Interestingly, the media itself can't seem to settle exactly on what Tommy did wrong.
- Contempt of court -- he posted a video of himself saying things, when he'd been told not to
- Mortgage fraud
- Vigorously defending himself against a Somalian immigrant who attempted to throw boiling sugar-water on Tommy
- Other things I can't remember
None of these seem like imprisonable offenses to me. Mortgage fraud is bad, but not exactly a physical threat to society.
It's impossible to miss the media and Establishment pursuit of Tommy over the years. The son of Irish immigrants, Tommy is a working-class bloke with a history of brawling, a feisty guy who works hard (he owned a sunbed shop) and drinks hard, and who never managed to put behind him the grim rough town of Luton where he grew up. This all makes him an easy target for people with classier accents, better education, uppercrust lives, and more power and influence. A LOT more power.
And I can't prove this, but I also can't help feeling that the British Establishment resent someone they view as disdainfully "common" leaving his "place" and fighting against his "superiors." Down, serf, down!
It's impossible to miss the genuine compassion Tommy expresses regarding the events that led to him establish the EDL (which wasn't meant to be a racist organization and Tommy himself isn't a racist). He's clearly fighting for both the underdog and for people he admires, like British servicemen.
Yet while the British media vigorously defends itself (the media blackout was to ensure a fair jury, etc.), it's hard to believe them when the same media and members of the Establishment allow those who commit truly appalling crimes to literally get away with murder.
(Early Communist and Nazi imprisonment also offered convincing excuses for imprisonment and censorship, and were defended by many members of society.)
Is Tommy's imprisonment and the accompanying media blackout a turning point? I'm not sure.
Everything has been leading up to this, and it's not surprising.
From Serfdom to Socialism
For example, I couldn't figure out why even right-wing politicians like Nigel Farage refused to promise serious change to the entire Socialist system. It's so clear that the country is drowning in Socialism.
For example, a British friend of mine was living in a nice home with a garden in a nice centrally located neighborhood in England -- care of the government. Obviously, I don't want her and her children living in public housing and rough neighborhoods, but objectively speaking, I thought this was a bit much. Though grateful for the benefits, she herself agreed that objectively speaking, it really wasn't fair to the middle-class tax-payers. She went on to explain that there are people living in government-funded housing in really posh areas while middle-class tax-payers living on a lower standard are funding this posh lifestyle.
This is so unfair and demoralizing.
Then there was an interview with an unmarried 19-year-old with 2 children by 2 different fathers. She complained bitterly about not yet being given an entire house by the government. The media interviewing her was clearly on her side.
I was floored.
Her unwavering sense of entitlement confounded me. She's obviously irresponsible and lacks good sense -- why should she be rewarded with an entire house? (Yes, I realize that the children are innocent victims in this scenario, but I don't see benefits as the best way to improve their situation.) And birthing children outside of marriage while bringing strange men in and out of their lives indicates she's not a very caring mother either (despite the image of her attentively spinning them on a metal carousel at a local park).
It wasn't until I read The Shuttle (authored by the same woman who wrote The Secret Garden and Little Princess) that the light bulb went on.
Traditionally, England maintained a type of serf system. (And even after serfdom was officially over, you still had tax-paying peasants and villagers dependent on lords.) You had royalty and the like living in manors on sprawling estates surrounded by very poor people eking out a living. Because of their poverty, they were dependent on the manor lords for their survival. A serious illness in the family or the death of a spouse lead to a crisis situation that could only be alleviated by the magnanimity of those in the manor.
The poor people paid taxes to the rich people in the manor and in return, the rich people were supposed to take care of their village. They didn't always do so because they didn't care much. (The wealthy also often spent their money frivolously. How awful it must have been for the villagers to see their hard-earned wages going to fund such extravagance while they lived in a dreary cottage with barely enough to eat.)
And as far as I can tell, English royalty had a religious side to it. Meaning, if you're royalty, there's a certain "chosenness" implied. Until today, the British anthem is "God Save the Queen." British coronations are quasi-religious events that take place in an abbey and performed by religious clerics. The original "Supreme Head of the Church of England" was that degenerate lump, King Henry the Eighth. (If you remember, European royalty was at one time referred to as "the Holy Roman Emperor" and you were a prince in the "Holy Roman Empire." "Holy," eh? What a joke.)
So non-royals were considered to lack those "holy" genes.
(Oh, the royal gene pool...yikes. Even today, Europe's royal families suffer the results of inbreeding, which is why they've all started marrying "commoners" and even marry outside their ethnicity and nationality.)
Then Social Darwinism entered the picture, downgrading the poor even more. Religious class discrimination now developed an "unbiased" scientific side to it. (i.e., "We're not racists or bad people, it's just objective scientific fact!")
The point is that British people feel entitled to benefits and favors (or feel that the poor are entitled to benefits and favors) from their higher-ups because that's always how it was. They were exploited by their higher-ups, and they deserve to be reimbursed and cared for. (Also, because they were "property," they didn't have much choice than to beg for favors from their rich masters.)
They basically went from serfdom to Socialism, and now they're stuck.
As an American, this was mind-boggling to me because I grew up reading about pioneers and people who felt marvelous about striking out on their own, whether it was joining a gold rush or building their own cabin with just an axe and their own muscle, while subsisting on hunting and fishing. These people rejoicing at being "free and independent" and they mostly were free and independent.
The thought of hand-outs was repugnant to them and they even resented paying taxes.
In fact, in one classic fictionalized biography of the author's grandmother, the British father inherited a massive luxury estate in England and stood to receive coveted titles along with the estate, yet he and his American wife and children decided against leaving America and giving up their US citizenship because they wanted to remain free and independent, and not enter a classist system.
Yes, they preferred their log cabin and flour mill to an extravagant mansion with peacocks on the lawn.
And while the entitlement mentality has burgeoned in America, it's considered un-American by many Americans. American Conservatives argue vigorously for a free-market system and deregulation, plus the freedom to both succeed and the freedom to fail (along with the freedom to pick up oneself and try again).
I simply wasn't aware of how much a history and a different system could affect a modern system today.
The point is that, with some exceptions, even Conservative right-wing British don't WANT out of a system and mentality that is leading to their downfall.
I Can be a Drunken Shlub If I Want To
Even the appealing Tommy Robinson complains about Muslim infringement on the right to stumble home drunk from the pubs at night.
This just isn't good enough.
Douglas Murray has stated many times that the British need to save Britain because "we don't have an Israel to escape to."
And that's correct.
The Jews of Britain can ultimately leave when things get too intolerable.
The non-Jews of Britain have nowhere to go (although I suppose some can try getting into America or Australia or New Zealand; Nigel Farage is quite popular with American Conservatives).
But as long as the UK is only blabbing about individual rights -- however inane or harmful those rights may be -- it doesn't have a leg to stand on.
You have to have some kind of God-based moral highground and outside of certain pockets, that moral highground doesn't seem to exist.
In fact, when a UKIP rep stated his opposition to same-gender marriage, UKIP saw the need to oust him (albeit reluctantly) and Nigel Farage set about excusing his behavior by explaining that he was of "that generation."
Even the right-wing Conservative party could not bring itself to defend a moral position on moral grounds. Instead, they chose to "excuse" this position.
This is very different than the American right defending traditional marriage as a moral ideal.
For example, America's Vice-President Mike Pence has unapolegtically declared his position that funding for AIDS be moved to provide assistance for "those seeking to change their sxual behavior." He signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law (which means that religious people don't have to cater to people who act in opposition to to religious morals), and has stood very firmly against legalizing same-gender marriage (while all the time opposing the mistreatment or persecution of those with same-gender attraction).
American Conservatives never try to tone Pence's views as those of "that generation." Rather, they rigorously defend his views as the moral highground. As far as I know, President Trump himself has not feel the need to "excuse" or apologize for the pro-traditional marriage views of his Vice-President.
Can You Stop the Sun from Setting? Only by Prayer (a continuation of this post)
Standing for Nothing: The UK