Danny Tommo, the anti-migrant activist, has been denied bail after appearing in court for allegedly slashing a migrant boat in the English Channel – despite the five suspects in the RAF Fairford terror plot all being bailed. The Telegraph has the story.
Tommo, an anti-migrant protester whose real name is Daniel Thomas, was remanded into custody after he appeared via videolink from prison for a hearing at Portsmouth Crown Court on Tuesday.
The defendant, who held a copy of the Bible, had already pleaded not guilty to a charge of criminal damage after he allegedly slashed the boat with an emergency responder on board on September 22nd.
Thomas has also denied failing to disclose the Pin to his phone to police, under Section 53 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
His address was withheld by the court at a previous hearing.
Judge James Newton-Price KC declined to grant the defendant bail and remanded him in custody.
He told the court: “I am not concerned with the political issues or motivations in this matter and I put them aside in deciding this matter.”
Simon Pentol KC, defending Thomas, had proposed a “package of bail conditions” as an alternative to his client being remanded in custody.
He said that if the defendant was granted bail “he would be in no doubt whatsoever that one foot or thought – if that is what it’s coming to – or gesture or comment out of place would render him liable to be in breach of his bail”.
Pentol added: “He is prepared to put himself in that position to be able to return to his family today.”
Judge Newton-Price told the defendant: “I have adjourned this case to the next hearing, which will take place on Thursday November 12th. I have set dates for service of evidence.
“At that hearing you will appear by the court videolink system and your counsel, Pentol, I have given permission to appear by videolink as well.
“I have set a trial date, provisionally at least, for March 1st next year and custody time limits are March 25th.”
Worth reading in full.
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1603227968514169&id=WeAreThe52
The Establishment is protecting itself by
1 taking “a rabble-rouser” out of circulation
2 sending a message to the rabble (ie working class) that their objections to mass criminal invasion won’t be tolerated
3 demonstrating once again to the working class that a multi-tier “justice” system does exist and they are in the bottom tier – just in case they thought things had changed now they’re managed to get Two-Tier-Kier disposed of
Dissent and sedition along with debasing the currency and blasphemy have aways been the most seriously punished crimes.
Debasing the currency is the goverment’s main policy now. They think it will help them pay their debt.
For the rest it’s up to splendid chaps like Mr Tommo who put themselves in harm’s way trying to salvage something of our poor nation.
Danny Tommo needs to sack his Useless Numpty Lawyer for not advising him to plead
“NO CASE TO ANSWER”
because of a LACK OF COMPLAINANT, as one commenter brilliantly pointed out.
No one has claimed ownership of the dinghy,
so THERE CAN BE NO COMPLAINANT about damaging it,
and NO CASE TO ANSWER.
Exactly. One of the elements of the offence of Criminal Damage is that the property must be ‘…belonging to another…’
No owner, no offence.
Also, the offence says ‘…without lawful excuse…’. I would argue that preventing the dinghy being used to commit further criminal acts is a lawful excuse, in these circumstances.
Excellent points!
“I am not concerned with the political issues or motivations in this matter and I put them aside in deciding this matter.” – so everyone accused of criminal damage gets treated like this, do they? Weren’t the thugs who attacked the police at Manchester Airport in front of the world bailed? The Fairford lot were bailed in hours.
and what about the other lad who got two years for throwing an empty plastic bottle?
Yes, in appalling contrast to this:
Hundreds of convicted rapists walk free from court despite ‘sickening crimes’ – Yahoo News UK
“Hundreds of rapists have been allowed to walk free from court following their convictions, Yahoo News UK can reveal.”
“Some 406 adult offenders convicted of serious crimes including rape and rape of a child have been handed NON-CUSTODIAL SENTENCES – such as community service – in the past 10 years.”
“In 14 cases, offenders were handed an absolute discharge, meaning the court believed it was not necessary to impose a punishment.”
‘Anarcho-tyranny’ appears to be an accurate term to describe where we are now at in Britain. Anarcho-tyranny is a political concept describing a society where the government fails to enforce basic laws and protect citizens from real crime, while simultaneously imposing strict regulations and harsh penalties on law-abiding people.
So if I go out tonight and stick a brick through my local bus stop, I damned well better be banged til March…
Surely they’ll have to release him after the next hearing in a couple of weeks?
Let’s see
That should read “banged up”
What I’ve written may have other connotations…
What with this, and the government pushing pensioners into poverty at the expense of wasters and shirkers, I don’t want to live in this country anymore.
The aims of the Establishment now couldn’t be clearer.
James Newton-Price
James Newton-Price
James Newton-Price
I defenestrate you.
Oh come now! This isn’t Russia.
I was thinking of Islamic divorce practices. (I wouldn’t want to get anywhere near this type of “judge”.)
They are going it deliberately, trying to provoke a reaction.
That is the only possible explanation.
Gloves are off. More than ever, it is us against them.
how can you be charged with damaging something that no-one claims ownership of?
How indeed. And why are the police, the crown prosecution and the judges so determined to defend the property of a migrant trafficker and yet seem so uninterested in the thousands of unresolved crimes that befall ordinary people every day?
Exactly. You can’t. It’s like damaging a piece of driftwood floating by.
The judge and the lawyer are colluding in a judicial fantasy, hoping to dazzle the proles with legalese, when there is actually “No Case to Answer”.
Six months (?) including Christmas (?) in prison without trial for puncturing an inflatable boat with no passengers on it.
All whilst the prisons are full to overflowing and prisoners guilty of violent crime are being released early onto our streets.
A most striking thing is the claim of political neutrality whilst jailing someone without trial. And to think our judiciary are supposed to represent values of honesty and fairness.
Clearly not. First and foremost they are there to protect the establishment. And so challengers to establishment authority should expect a very heavy hand.
“anti-migrant activist”.
Isn’t he really an anti-immigration activist? I mean, perhaps he is also anti-migrant, but while he would like the migrants to stop coming what he is really anti is the government and others failing to protect our borders. I don’t feel a great deal of personal animosity toward migrants in general, unless they misbehave badly, but I do feel a great deal of personal animosity toward all those who facilitate all of the immigration, and their cheerleaders who are so keen to “be kind” with my money.
The “anti-migrant activist” was trying to stop a crime being committed – the crime of entering the country illegally – and was arrested for his troubles.
Even more strangely, the person who was aiding and abetting the crime – the “emergency responder” who was helping the craft land – was presumably praised for his humanitarian action.
That’s how effed up the whole thing is. We have laws, police and a judicial system. But they are clearly quite arbitrary and managed by established power. There is a word for that type of rule: despotism.
As I understand it he is charged with Criminal Damage not endangering anyone.
So this is what a self-coup really looks like.
There is no “two tier” system of policing or justice. We have the system we have always had, operating as it always has. The problem is that people are confused about the purpose of the police and the justice system.
It’s not there to protect ordinary people or their interests. It’s not there to provide justice for ordinary people.
The purpose of the law and order apparatus is to protect the establishment and its interests from ordinary people. Seen from that perspective, everything makes sense.
An immigrant off the boat poses little or no threat to the establishment. He can do almost anything he wants. A person like this guy clearly has no other purpose than to challenge the establishment, its authority and its objectives. So of course the system is going to come down hard on him.
People need to stop being naive and start seeing the world as it is, not as they would like it to be or as the fairy tale they’ve been indoctrinated to believe.
An outrage and a disgrace. Two-tier (so-called) ‘justice’ at its most blatant. The judicial system in this country is a mockery of integrity.
This is an absolute joke. Who doesn’t get bail after being charged with criminal damage? What is that damage? Nobody is claiming ownership of that boat. It was going to be scrapped just like all the others. All he did was cut a hole in a piece of trash. Something has to change.
Are those boats scrapped, or are they recycled back to the criminals that supplied them, or what? What actually happens to all those boats?
There was a video posted a while back, allegedly showing rubber dinghies loaded on to a lorry and taken away on a ferry to France.
I’ll be the first to say it, the process is the punishment! We live in a two-tier, totalitarian state and things will get worse, not better.
They’ve obviously stopped worrying, if they ever did, about how biased they appear against white indigenous Englishmen
True. This isn’t about pretending to be impartial, it’s a message. They are sowing the wind.
At the sentencing of the guy who was locked up for throwing an empty bottle the judge literally said it was to set an example.
Apparently we don’t need to discourage people to try to blow up RAF bases.
It is obviously completely unjust to sentence one individual on the basis of ‘making an example’ of them. The sentence is supposed to represent the crime, the law, and sentencing policy, not the individual political whims of the judiciary.
Yes, because it seems that judges have somehow made themselves impossible to sack. How did that happen, and who voted for it?
Our judiciary are a massive part of our problem.