Tommy Robinson allegedly told journalist ‘I'm coming to get you'
Robinson, 42, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, is charged with two counts of harassment causing fear of violence to MailOnline reporters Andrew Young and Jacob Dirnhuber through his X account between August 5 and 7 2024.
He appeared at Southwark Crown Court on Thursday after his not guilty pleas at Westminster Magistrates' Court last month.
Wearing a blue waistcoat and a man bag, Robinson entered not guilty pleas after the details of the charges were read out at the crown court.
Robinson also spoke to confirm his name at the brief hearing and waved at his supporters in the public gallery.
His Honour Judge Tony Baumgartner set a trial date of October 19 2026 with a five-day jury trial estimate at Southwark Crown Court.
A pre-trial review was also set for October 5 2026.
Robinson is charged with harassment causing fear of violence by making a telephone call on August 5 last year in which he is alleged to have told Mr Young that he would visit his house and said 'I'm coming to get you'.
He is also alleged to have posted on his X account on August 6 last year at 10.45pm, three edited photographs depicting Mr Young's wife, daughter and his motor vehicle, with the message: 'Hey @JDirnhuber get your colleague Andrew Young to call me back, you see he published pictures of my family and gave away their location.
'I'm working on a news piece myself about all of you, I won't identify any innocent people or give address as that's not morally right unlike you scum. You will all be questioned on camera about how you think endangering children is ok. My homework continues.'
Robinson is further charged with harassment causing fear of violence by allegedly posting from his X account a direct message to Mr Dirnhuber on August 5 last year at 8.50am in which he said 'I'll be knocking at your door'.
On the same day, he is also alleged to have posted direct messages to Mr Dirnhuber saying 'Let your bosses know I'm coming to all your houses', 'Okay got your address' and 'We need to talk'.
On August 6 at 9.43pm, Robinson is alleged to have posted on X: 'Got ya @Jdirnhuber this is Jacob, he likes to locate and endanger families. Jacob and the rest of the Daily Mail journalists who were involved in endangering my children have today been located.
'I look forward to hearing on camera your justification for doxxing my children's location. I got all three of you tagged and bagged in one day'.
He is also alleged to have posted on August 6 last year at 10.50pm a direct message on X to Mr Dirnhuber in which he said: 'I'll bring my questions to all of your doors.'
Prosecutors told a previous hearing that none of the alleged harassment contained direct threats of violence.
After the last hearing, Robinson said he had 'never had' the opportunity to have a jury trial and wanted '12 members of the British public' to hear the evidence in the case.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Bolton police patrol fields and parks to prevent illegal use of off-road bikes
Police officers have been out patrolling on foot as part of efforts to stop the illegal use of off-road bikes. Yesterday afternoon, (Saturday, July 5), officers set out in areas where the bikes are being used. These include local fields and parks - where warnings are in place to not use the vehicles. Police have warned that any riders found to be using off-road bikes in these areas will have their vehicle seized "without further warning". Warnings are in place forbidding the use of off-road bikes (Image: GMP) A spokesperson for Greater Manchester Police said: "Officers from the Bolton North Neighbourhood Team have been on foot patrol this afternoon/evening in areas where off-road bikes are being used. READ MORE: Cuckooing: Police reveal signs to look out for for crime READ MORE: Driver fled at 90mph when police saw passenger 'performing sex act' READ MORE: Sara Cox speaks fondly about her dad who is still farming now "There are a number of section 59 warning signs at entrances to local fields and parks, pursuant to the Police Reform Act 2002. "Any off-road bikes found being used in these areas will be seized without further warning. "If you have any information about those riding off-road bikes in your area, you can contact the independent charity, CrimeStoppers, anonymously, on 0800 555 111 or via their website."
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
No age limit on law, says Met Police chief as 83-year-old arrested at protest
The law does not have an age limit, the head of the Metropolitan Police said after an 83-year-old reverend was arrested when protesters gathered to show support for Palestine Action which has been banned as a terror group. The Metropolitan Police posted on X on Saturday afternoon saying officers were responding to the demonstration in Parliament Square, London, and later added that 29 people were arrested. The protest started at about 1.10pm and officers were seen taking people away shortly after 1.30pm. Reverend Sue Parfitt, 83, who was sat in a camp chair with placards at her feet, appeared to have been taken away by officers. A woman seen lying on the ground in handcuffs was lifted by officers and put in a police van. Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley was asked on the BBC's Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg whether it was a good use of police time after the priest was pictured being taken away from the demonstration. He said: 'The law doesn't have an age limit, whether you're 18 or 80. 'If you're supporting proscribed organisations, then the law is going to be enforced. 'Officers, you could see, did it with great care and tried to preserve that person's dignity, but they're breaking a serious law. 'Palestine Action have over the last 18 months, I have to be careful what I say, because there's cases coming to trial, but some really serious criminal offences that they're accused of. There are millions of pounds worth of damage on multiple occasions. There are assaults, there are weapons used. 'It is not about protest. This is about an organisation committing serious criminality and obviously the Home Secretary was persuaded by the papers on her desk to proscribe them, that law has come into force, and if people want to defy that law, then we have to enforce it.' Palestine Action lost a late-night Court of Appeal challenge on Friday which sought to stop the protest group being banned, less than two hours before the new legislation came into force at midnight. The designation as a terror group means that membership of, or support for, Palestine Action is a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. A group had earlier said it was set to gather in Parliament Square on Saturday holding signs supporting Palestine Action, according to campaign group Defend Our Juries. In a letter to the Home Secretary, protesters said: 'We do not wish to go to prison or to be branded with a terrorism conviction, but we refuse to be cowed into silence by your order.' The move to ban the organisation was announced after two Voyager aircraft were damaged at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire on June 20, an incident claimed by Palestine Action, which police said caused around £7 million of damage. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, stating that the vandalism of the two planes was 'disgraceful' and that the group had a 'long history of unacceptable criminal damage'. MPs in the Commons voted 385 to 26, majority 359, in favour of proscribing the group on Wednesday, before the House of Lords backed the move without a vote on Thursday. Four people – Amy Gardiner-Gibson, 29, Jony Cink, 24, Daniel Jeronymides-Norie, 36, and Lewis Chiaramello, 22 – have all been charged in connection with the incident at RAF Brize Norton. They appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Thursday after being charged with conspiracy to enter a prohibited place knowingly for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom, and conspiracy to commit criminal damage, under the Criminal Law Act 1977.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Another tantrum from the Labour backbenches is inevitable
In common with many parents across the country, here's a conversation that I have with my young daughter on a semi-regular basis (bear with me, this will take on some political relevance eventually). Me: "So it's 15 minutes until your bedtime, you can either have a little bit of TV or do a jigsaw, not both." Daughter: "Ummmm, I want to watch TV." Me: "That's fine, but it's bed after that, you can't do a jigsaw as well." Fast-forward 15 minutes. Me: "Right, TV off now please, bedtime." (Pause) Daughter: "I want to do a jigsaw." Now replace me with the government, the TV and jigsaw options with axing welfare cuts and scrapping the two-child cap, and my daughter with rebellious backbenchers. Politics latest: That is the tension currently present between Downing Street and Labour MPs. And my initial ultimatum is the messaging being pumped out from the government this weekend. In essence: you've had your welfare U-turn, so there's no money left for the two-child cap to go as well. As an aside - and before my inbox fills with angry emails lambasting me for using such a crude metaphor for policies that fundamentally alter the lives of some of the most vulnerable in society - yes, I hear you, and that's part of my point. For many in Labour, this approach feels like the lives of their constituents are being used in a childish game of horse-trading. So what can be done? Well, the government could change the rules. Altering the fiscal rules is - and will likely remain - an extremely unlikely solution. But as it happens, one of Labour's proverbial grandparents has just popped round with a different suggestion. A wealth tax, Lord Neil Kinnock says, is the necessary outcome of the economic restrictions the party has placed on itself. Ever the Labour storyteller, Lord Kinnock believes this would allow the government to craft a more compelling narrative about whose side this administration is on. That could be valuable, given one of the big gripes from many backbench critics is that they still don't really understand what this prime minister stands for - and by extension, what all these "difficult decisions" are in aid of. The downside is whether it will actually raise much money. The super-rich may have lots of assets to take a slice from, but they also have expensive lawyers ready to find novel ways to keep their client's cash away from the prying eyes of the state. Or, of course, they could just leave - as many are doing already. In the short term, the future is a bit easier to predict. If Downing Street is indeed now saying there is no money to scrap the two-child cap (after heavy briefing in the opposite direction just weeks ago), an almighty tantrum from the backbenches is inevitable. And as every parent knows, the more you give in, the harder it becomes to hold the line.
