Jacques Smith

TOMMY HAS BEEN FOUND GUILTY!!!! Today, after eight days at Southwark Crown Court, Tommy Robinson was found guilty on both counts of harassment causing fear of violence relating to MailOnline journalists Andrew Young and Jacob Dirnhuber in an area of the country that has only a 34% 'white British' demographic completely controlled politically by left wing parties like Labour, Liberal Democrats and the Greens. Thats the area the jury would have been selected from. Tommy remains on bail and will return to court for sentencing on 16 December 2026. Reporting restrictions remain in place. Those restrictions currently limit what Tommy himself can publicly say about the case. Urban Scoop is not subject to silence simply because Tommy cannot presently give his full account. We can and will continue to examine, scrutinise and report the facts that can lawfully be published. And there are some important facts that should not disappear beneath the headlines. Tommy was not charged with making threats to kill these journalists. Indeed, at an earlier hearing prosecutors confirmed that none of the alleged harassment itself contained a direct threat of violence. The prosecution case was instead that the overall course of conduct caused the two journalists to fear violence and that Tommy knew, or ought to have known, that it would have that effect. The conduct concerned far more than one sentence, and it would be wrong to pretend otherwise. The jury heard about messages, telephone contact, private investigators and photographs. But Tommy’s evidence was that his purpose was not to attack anybody. He said he wanted to confront the journalists on camera about what they had done, that he was not going to publish their addresses, and that he deliberately did not expose innocent members of their families in the manner he believed had been done to his own. The charge particulars themselves record one of his posts saying: “I won’t identify any innocent people or give address as that’s not morally right.” Why was he so angry? The Daily Mail had tracked Tommy to Cyprus while he was away with his ex-wife, his children and several other families. It published reporting about his whereabouts and photographs taken at the resort under the accusation that he was “stoking race riots from his sunbed” following the Southport murders and subsequent disorder. The evidence is that Tommy actually called for calm, repeatedly, during the riots. Tommy denied stoking the riots and told the jury that the reporting made it easy to identify where his family was staying. He said he was “shocked” and “scared” and that his family moved within the hotel on security advice. The article also included an image of his ex-wife. This context matters because the threat against Tommy and his family was not hypothetical, it was real. Agreed facts put before the jury included four police threat-to-life warnings issued to Tommy in 2018, 2019 and 2024, with the latest coming shortly after the Daily Mail article. In separate earlier court proceedings, Tommy’s barrister told a court that there had been 12 credible threats against Tommy and his family serious enough to result in Osman threat-to-life warnings, including warnings extending to his ex-wife. Tommy also told this jury that his 12-year-old daughter had received rape threats and that his ex-wife had previously been threatened with an acid attack. And these were not merely anonymous words online that were universally dismissed as meaningless. During the same period, Habeeb Khan was arrested after appearing in a video with a deactivated AK-47 while making threats towards the EDL and Tommy Robinson. He subsequently pleaded guilty to sending a communication threatening death or serious harm and was jailed for 27 months. Another man, rapper Omar Abdirizak, was arrested over a video directed at Tommy in which he referred to “artillery”, made a rifle gesture and imitated gunfire. He was subsequently convicted of sending a menacing communication. That provides important context when people ask why Tommy regarded the publication of his whereabouts and images involving his family as a serious security issue rather than simply unwanted newspaper coverage. There is an important distinction here. The journalists told the court that they genuinely feared violence. The prosecution also relied upon threatening or unpleasant online comments from third parties (which Tommy cannot be responsible for, how can you be responsible for other people use of language or their actions even?). But the contrast remains striking: Tommy entered this confrontation with an established and documented history of police threat-to-life warnings, while the case against him did not depend upon proof that he ever intended to physically attack either journalist. His position was essentially: you have turned cameras on me and exposed my family and location; what happens if the camera is turned back on you? How would you feel if I did to you what you have done to me and my family? The prosecution characterised that as retaliation and intimidation. Tommy characterised it as attempting to protect his family, challenge the journalists responsible and make them answer publicly for what he believed they had done, also to get them to remove images of his family online to protect them from serious harm. The jury has now rejected Tommy’s defence and convicted him on both counts. We respect the fact that those verdicts have been returned even if we do not agree with them. That does not prevent the verdicts, the legal directions or the process that produced them from being scrutinised. The jury’s own written route to verdict is particularly important. It shows that the jury did not have to find that Tommy intended to commit violence. They could convict if they were sure that the journalists feared violence and that Tommy “knew or ought to have known” his conduct would cause that fear. A very legal low bar indeed. The jury was then separately required to decide whether it was more likely than not that his conduct was reasonable for protecting himself or others. They rejected that defence, which seems ridiculous considering the very real threats to his families lives and the very real and urgent need to protect their identity. Those distinctions will matter enormously when Tommy’s lawyers prepare for sentencing and any appeal. Urban Scoop will now be examining the judge’s complete legal directions, the summing-up, the factual basis upon which the jury convicted, the sentencing guidelines and any properly arguable grounds upon which the safety of these convictions can be challenged. Tommy remains on bail until 16 December. Until reporting restrictions are lifted, there are aspects of this case that Tommy himself cannot discuss. Urban Scoop can and will continue asking the questions that remain unanswered. When further information can legally be published, we will publish it. And finally, thank you to every person who has contributed towards Tommy’s security. Whatever anybody thinks of Tommy Robinson politically, the documented threats to his safety are real. That support has enabled him to maintain professional security around himself while facing threats that police themselves have treated seriously.