Total Visits

Monday, 25 February 2013

English Democrats: One - Abu Qatada’s family: Nil!

In the latest abuse of our Nation’s “generosity” to illegal immigrants, following Mr Abu Qatada’s cost to the taxpayer rising to over an estimated £1m, his wife and family have been seeking an injunction, on the back of legal aid, to prevent any protesters from appearing outside their new taxpayer funded house in Stanmore, North London.

In the midst of suing all and sundry who might be contemplating protesting, the English Democrats and I surprisingly found ourselves included in the list of Defendants, despite never having expressed any intention to take part in any demonstration!

That is of course not the remit of a political party standing in elections and not a sensible approach for a political party to take.
That does not mean of course that the English Democrats would not morally support well-behaved and lawful demonstrations against Abu Qatada’s abuse of our welfare benefit system. It is English Democrats’ policy that non-citizens should not be entitled to any welfare benefits at all. We do also seek the immediate deportation of all illegal immigrants.

Having made our position crystal clear in various letters and also in a witness statement, which I reproduce below, even Labour supporting Bindmans solicitors who were acting for the Qatadas rushed to remove all mention of me and the English Democrats from the proceedings.

On Thursday I was in the High Court of Justice in the Strand before Mr Justice Silber and the Order was made removing us from these proceedings and also dropping all claims against us.

Here is my witness statement. What do you think?

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE                   CASE NO. HQ13X00479




representative Paul Golding, Paul Pitt,
James Dowson and Andrew McBride)
(2) BRITAIN FIRST (by its representatives Britannia Campaigning Limited,
Paul Golding, Andrew McBride and James Dowson
(3) THE ENGLISH DEFENCE LEAGUE (by its representatives Kevin Carrol, Trevor Kelway and Joel Titus)
(4) THE SOUTH EAST ALLIANCE (by its representative Paul Pitt)
(5) THE ENGLISH DEMOCRATS (by its representative
Robin Tilbrook)



I, Robin Charles William Tilbrook, of Quires Green, Willingale, Ongar, Essex, CM5 0QP, will say as follows:-

1. I am the Principal of Tilbrook’s Solicitors and Chairman of the English Democrats.

2. I would state, for the record, that neither I, nor the English Democrats, have ever organised or attended a demonstration at or near the Applicants’ house. Nor do I believe that any member of the English Democrats have ever attended any such demonstrations. So, with the greatest of respect, the chronicle of misbehaviour that the Applicants’ Solicitors affectingly relate cannot properly be laid at either my or the English Democrats’ door.

3. Further I have never had nor expressed any intention of attending any such demonstration nor have I or the English Democrats given any indication of any intent to do so.

4. I would also confirm that the English Democrats do not engage in street protests as a general rule, except to small media orientated events on issues such as prescription charges. The English Democrats are more involved in the 'West Lothian' question and the English Constitutional questions arising from devolution. Neither I nor the English Democrats have ever taken part in any protest relating to Islamists, such as Abu Qatada.

5. I would also point out that I confirmed the substance of what I am saying in this Witness Statement in writing in correspondence to Bindmans prior to them issuing any proceedings or applying for an Injunction. I am a Solicitor and Officer of the Court and so I do think, with the greatest of respect to them, they should have taken me at my word, especially given that the “evidence” which they offered against me and the English Democrats is ridiculously flimsy and comes from a third party website which does not even expressly state that either I or the English Democrats are involved in the new organisation or more pertinently the protest itself.

6. My primary involvement at the meeting reported in that email was a guest speaker on the topic of Englishness and, in particular, the rise in English National Identity which has been demonstrated in the results of the 2011 Census which shows that over 60% (more than 32 million people) within England have self-identified their national identity as being “English Only”.

7. I do naturally support the rights of people to protest and I do support those protests being done in an orderly and civilised manner, which I understand is the intention of the English National Resistance. That support fairly obviously does not give rise to any presumption that I or the English Democrats are somehow members of the organisation; any more than the comments of senior establishment politicians in Parliament criticising Abu Qatada could be taken to imply anything similar from them!

8. I am aware that Labour strategists have identified the English Democrats as a threat to them and that is particularly so, not only after our victories over them in the Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council Mayoralty, but also our very good performance throughout South Yorkshire in the Police Commissioner elections in which we came second to the Labour candidate whilst winning the vast majority of all the second preference votes as well. I suspect that the sole reason for drawing me and the English Democrats into this matter was Bindmans’ Labour supporting agenda, rather than any proper legal basis. I regard that the whole way that the Injunction has been approached as being fundamentally a politically motivated abuse of process and, indeed, no doubt also of the taxpayers’ contribution through legal aid/public funding.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts in this Witness Statement are true.

Signed …………………………………….. Dated……………………………..

 Robin Charles William Tilbrook

Here is the BBC report of the outcome of the case:-

Abu Qatada's family win injunctions against demonstrators

The radical cleric has been fighting deportation to Jordan for more than a decade
The family of radical cleric Abu Qatada has won an injunction preventing protesters from demonstrating directly outside their home.

His wife and five children were granted an anti-harassment order by a High Court judge in London.

The judge said demonstrations could still take place but they have to be more than 500 metres from the Qatada home in London.

Last year, a court blocked the cleric's deportation to Jordan.

Home Secretary Theresa May's appeal against that decision is due to be heard on 11 March.

The Palestinian-born Jordanian faces a re-trial in Jordan for allegedly conspiring to cause explosions on Western and Israeli targets in 1998 and 1999. He was found guilty of terrorism offences in his absence in Jordan in 1999.

Second injunction At the High Court, Mr Justice Silber said evidence showed the claimants, including two children under the age of 16, "have suffered extreme distress and upset" by the actions of demonstrators directly outside their home.

He accepted the evidence they were "effectively prisoners in their home" while the demonstrations were taking place.

He said the protests had "terrified" the family, particularly the younger children.

There was "powerful evidence" from the claimants of weekly demonstrations "with much shouting of abuse" such as "Abu Qatada off our streets" and "All Muslims are terrorists" and calls for him to be killed.

The legal action was brought against a number of groups, including English National Resistance, Britain First and the English Defence League, as well as against "persons unknown who are intending to assemble outside the home".

The defendants argued the injunctions would interfere with their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights - in relation to freedom of thought, expression, and of assembly and association.

The judge pointed out Abu Qatada, whose real name is Omar Othman, was not a party to the proceedings.

He emphasised the case was not concerned with whether "Omar Othman should still be in this country or whether he should be in prison in this country" and was also not concerned with whether he or his family "should be provided with a house financed by the United Kingdom taxpayers".

It was accepted "that it is perfectly legitimate" for there to be protests about his presence in the country and about the house provided to his family.

The injunctions granted continued previous orders made by another High Court judge earlier this month.

As well as the anti-harassment order, Mr Justice Silber granted a second injunction restraining the defendants from communicating or disclosing personal matters relating to the wife and children, such as their address, names, names of schools, and also images of them.

Abu Qatada was released on bail from Long Lartin prison, in Worcestershire, in November after spending most of the last 10 years in custody.

He was released after he won the latest round of his long-running deportation case. Immigration judges ruled there was a risk that evidence obtained through torture could be used at his retrial in Jordan.


  1. Ask yourself if you would naturally support the right to protest of a group of say 150 drunken Muslims regularly and purposefully turning up in identifiably ethnically English towns such as Ongar, marching up and down the main street with flags of Pakistan, shouting "down with the West", chanting anti Christian songs all in a highly intimidatory fashion. If you would not support protests of that nature then ask yourself why you naturally support the right to of the EDL, who are involved in the English National Resistance, to protest in just such a fashion?

    1. The scenario you describe is one of unprovoked anti-English racial hatred. Moreover, in your scenario, the perpetrators are "British" Pakistanis who hate their country of adoption.
      What is being defended in the blog entry above is the right to peaceful protest in support of a principle; namely the objection to a proven terrorist's living in England, at the English taxpayer's expense.
      The allegations which have enabled the family to secure the injunction include the hurling of abuse, including the suggestion that "all muslims are terrorists". (It is worth noting that "off our street" was used by a thugish outfit calling itself "Unite Against Fascism" against a family St George's Day parade in Brighton, last year. In this instance, "off our street" was preceded by "racist scum".)
      Protesters appear to have "shot themselves in the foot" by not keeping their protests peaceful and by not sticking to the point.


    2. I am well aware that that Robin has set out above, clearly and concisely, the case for the right to peaceful protest in support of a principle. And specifically with regard to Abu Qatada, I agree that peaceful protests which question Qatada's right to remain in Britain should be allowed to take place.

      However, my question with the statement is the fact that it essentially says that the English Democrats support the English National Resistance's right to protest. (see paragraph 7 of the statement).

      Well, the EDL, which is incorporated within the English National Resistance sets out to specifically target towns whose populations are made up of a high number of Muslims in which to demonstrate/protest. That being the case I think that these tactics of protest are intimidatory in nature towards all Muslims who live in these towns. The EDL are therefore in my opinion, effectively accusing all Muslims, by their very nature, of being terrorists and or extremists since Islamic extremism is what the EDL protest about.

      And that being the case I don't really understand why the English Democrats would support the English National Resistance's right to protest considering that the EDL (who are incorporated within the English National Resistance) are an intimidatory, anti-Muslim organisation. It is as if the English Democrats, in their support for the English National Resistance are effectively endorsing the intimidatory tactics of the EDL.

      Perhaps as you say Clive, in the imaginary scenario which I put forward the protesting Muslims which I had described were a group of hateful, anti-west, anti-Christian street marchers.
      So let's just imagine a scenario whereby Britain had become predominantly a country inhabited by Muslim people. Muslims were 'peacefully' protesting against a recent upsurge in 'white' on asian attacks. But this protest group specifically only targeted towns with high native English populations and they walked up and down the street with banners and plaqards to get their message across.

      In the same way that I would argue that this imaginary group of Muslim protestors were intimidatory in nature because they had specifically targeted native English areas, in what was a predominantly Muslim country, I would argue that the EDL are an intimidatory organisation.

      The native English working classes are rightfully concerned about the changing demographics in Britain today but the EDL are not the voice of the silenced working classes as some have tried to portray them as being.

      John, Todmorden

  2. Absolutely correct Robin. Freedom of association should not be limited by the desire of the state to restrict it.

    Englishmen will have to be much braver in future to protect the liberties our wise ancestors provided us with. Anyone who doubts this ought to watch last week's Question Time from St Paul's Cathedral. Even the normally redoubtable Peter Hithens capitulated to the hard left sentiments being expressed by all the panel and most of the audience. After a question on whether the reduction in the white British (NB: not English) inhabitants of London had fallen below fifty per cent he opined ' My gorge rises at the mention of the word white...'.

    Pity us poor white people.

    In contrast I watched last night the final episode of the BBC4 series on The Hundred Years War - 'Chivalry and Betrayal'.One of the conclusions was that the imperial aspirations of Henry V and failure to win the crown of France was in fact the beginning of the idea of Englishness that has persisted until today. One language, an island nation, one people, little England. England with a deep and rooted national identity both proud and strong.

    1. Why didn't Peter Hitchens just apologise for being white and prostrate himself for this seems to be the direction in which the demented one world fanatics are driving us now. I recently read a comment that masochists constitute about 20% of the population. I think that most of them are on the Far Left and rejoice at the thought of the extinction of themselves and their race. They are of course also psychopaths and bullies. As we dwindle into minority status after dragging most non-European countries out of anything from the stone age to the middle ages - that is as far as booming India and China had got before we arrived on the scene and without us they would not be booming - we are now expected to curl up and die of shame. Once we were of the opinion that any harm we had done was far outweighed by the advances we had brought to mankind, now the Marxists have turned it all around and it is as if those advances had occurred without us. I challenge you to argue that the Roman Empire, despite the cruelty of the Romans, was wholly a bad thing. Again Kenneth Clarke's words, European Civilisation will only go down if we lose confidence in ourselves. We must not. We must be justly proud of our immense achievements equalled by no other race. The Anglo-Saxons especially.

      This brainwashing has been so successful that now we must apologise to India for the Raj and suggest that since they are so morally superior to us they should now have England as their colony. A lady today said that we had done terrible things there. I replied that she should imagine what India would look like today if we had never been there or never existed, no infrastructure, no democracy etc. Plus, of course, the fact that at the height of the Raj there were about 30,000 of us, or it could have been 300,000 but I think it was the former, compared to about 300m of them. If they hated us so much and what we were doing to their country then why did they not just butcher us?

  3. Robin, I am pleased you won. Why don't you apply for a Costs Order against the other side, they did waste your time didn't they?



  4. Robin,

    I know this is a bit off topic, but when is the West Lothian Commission due to report its findings? I was under the belief that it was due to report in early 2013 i.e now?

  5. These people do not need to rely on terrorism, their work is being done for them at a higher level by the 3M corporation, that's Marxism, Muslims and Money. In Vienna we are seeing the fifth Alliance of Civilisations conference with a view to merging the Christian and Muslim world. Vienna was chosen as it is where Europe held back Islam for nearly 400 years. This will ultimately be a one way traffic and Marxism the latest totalitarian ideology will walk hand in hand with Islam the first. Many cultures one humanity is the slogan and also that of the one world movement. Undoubtedly the Arab Spring is somehow connected. The conference even referred to world governance; i.e the New World Order and a borderless world of rootless individuals under constant electronic surveillance. 1984 will be here by 2024 and the United Nations building will be where it is all controlled from just a stone's throw from the headquarters of the world's biggest banks. So what hope of ever breaking free and having a parliament for England? We must all pray for the collapse of the EU as the first stage towards our liberation.