Yaxley-Lennon has various convictions. Some of these including for libel against specific muslim children; some for contempt of court interfering with the fairness of trials thus risking the release of people who were ultimately convicted; and some where his libel lead to his supporters committing violence against muslims.
(Keeping the [num]s in the quotations, those are the only citations that really matter).
On 10 May 2017, Robinson was charged with contempt of court, and convicted.[149][150][151] He had filmed inside Canterbury Crown Court and posted prejudicial statements calling the defendants "Muslim child rapists" while the jury was deliberating.
Now, here's the thing: the bit in quotation marks was 100% true. But by saying so before they were actually convicted threatened to undermine the trial, and without a fair trial they could not be convicted. His actions made justice harder.
If you really care about such crimes, the last thing you should do is what Yaxley-Lennon actually did. The only outcome for which Yaxley-Lennon behaviour is coherent is where Yaxley-Lennon was engineering a riot either by causing their release or getting himself arrested. He got a riot for being arrested:
At a demonstration in London on 9 June, over 10,000 protesters blocked the roads around Trafalgar Square and some attacked police, injuring five officers.[198] Some demonstrators prevented a Muslim woman from driving a bus,[199] performed Nazi salutes, threw scaffolding, glass bottles, and street furniture at police, and damaged vehicles and buildings.[200]
- ibid.
Regarding his libel that harmed a child:
The clip shows the victim, with his arm in a cast, being dragged to the floor by his neck as his attacker says "I'll drown you" and "what are you saying now" on a school playing field, while forcing water from a bottle into the victim's mouth. The video was filmed in a lunch break. The clip shows the victim walking away, without reacting, as the attacker and others can be heard continuing to verbally abuse him.[1]
And thats apart from the whole "kicked the officer in the head as he lay on the ground" and "entered the United States illegally [on a false passport]" convictions that Yaxley-Lennon has.
The interview with the girl Jamal Hijazi hit in her spine with a hockey stick starts at 21:49, and is followed by discussions with staff at the school, a student he spat at, other staff discussing him knocking a kid out by throwing him against a wall, school records of him bringing a knife and screwdriver to school, photos of the other girl he hit from text messages with the girl’s mother, an interview with the head teacher of the time about Jamal Hijazi bullying other children, and more:
I think it’s fairly likely that Bailey, the boy that tackled Jamal Hijazi for saying something in that video - allegedly Jamal Hijazi said he would rape Bailey’s 9 year old sister - was telling the truth.
> Musk is, in the UK, supporting a man who identifies as "Tommy Robinson"
“Silenced” is a documentary that was originally made by Tommy Robinson."
You want to treat a video created and edited by the person who lost a libel case in this specific matter, as a valid source of truth about the matters of fact in this specific matter? Where the film itself constitutes a contempt of court for repeating a libel he had been found guilty of, resulting in him being sentenced to 18 months in prison?
That is the "evidence" you bring?
I wouldn't even trust that any video meeting this description accurately represents the views of someone who is literally filmed speaking in it.
To quote another source:
But the founder of the English Defence League has been told he will face legal action after reposting a screenshot of a message from a mother claiming the youngster had bullied her daughter.
The mother later posted a message on Robinson’s page denying it was Jamal who had attacked her daughter.
The assorted list of crimes I just gave you, some of which threatened to set some rapists free without conviction.
Also some others I didn't mention, like libelling a journalist's partner by calling them a paedophile, something he later admitted was false. The journalist got this treatment from him after she had asked for his comment for a story she was writing about allegations that he had misused financial donations from his supporters. You know, silencing journalism, just like he accused the judicial system of doing, except he admitted using dishonesty to try to get silence, and was also seen to be dishonest with the libellous statements.
Lots of examples of him being less than honest — mortgage fraud, using someone else's passport, listing "Ireland" on his Irish passport — so why do you trust his take on anything?
> You want to treat a video created and edited by the person who lost a libel case in this specific matter, as a valid source of truth about the matters of fact in this specific matter?
As I said, the documentary contains the interview with the girl Jamal Hijazi hit in her spine with a hockey stick starts at 21:49, and is followed by discussions with staff at the school, a student he spat at, other staff discussing him knocking a kid out by throwing him against a wall, school records of him bringing a knife and screwdriver to school, photos of the other girl he hit from text messages with the girl’s mother, an interview with the head teacher of the time about Jamal Hijazi bullying other children.
You don't have to believe Robinson, you can believe everyone else. I haven't read the rest of your comment as you haven't bothered to read mine, so there's little point.
