Tommy Robinson, the far-right activist known by his real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, was arrested a day after leading a major demonstration in central London. The arrest took place at the Channel tunnel in Folkestone under the Terrorism Act 2000, according to a post on Robinson’s X account. Thousands had marched in London on Saturday as part of an event organized by Robinson, which also saw a counterprotest from opposition groups.

 

A statement from Robinson’s X account on Sunday confirmed: “We can confirm that Tommy Robinson has been detained by police using powers afforded to them under the Terrorism Act 2000.” Kent police later clarified that the 41-year-old man was detained under Schedule 7 of the Act, which permits police to stop, examine, and search passengers at ports, airports, and international rail terminals. He was subsequently arrested for "frustration of a Schedule 7 examination" but has since been released on bail pending further inquiries.

 

Robinson's arrest follows an incident where he allegedly screened a documentary against high court orders during the demonstration. The film, titled "Silenced," repeats false claims Robinson made about a Syrian refugee, leading to a libel case he lost in 2021. As a result, Robinson is scheduled to appear at a high court hearing on Monday, facing contempt of court charges for making the documentary.

In the wake of Robinson's arrest, supporters of the far-right activist gathered outside Downing Street for an impromptu protest called for 4 pm on Sunday. The Metropolitan Police, aware of posts encouraging the protest, stated that any such activity must be lawful and warned they would deploy officers to prevent serious disruption or disorder.

 

Rupert Lowe, an MP from the Reform UK party, responded to the arrest by tweeting: “Is this action proportionate and in line with how the streets of London have recently been policed? More details are urgently required.” His sentiment was echoed by others, including X owner Elon Musk, who also raised questions on social media.

 

The Metropolitan Police had prepared for Saturday’s protests by deploying about 1,000 officers across the capital to maintain peace and keep the two groups of protesters apart. The day saw at least eight arrests and several assaults on emergency workers, according to police reports.

 

As the investigation continues, the circumstances surrounding Robinson's arrest and his future court appearances remain closely watched by both supporters and critics.

 

Credit: The Guardian 2024-07-30

 

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

 

Cigna offers a variety of health insurance plans designed to meet the minimum requirement for medical treatment coverage, with benefits reaching up to THB 3 million. These plans are tailored to provide comprehensive healthcare solutions for expatriates, ensuring peace of mind and access to quality medical services. To explore the full range of Cigna's expat health insurance options and find a plan that suits your needs, click here for more information.

It's a bit dispiriting to see the Guardian go down the click bait path with their misleading headline. 

 

He wasn't arrested because of suspected terrorism offences, but because he refused to comply with a lawful request for a search. 

 

That this request was made lawful by the Terrorism Act 2000 is irrelevant to the issue. The police have the right to search him; for one so keen on others to follow British norms, this Irishman doesn't seem to think they apply to him. 

21 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

It's a bit dispiriting to see the Guardian go down the click bait path with their misleading headline. 

 

He wasn't arrested because of suspected terrorism offences, but because he refused to comply with a lawful request for a search. 

 

That this request was made lawful by the Terrorism Act 2000 is irrelevant to the issue. The police have the right to search him; for one so keen on others to follow British norms, this Irishman doesn't seem to think they apply to him. 

Does Tommy and most of his supporters reckon it's okay for blokes to bring their Thai girlfriends back home to England ?

This man is been persecuted by UK authorities. However hate speech and violence advocated by muslim clerics  living in the UK goes unpunished. 

1 minute ago, jippytum said:

This man is been persecuted by UK authorities. However hate speech and violence advocated by muslim clerics  living in the UK goes unpunished. 

Nonsense.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c729598n1d4o

Could have decked a few armed coppers for good measure. 

The Guardian doesn't say he was arrested for terrorism offences.

 

1 hour ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Does Tommy and most of his supporters reckon it's okay for blokes to bring their Thai girlfriends back home to England ?

 

Good one...can't have people living with their own wife...not in the UK.

1 minute ago, Will B Good said:

 

Good one...can't have people living with their own wife...not in the UK.

 

  British people can indeed live with their foreign  Wife in the UK , although they need to feed themselves and not rely on others to provide for them by claiming benefits 

2 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

It's a bit dispiriting to see the Guardian go down the click bait path with their misleading headline. 

 

He wasn't arrested because of suspected terrorism offences, but because he refused to comply with a lawful request for a search. 

 

That this request was made lawful by the Terrorism Act 2000 is irrelevant to the issue. The police have the right to search him; for one so keen on others to follow British norms, this Irishman doesn't seem to think they apply to him. 

He was born in Luton and therefore a UK citizen if he wishes. His mother was Irish and so he can claim Irish citizenship if he so desires. He is culturally British having lived his whole life in the country. The Terrorism Act is an abortion, and I support its abolition. I would say British police have way too many powers of stop and search, which they have consistently abused.

29 minutes ago, retarius said:

He was born in Luton and therefore a UK citizen if he wishes. His mother was Irish and so he can claim Irish citizenship if he so desires. He is culturally British having lived his whole life in the country. The Terrorism Act is an abortion, and I support its abolition. I would say British police have way too many powers of stop and search, which they have consistently abused.

Well I would agree with you on the point of the police having too many powers, but suspect Yaxley Lennon and his supporters were very much in favor of the knee jerk terrorism laws.

 

He, and they, perhaps thought those laws would be reserved for others.

 

Handing power to Government in reaction to a perceived threat is seldom a good idea.

 

 

42 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

  British people can indeed live with their foreign  Wife in the UK , although they need to feed themselves and not rely on others to provide for them by claiming benefits 

That’s incorrect.

 

They need, at the time of application for a visa and later upon application for indefinite right to remain, meet minimum income requirements.

 

Thereafter, they need meet no such income requirements.

You really need a large beard and a Palestinian flag if you wish to protest on British streets unbothered by the police. Bondage gear with the pride flag also works. 

 

A white man with an English/union flag will be arrested very quickly, especially if he has short hair. 

 

This case is just another in a long list of examples. 

 

The British police are pathetic.

 

 

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

That’s incorrect.

 

They need, at the time of application for a visa and later upon application for indefinite right to remain, meet minimum income requirements.

 

Thereafter, they need meet no such income requirements.

 

  I was talking about foreign wife's going to live in the UK , rather than foreign wife's already living in the UK

   What  I said was correct  

Just now, Nick Carter icp said:

 

  I was talking about foreign wife's going to live in the UK , rather than foreign wife's already living in the UK

   What  I said was correct  

of course you were:

 

1 hour ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

  British people can indeed live with their foreign  Wife in the UK , although they need to feed themselves and not rely on others to provide for them by claiming benefits 

 

7 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

You really need a large beard and a Palestinian flag if you wish to protest on British streets unbothered by the police. Bondage gear with the pride flag also works. 

 

A white man with an English/union flag will be arrested very quickly, especially if he has short hair. 

 

This case is just another in a long list of examples. 

 

The British police are pathetic.

 

 

I’m sure you’ve been told a million times not to exaggerate.

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

of course you were:

 

 

 

   Try following the discussion, I was indirectly replying to this previous post 

 

"Does Tommy and most of his supporters reckon it's okay for blokes to bring their Thai girlfriends back home to England ?"

 

1 minute ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   Try following the discussion, I was indirectly replying to this previous post 

 

"Does Tommy and most of his supporters reckon it's okay for blokes to bring their Thai girlfriends back home to England ?"

 

I think you were directly replying to the post you actually replied to. 
 

 

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I think you were directly replying to the post you actually replied to. 
 

 

 

  Yeah, I was directly replying to that post , and he replied to ...........................just try following the discussion . 

   The discussion  was about bringing foreign wife's back to the UK , the discussion wasn't about foreign wife's already in the UK 

2 hours ago, Will B Good said:

The Guardian doesn't say he was arrested for terrorism offences.

 

 

But the headline is unnecessarily sensationalist. 

2 hours ago, Will B Good said:

 

Good one...can't have people living with their own wife...not in the UK.

I wonder if the new government will relax the salary requirements for settlement visas. They just kicked pensioners in the balls by taking away winter fuel payments. 

 

The current level of £29k, rising to £38k, will also stop many pensioners living with their wife in the UK. Not to mention those working on lower salary levels.

7 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

I wonder if the new government will relax the salary requirements for settlement visas. They just kicked pensioners in the balls by taking away winter fuel payments. 

 

The current level of £29k, rising to £38k, will also stop many pensioners living with their wife in the UK. Not to mention those working on lower salary levels.

 

  The salary requirements are to show that you can feed your wife

8 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

I wonder if the new government will relax the salary requirements for settlement visas. They just kicked pensioners in the balls by taking away winter fuel payments. 

 

The current level of £29k, rising to £38k, will also stop many pensioners living with their wife in the UK. Not to mention those working on lower salary levels.

It's £29k income or an orange life jacket and a sob story.

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

You really need a large beard and a Palestinian flag if you wish to protest on British streets unbothered by the police. Bondage gear with the pride flag also works. 

 

A white man with an English/union flag will be arrested very quickly, especially if he has short hair. 

 

This case is just another in a long list of examples. 

 

The British police are pathetic.

 

 

And so they should be able to unless they commited a crime. As far as I'm aware long beards, pride flags and English flags are perfectly legal. 

Garbage Guardian telling lies again, warrant is for the case in October

5 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

It's a bit dispiriting to see the Guardian go down the click bait path with their misleading headline. 

 

He wasn't arrested because of suspected terrorism offences, but because he refused to comply with a lawful request for a search. 

 

That this request was made lawful by the Terrorism Act 2000 is irrelevant to the issue. The police have the right to search him; for one so keen on others to follow British norms, this Irishman doesn't seem to think they apply to him. 

 

In fact he was initially detained under the Terrorism Act.

 

A statement from Robinson’s X account on Sunday confirmed: “We can confirm that Tommy Robinson has been detained by police using powers afforded to them under the Terrorism Act 2000.” Kent police later clarified that the 41-year-old man was detained under Schedule 7 of the Act, which permits police to stop, examine, and search passengers at ports, airports, and international rail terminals. He was subsequently arrested for "frustration of a Schedule 7 examination" but has since been released on bail pending further inquiries.

15 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

In fact he was initially detained under the Terrorism Act.

 

A statement from Robinson’s X account on Sunday confirmed: “We can confirm that Tommy Robinson has been detained by police using powers afforded to them under the Terrorism Act 2000.” Kent police later clarified that the 41-year-old man was detained under Schedule 7 of the Act, which permits police to stop, examine, and search passengers at ports, airports, and international rail terminals. He was subsequently arrested for "frustration of a Schedule 7 examination" but has since been released on bail pending further inquiries.

 

I appreciate all that to be fact, but the headline gave the impression that he was arrested in connection with a terrorist offence. 

 

The headline would have been more accurate if it said that he was arrested for refusing to follow a lawful police instruction. But the Guardian is no better than the Mail in chasing all that lovely ad revenue. 

21 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

I appreciate all that to be fact, but the headline gave the impression that he was arrested in connection with a terrorist offence. 

 

The headline would have been more accurate if it said that he was arrested for refusing to follow a lawful police instruction. But the Guardian is no better than the Mail in chasing all that lovely ad revenue. 

 

Maybe a lack of attention by editor, usually Guardian has accurate reporting. However, Robinson has jumped bail going overseas which usually means 12 month prison sentence upon capture. 

 

Tommy Robinson 'flees UK' hours before he was due in High Court | UK News | Metro News

1 hour ago, RuamRudy said:

 

But the headline is unnecessarily sensationalist. 

Phfft 

6 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

Maybe a lack of attention by editor, usually Guardian has accurate reporting. However, Robinson has jumped bail going overseas which usually means 12 month prison sentence upon capture. 

 

Tommy Robinson 'flees UK' hours before he was due in High Court | UK News | Metro News

Another law and order crusader who goes on the lam when he’s on the receiving end of the law and order he wants everyone else to be subjected to.