of the EDL media play book. People cant walk the streets without been nonced by dirty Muslims with big beards. Send them back. ( to Birmingham or Bradford)