Irony, perjury and the English Democrats

Those who follow the comical antics of the English Democrats and their bungling solicitor chairman, Robin Tilbrook, will find the latest missive from the great failure deliciously ironic.

English Democrats members have been involved in a planned protest outside Abu Qatada’s house in London which Qatada has got an injunction to stop.  The English Democrats are explicitly listed as one of the organisations involved in the planned protests which Tilbrook has got a bit stroppy about.

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
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
BETWEEN

THE WIFE AND CHILDREN OF OMAR OTHMAN
Applicants/
Claimants

and

(1) THE ENGLISH NATIONAL RESISTANCE (by its
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)
(6) PERSONS UNKNOWN WHO ARE INTENDING TO ASSEMBLE OUTSIDE THE HOME OF CLAIMANTS INCLUDING INDIVIDUALS ASSOCIATED WITH “MARCH FOR ENGLAND”
Respondents/
Defendants

___________________________

WITNESS STATEMENT
___________________________
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

Just read point 3 of Tilbrook’s statement again:

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.

But what’s this on the English Democrats website?

English Democrats website warning not to attend Abu Qatada protest

Did someone say “perjury”?

This statement in point 5 is also amusing:

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.

Tilbrook dragged me in front of a High Court judge last year on an entirely baseless accusation of libel.  Despite being a “solicitor and officer of the court” he was clearly too stupid to understand that decades of legal precedent were against him and would listen to me, my solicitor or my barrister when they told him that he had no case.  He persisted, bungled his way through a brief hearing and was told by the judge exactly what he had already been told – that there was no case to answer.  I wouldn’t take Tilbrook at his word if he said night follows day, let alone something like this.  I’m surprised he hasn’t threatened to sue Abu Qatada or his solicitors.

Finally, point 8 is the most ironic one of all:

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.

Tilbrook was fixated on his belief that my solicitor was a UKIP supporter and that this had some relevance to the case.  My solicitor repeatedly told him that he wasn’t a UKIP supporter and that his political beliefs were of no relevance and none of his business anyway.  His vexatious case against me was entirely politically motivated and his case, such as it was, was all about the English Democrats rather than himself.  His sole reason for pursuing me was because I am a UKIP supporter, because he sees me as the main reason so many good English Democrat activists left his party for UKIP (I was largely responsible for UKIP declaring its support for an English Parliament) and because I have never backed down from exposing the thuggery and racism in the English Democrats in the face of threats, abuse and defamation from their senior members.  And how amusing that Tilbrook is still crowing about the English Democrats somehow winning the Doncaster mayoral elections even though Mayor Peter Davies has left the party because of its links to racists and fascists.

I hope Abu Qatada’s solicitors don’t want any money out of Tilbrook, I’m still waiting for my legal costs to be paid over 8 months after he lost his court case.

One comment

  1. Jamie (4 comments) says:

    Good analysis.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


two + 5 =