Far-right anti-Islam activist Tommy Robinson freed early from prison after judge notes ‘change in attitude'
Tommy Robinson after being released from jail (Photo: X)
British TV channels interrupted their regular broadcast on Tuesday morning after Tommy Robinson was released from prison four months early.
Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, was jailed for 18 months for contempt of court after repeatedly breaching a 2021 injunction.
The injunction had been granted to prevent him from making false claims against a Syrian refugee, who later won a libel case against him.
GB News presenter Eamonn Holmes told viewers: 'Tommy Robinson has been released from jail, that is four months early. He was originally jailed for 18 months for contempt of court after multiple breaches of an injunction, that was four years ago, but reportedly showed a "change in attitude.'
'He was originally due to be released on July 26," he added.
Robinson looked visibly changed in his first public appearance since his release, sporting a thick beard and appearing older. Social media quickly reacted to the images, with many saying he was 'unrecognisable.'
Court decision follows legal application to purge contempt
Robinson's early release came after a legal request to purge his contempt of court charge.
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Free P2,000 GCash eGift
UnionBank Credit Card
Apply Now
Undo
His lawyers told the high court he had demonstrated a 'commitment' to complying with the injunction. This commitment included refraining from repeating defamatory statements about the Syrian teenager.
Although progress had been made, Justice Johnson said Robinson still showed 'no real remorse or contrition.' Even so, he noted there had been a 'change in attitude' since sentencing, which helped justify cutting the sentence.
Lawyers representing the Solicitor General did not oppose the move, saying Robinson had taken necessary steps to follow the terms of the court order.
Controversial figure remains divisive
Robinson remains one of the UK's most controversial political figures. He co-founded the far-right English Defence League in 2009 and has faced multiple legal issues since. His supporters have often claimed he is unfairly targeted by the establishment, while critics have long denounced his inflammatory rhetoric and criminal record.
His release will likely reignite debate over freedom of speech, contempt of court, and the limits of public discourse. The very issues Robinson himself has often used as rallying cries.
Following Robinson's release, the reaction online was swift and polarised. Supporters celebrated his release, while critics questioned the decision and the message it might send.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Six months after deposing Assad, Syria faces security, economic challenges
Syria 's interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa has in six months established himself internationally and had crippling sanctions removed, but still needs to rebuild national institutions, revive the economy and unite the fractured country. AFP looks at the main challenges facing Sharaa, whose Islamist-led coalition toppled longtime Syrian ruler Bashar al-Assad on December 8. State building After ousting Assad, Sharaa has had to navigate four political entities, each with their own civil, economic, judicial and military organisation: the central government in Damascus, the incumbent president's former rebel authority in the northwest, Turkey-backed groups in the north, and a Kurdish-led autonomous administration in the northeast. Radwan Ziadeh, executive director of the Washington-based Syrian Center for Political and Strategic Studies, said that creating relative stability in this fragile context was "a significant accomplishment" for Sharaa. But guaranteeing the success of the five-year transitional phase will be "the most difficult challenge", Ziadeh said. Live Events The new authorities' ability to maintain stability was cast into doubt when deadly sectarian clashes hit the Syrian coast in March and the Damascus area the following month. More than 1,700 people were killed in the coastal violence, mostly members of the Alawite minority to which Assad belongs, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights monitor. The clashes near Damascus involved the Druze minority. The treatment of minorities remains "one of the greatest internal challenges", Ziadeh said, as "building trust between different components requires great political effort to ensure coexistence and national unity". Badran Ciya Kurd, a senior official in the Kurdish-led administration in the northeast which seeks a decentralised Syrian state, warned against "security and military solutions" to political issues. The transitional government should "become more open to accepting Syrian components... and involving them in the political process", Kurd told AFP, calling for an inclusive constitution that would form the basis for a democratic system. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned last month that Syrian authorities could be weeks away from a "full-scale civil war" due to the acute challenges they faced. Sharaa's "greatest challenge is charting a path forward that all Syrians want to be part of, and doing so quickly enough without being reckless", said Neil Quilliam, associate fellow at the Chatham House think tank. Security There are pressing security challenges, with kidnappings, arrests and killings sometimes blamed on government-linked factions reported by the Syrian Observatory and on social media. The recent bouts of sectarian violence have raised concerns over Sharaa's ability to keep radical fighters among his forces' ranks in check. Washington wants foreign jihadists to leave the country, but Sharaa may find it difficult to let go of fighters who stood by his side for years, and some countries refuse to take them back. Six foreign fighters have been promoted in the new defence ministry, sparking international criticism. A Syrian source with knowledge of the matter said however that Damascus had told the United States it would freeze the promotions. Washington also wants the Syrian government to take control of Kurdish-run prisons and camps where thousands of suspected Islamic State group jihadists and their relatives are detained, but Damascus lacks the personnel to manage them. Economy, diplomacy Sharaa is leading a country battered by 14 years of civil war, with its economy depleted, infrastructure destroyed and most people living in poverty. Under the new authorities, Syria has seen an increased availability of fuel and goods including certain fruits whose import had previously been near impossible. After Western governments lifted many sanctions, Sharaa's priority now is fighting poverty in order to "stabilise the country and avoid problems", according to a source close to the president. Economist Karam Shaar said that beyond political stability which is essential for economic growth, other obstacles include "the regulatory framework and the set of laws necessary for investment, which unfortunately seem vague in many parts". Authorities have said they were studying legislation that could facilitate investments, while seeking to attract foreign capital. Rehabilitating Syria's infrastructure is key to encouraging millions of refugees to return home, a major demand from neighbouring countries and others in Europe. Syria must also contend with neighbouring Israel, which has carried out attacks and incursions since December. According to Quilliam, Damascus is "light years away from considering normalisation" with Israel -- a prospect pushed by Washington, after several other Arab states have done so in recent years. Syria has admitted it held indirect talks with Israel, but the government has avoided taking a stance on normalisation.
Mint
3 hours ago
- Mint
Putin's sickening statistic: 1m Russian casualties in Ukraine
JUNE IS turning into an ill-fated month for Russia's armed forces. It started with a daring Ukrainian drone attack on airfields stretching from Siberia in the east to Murmansk in the north that Ukraine claims destroyed 41 large planes, or about one-third of Russia's strategic bomber fleet. But another, more momentous, statistic looms. Before the month ends Russia will probably suffer its millionth casualty since its full scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, based on current trends of about 1,000 soldiers killed or injured per day. Russia's staggering losses—which far exceed those it suffered in all its wars since the second world war—are a testament to Ukraine's stubborn defence against a far stronger power. Yet Russia's ability to shrug them off and to keep recruiting men to throw into meat-grinder attacks ought to also pose sobering questions for NATO's European members: how can democracies that value the individual deter an adversary so unconcerned about the lives of its soldiers that it will sacrifice them, year after year, in a punishing war of attrition? Russia's human-wave attacks are 'largely useless, grinding stuff" says Sir Lawrence Freedman, a leading British strategist. 'But there are no signs of exhaustion, they are just carrying on." The grim tally of losses comes from figures compiled by the Ukrainian general staff, leaving it open to question. But the number is not far out of line with estimates by Western intelligence services. It also roughly tallies with attempts by Russian independent media, such as Meduza and Mediazona, to count the bodies. By this time last year, Meduza reckoned that between 106,000-140,000 Russian soldiers had died. Much of their analysis was based on inheritance records and obituaries on social media and in other outlets. An estimate of excess mortality among Russian men based on probate records gave a figure of 165,000 by the end of 2024 with 90,000 having been added in the previous six months. Given the intensity of Russian operations for much of the past year it would not be hard to reach a figure of about 250,000 killed by now. The ratio of severely wounded to killed is thought to be about four to one, a reflection both of the severity of injuries in Ukraine and the low priority Russia gives to medical evacuation and the prompt field hospital treatment that saves lives. Another reason to attach relative fidelity to the casualty figures is that, to an unusual degree, they are attributable to those sustained by soldiers in action. In most wars, a high proportion of deaths, even among combatants, are the result of disease, famine, accidents and deliberate persecution of people in occupied territories, which inherently defy the best attempts at statistical accuracy. A good example is the Second Congo War from 1998 to 2003. By far the most lethal conflict of the 21st century, it is believed to have been responsible for 5.4m deaths, most of which were from disease and hunger. In the second world war, out of the nearly 27m Russians who died, some 6.3m were killed in action or died from their wounds. Ukraine does not publish its own combat losses in any detail. However, in December last year, Ukraine's president, Volodymyr Zelensky, said that 43,000 have been killed and 370,000 wounded since the invasion. That is probably an underestimate. But the relatively smaller number of Ukrainian deaths compared with their enemy reflects a number of different factors. Apart from its ill-fated counter-offensive two years ago, Ukraine has been fighting a largely defensive war. Advances in drone technology have thus far favoured defence over offence. Racing drones packed with explosives, known as First Person View (FPV) drones, that are flown into tanks or soldiers, are playing a similar role to the machinegun in the first world war. That innovation made infantry attacks so costly that neither side could break the stalemate of trench warfare until the development of new tactics and the invention of tanks. FPV drones have made these vulnerable, too. Russia has lost nearly 11,000 tanks and almost 23,000 armoured infantry vehicles since the war began. Now it depends largely on infantry attacks by small groups of men, sometimes on foot, sometimes on motorcycles. Another reason why Russia's casualties are much higher than Ukraine's is that the latter is a democracy and has only about a quarter as many people to draw upon. Thus it has to be seen to be concerned for the welfare of its troops. Its ratio of wounded to killed is thought to be about eight to one. When Ukraine's army has appeared to be indifferent to its troops, its struggles with mobilisation have intensified. Even so, it is remarkable how Russia continues to absorb such staggering losses (it needs to recruit 30,000-40,000 new soldiers each month to fill the lines). To put them into context, Russia's losses to date are on a par with the entirety of Britain's losses in the second world war. They are approaching America's losses in the same conflict, when its population was a similar size to Russia's today. The numbers killed in Ukraine are probably more than four times those suffered by America in the eight years of its direct involvement in the Vietnam war, a toll that led to mass protests. Russia's losses are also about ten times higher than the total number of casualties suffered by the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Whereas Ukraine is fighting a war of national survival, Vladimir Putin, Russia's president has choices. Yet he appears to be under little domestic pressure to call it a day. Having lost most of the mainly professional army that set out to defeat Ukraine over three years ago, the Kremlin has come up with an almost entirely novel way of replenishing manpower at the front without risking social destabilisation. It combines the ideological militarisation of society, by convincing most Russians that they are engaged in a war against an imperialistic NATO and that there is glory in death, with increasingly lavish contracts for those willing to sign up. 'Putin believes that the Afghan War is one of the main reasons that the Soviet Union collapsed," says Aleksandr Golts of the Stockholm Centre for Eastern European Studies. 'He has come up with a revolution in Russian military thinking. I call it 'market mobilisation', others have called it 'deathonomics.'" The sums being paid to soldiers, the majority of whom come from poorer provincial towns and are in their thirties and forties, are genuinely life-changing for many families. By the end of last year, according to Elena Racheva, a Russian former journalist who is now a researcher at Oxford University, the signing on bonus had reached 1.19m roubles ($15,000), while the average annual pay for a contract soldier was between 3.5m and 5.2m roubles, or up to five times the average salary. If a contract soldier is killed, his family will receive between 11m and 19m roubles. According to a survey last October by the Levada Centre, an independent polling organisation, 40% of Russians would approve of a family member or close friend signing up. Reporting by another journalist, Olesya Gerasimenko, from a recruiting centre in Moscow last summer found that many middle-aged fathers were accompanied by their wives and children when they came to sign on, determined to improve their family's fortunes. Mr Golts says that the impact can be seen in small towns across Russia where recruitment has been most brisk. New houses are being built, smarter cars are turning up on the streets, and nail bars and gyms are opening. For now, believes Ms Racheva, Russian society accepts that the system is an alternative to full mobilisation. There is 88% approval of contract soldiers receiving money and benefits for going to war 'instead of us". For the families of the dead and injured, huge payouts 'alleviate…their grief, such as feelings of injustice … and allow society to avoid moral responsibility for the casualties and injuries they endure," Ms Racheva wrote. In other words, the contract is not just between the soldier and the state. The question which nobody can answer is how long that contract will hold.
Indian Express
4 hours ago
- Indian Express
Operation Spider's Web, a second round of talks Russia-Ukraine: Drones vs diplomacy
The second round of talks between Russia and Ukraine, which reportedly lasted for barely an hour, concluded on Monday in Istanbul. Barring a potential prisoner swap, there was no breakthrough. The talks took place against the backdrop of Ukraine's 'Operation Spider's Web', in which a swarm of drones targeted at least five military airbases deep within Russian territory, reportedly destroying 41 bomber aircraft. This offensive comes just a week after Russia's massive aerial assault — 367 drones and missiles — on Ukraine, including its capital, marking the largest such attack of the war so far. Operation Spider's Web involved 117 FPV (first-person view) drones that had been covertly smuggled into Russia and concealed within trucks. These drones were remotely activated, allowing them to take off and strike their targets — some as far as 4,000 km away in Siberia. The operation highlights not only the growing prominence of drones in modern warfare but also the expanding scope of their application. It underscores the potential of an underdog riding on technological innovation in asymmetric warfare. During the infamous Trump–Zelenskyy spat in February, the US President had remarked, 'You don't have the cards.' Yet, Ukraine continues to defy expectations with its combat adaptability. Drones have become a defining feature of contemporary military conflicts. Their ability to loiter, evade detection, and strike with precision has made them a high-value, low-cost tool. Their use has been extensive in conflicts like Russia–Ukraine, Armenia–Azerbaijan (Nagorno-Karabakh), and the Syrian civil war. India, too, encountered its first drone conflict last month in an exchange with Pakistan, even though there were differing tactics — Pakistan tried to overwhelm India's aerial defence while India went for precision. Operation Spider's Web is sure to affect President Vladimir Putin's strongman image, especially among domestic audiences. There are strong chances that the escalation will harden the positions of both sides. At the Istanbul meeting, Moscow reportedly rejected Kyiv's offer of an unconditional ceasefire. Russia currently controls about a fifth of Ukrainian territory and insists Kyiv must relinquish it, envisioning a permanently 'neutral' Ukraine. Kyiv, on the other hand, demands a full Russian withdrawal and seeks NATO membership. While the first round of talks produced the largest prisoner exchange of the conflict so far, it offered little indication of an end to the hostilities. The latest round of talks hasn't achieved much, either.
