There is security in the court. Why? Is there an implication that Tommy, or his supporters, are a threat? Or is to protect citizens from the @CambsCops and their abusive conduct?
Tommy's lawyer is asking the judge if more people can be let in to sit in an empty row of seats. The judge says she doesn't want the front row to be used, because she doesn't want the court "overfull".
There are 19 empty seats.
The judge speaks to me directly again, referring to "pejorative" tweets I made yesterday, but not particularizing them. I presume she refers to my description of the police as "pervy" for filming Tommy's kids and making them cry. I told the judge I will not say that again.
I will continue to tweet my honest opinions based on the facts I see; opinion journalism is a legitimate species of journalism, perhaps one of the most important. But it is not my goal to offend the court or to interfere with her, so I will defer to her sensibilities.
I had no idea that @CambsCops were so sensitive, and I want them to know that the court will remain a "safe space" for them.
Back to the matters at hand. Sgt. Paul Street takes the stand. He's the main antagonist accosting Tommy in the pub that day.
Sgt. Street says he's been a cop for a dozen years. He says he's policed football matches and political protests. Tommy's lawyer (Alison Gurden) asks if he's policed the EDL. "I think I probably have but I can't remember," he says.
Gurden: is it right that you knew Mr. Lennon as Tommy Robinson? Street: I only knew him as Tommy Robinson Gurden: how much did you know about him? Street: my limited understanding was that he was an 80's football hooligan P.S. Tommy was born in the 1980s.
FYI -- according to my Twitter analytics, my tweets yesterday were viewed 4.7 million times. Thank you to all of my viewers and readers who helped crowdfund my trip here. You can see my videos at
http://www.TommyTrial.com Gurden asks Street about briefing notes about Luton football fans, including about possible drunken disorderliness. (Tommy is indeed a Luton football fan, but he attended the match that day with his children, and did not drink.)
Gurden: is there anything in the briefing presentation to police before the action about Tommy Robinson? Street: no; but "his name was mentioned in the briefing by someone" I'd comment on the credibility of this witness, but I don't want to intimidate the poor lad.
Gurden is now playing Sgt. Street's bodycam footage (or is about to). We learn that the camera is turned on and off by the police himself.
Street on bodycams: "when you slide the button down and it goes on; on the old ones you have to press a button, too". Street is the cop from the video here, e.g. at about 4:30 in: (brian of London Cambridge video)
We're watching the body cam version of the interaction here. So, we've heard the audio before, and we've seen it from Tommy's point of view. The body cam is the same incident, filmed from the cop's camera.
Audio of Street: "You're with a group of people who have been identified as potentially being involved with violence." Translation: "where's your having-lunch-with-your-kids loicence, bruv?" (Sorry to be intimidating.)
Gurden: at this point, Tommy is saying he's with his children. Why didn't you ask about it? Street: because he wasn't with his children, he was with a group of men drinking beer... he was with a group of men ordering pints of beer. But actually Tommy wasn't drinking beer.
I'm not sure if calling Sgt. Street a liar is too pejorative in this land without a First Amendment, or too intimidating for @CambsCops finest, so I will refrain from calling Sgt. Street a liar. #NotALiar
Orwell was a Brit. I'll channel him.
Sgt. Street is claiming that the @bedspolice "spotters" identified Tommy as a "risk supporter". As in a risk of violence. Even though he wasn't drinking, and was with his kids.
"I'm not lying. I have no reason to lie" -- Sgt. Street. #LOL
"Are you calling me a liar?" -- Sgt. Street #LOL
Street claims someone complained about Tommy being a risk of violence. But Gurden points out Street didn't mention that in his official statement, and asks why he conveniently remembers that now. Street replies "are you calling me a liar?" That's an odd answer to a question.
The other police officers yesterday were stone-faced, inscrutable. They'd be good a playing poker, I think. Sgt. Street has answered half his questions angrily, "are you calling me a liar!?"
Street's statement says he was "told" to issue s. 35 dispersal notices to any Luton fans who didn't leave by 6:30 p.m.
Gurden points out that, as described in his statement, he has no discretion. Street says officers had the discretion "whoever the officer is on the ground".
But does Sgt. Street not recall that he is on tape, repeatedly saying that the big "boss" has ordered this heavy-handed enforcement?
Gurden: Tommy wasn't drunk? Street: right Gurden: Tommy wasn't with any group causing a problem Street: right
Street claims that a "drunk football supporter", walking away from the pub, claimed that Tommy said was going to be a problem. "That's intelligence. You can't just ignore that... I partially relied on that."
Gurden: then why didn't you rely on the manager of the pub who specifically came up to you and told you they had been no problem all day? Why did you not rely on that?
Street: because s. 35 is a "likelihood" of committing violence. That would be my s. 35 power.
Sgt. Street just admitted that he gave more weight to an anonymous drunk man's musings, that he suddenly claims to remember but didn't mention before, and that was his "intel", and that trumped the pub manager vouching for Tommy. This is @CambsCops's best. (That's embarrassing)
Gurden: what's a "risk supporter"? Street: a football fan who is at risk of becoming violent
Street: It's not just taking one aspect. It's taking all the information I've been given, and making the best decision to keep the public safe. FOR THE SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC, TOMMY AND HIS CHILDREN HAD TO BE TAKEN OUT OF THE PUB.
Street: Tommy had a “strong smell of alcohol” Gurden: he hadn't had a drop to drink Street: I would find it very hard to accept that, because he smelled of alcoholic drink and was irate Gurden: wasn't he irate because you were kicking him out?
I'm a bit biased -- and lord knows, I'm mighty intimidating -- but Sgt. Street is a terrible witness. Emotional, incredible, clearly angry still. He really is, "in real life", the person shown in this video: (BoL Vid)
Sgt. Street claims that Tommy's video "isn't the start of our interaction". That's surely true. But funny enough, Street doesn't have any other video. It's that funny! Just like they accidentally deleted the video of them filming him and his kids walking to the railway station.
Gurden: why would Tommy have to leave the pub if you weren't serving him with a s. 35 notice? That's a pretty killer question. Street's written statement: "upon being told to leave, Tommy raised his voice". Well, there it is. Raise your voice, get arrested.
Gurden: so did he actually had to leave then? Street: no; it was a "negotiation" Gurden: so by raising his voice, he then tripped the s. 35 wire? Was that it? Street: well, that and "other intel" -- as in, his imaginary drunk friend that he just remembered
We're watching more video. Tommy was asking why he was being forced to leave. And Sgt. Street said, "you'll read it on the form." So it's a catch-22. You can't be told why you are breaking the law, until we hit you with the law. That's not a "negotiation". It's bullying.
Gurden: a s. 35 order should be served in writing Street: yes Gurden: you were just waiting for someone to bring you more s. 35 tickets, because you had run out. Otherwise you would have served him immediately, right? Street: right
Gurden: so a s. 35 order was actually never served on him!? Street: right. So they frog-marched him out of the pub, and to the railway station, without following their own rules! Without actually having being compelled by the force of law!
So they did not actually have the legal notice to him -- s. 35 "notice" is the name of it! -- and they are claiming that he left voluntarily! Street: "of his own accord!"
Sgt. Street is saying that Tommy left voluntarily! We watched video: Tommy, "tell me why I have to leave?" Gurden to Street: but you never did answer him, did you!? Because he didn't have to leave, you didn't serve him the notice! Street: erm.
We saw more video, where the cop say, "the boss" orders you out. Gurden: Luton officers said "the boss" had ordered a s. 35 order Who was that? Street: that Luton cop didn't know what he was talking about. #convenient
More video of Tommy saying, "I'm with him children, I'm with my family" Gurden: who said that? Street: a Cambridgeshire officer. Funny. One minute ago, Street blamed a Luton cop, saying Luton didnt' know what they were talking about. Now Street admits it was a @CambsCops
More video. Street said: "Keep going and you'll get yourself arrested." Gurden for what? Street: Assault of police (The court gallery laughs at this.) Gurden: he hadn't sworn at all, had he? Street: no.
Street: "he's pointing in my face and becoming loud" Gurden: he's surrounded by police officers; he's not a risk to anyone is he? And what he's saying to you is tell me why I'm being arrested Street: loudly, continuously, he's not being reasonable. Street: I was professional #LOL
Sgt. Street basically said that by continuing to ask why he was being arrested, that was ground to arrest him. Nothing else yet rose to the level; he hadn't been served a s. 35 notice; he wasn't violent. He was just asking too many questions. This is the worst witness.
Sgt. Street actually said, what if someone else comes in the pub and gets violent with him? Oh -- I thought it was the imaginary drunk guy who gave him the "hot intel" about Tommy.
Gurden: what if he would have gone back into the pub? Street: he would have been given a s.35 notice Gurden: so, effectively you hit him with the notice just for asking about it Street: well, he didn't actually get it
Video: "in a moment the form is going to come. If you stay you're going to be arrested." Gurden: so he's basically been arrested Street: erm.
Street: "the way Tommy is behaving, he's not a good example to his children" Are you telling me if another risk supporter came in, are you telling me he wouldn't [break the law]?
Tommy on video: "what violence am I going to cause? That is ridiculous". Gurden: The Luton officers were well aware Tommy had his kids with him Street: yes. Tommy on video: you know I'm not going to cause any trouble? Cops: "a decision has been made"
Pub security on video talking to Street: "Tommy and his family have been no problem" Street: you're being stupid. Gurden: why is that stupid? Street: Because he keeps asking me the same question Gurden: but you never answered him; you told him there was no discussion to be had
Sorry to be pejorative, and I know I'm intimidating. But if I were Sgt. Street, I might not go around calling other people stupid.
More video. Gurden: are you outside when Tommy was talking with his kids? Street: I don't know Gurden: but at some point you realize he's with his kids Street: yes.
True confession. I'm sitting next to @freddie_lynne who is live-blogging for @Cambslive And I think he feels a bit intimidated by me.
Video of cops frog-marching Tommy & kids on the street: Cop on video: "we're making sure that you're safe" Gurden: That's not what was happening, was it? Sgt. Street: I can't control what my officers say. Me: could you imagine if that were accepted as an excuse?
Gurden: did you see his daughter run away from him? Street: that absolutely was not seen by me Ezra: but he absolutely saw the imaginary drunk source of "intel"
Gurden reads from Street's statement, that claims Tommy was "shouting and swearing and his demeanour and behaviour caused his children to start crying"
Street: Tommy made his children hysterical
Gurden: you can hear she's crying before any of that
Gurden: what swear? Street: not in the pub Gurden: what swear? Street: he said bollocks once Gurden: that wasn't him
Gurden: any problematic fans had already left?
Street: I hadn't seen any fans causing problems.
Huh? All morning he's been talking about the risk of someone coming into the pub, meeting up with Tommy, and causing
Gurden: so you made no notes of any interactions between Tommy and any other football fans? Street: no Gurden: so this wasn't an incident that required any notes to be made? Street: not at that time.
Gurden is reading from Street's statement. There was a "drunk group" that had already left.
Gurden: what was it that gave you reasonable grounds to suspect that Tommy had contributed, or was likely to contributed to violence or disorder?
Street: "a football risk supporter" (e.g. the drunk imaginary friend).
Gurden: what else? Street: some other guy who said, "it's not the group outside who would be causing problems" Gurden: but he never mentioned Tommy? Street: right
Street: and also the behaviour of Tommy inside the pub
Gurden: what about the landlady saying they had been no problem? Street: irrelevant. He actually said that. Street said his imaginary friend saying Tommy would be a problem was relevant but the landlady saying he was fine was irrelevant. @CambsCops didn't send their best.
Street: the landlady wasn't aware of "the bigger picture". Got it. "The bigger picture", guys. I'm looking through the statute and can't find that. But hey, it's @CambsCops.
Gurden: so that was your reasonable suspicion. But why was it necessary? Street: I genuinely believe that Tommy would have contributed to crime or disorder. To keep the other members of the public safe who were there.
Gurden: let's be candid. You were instructed to do this. Street: why would I do that? I was acting lawfully and made the best decision I could.
Street: you're suggesting I've deliberately gone after this guy. But there was no reason for me to do that. Why? Gurden: because you were told to issue a s. 35 order Street: that doesn't mean anything.
.@CambsCops say I'm intimidating. Yeah, about as intimidating as a baby lamb. What is intimidating -- genuinely, truly, terrifyingly -- is the authoritarian, abusive policing this trial has exposed. I don't even think it's primarily political. It's just bullying with a badge.
Street "I don't agree that he was in and out of the pub checking on his kids, because he was talking with me." Street's basis for saying Tommy wasn't with his kids all day -- even though the landlady said he had been -- was because at that moment Street was talking to him.
Gurden: you could have actually asked him if he was drinking alcohol? Street: yeah Gurden: you could have asked the landlady about her statement, couldn't you? Street: yes Gurden: you could have asked him his intentions Street: I could have asked him a whole lot of questions.
Strong points by Gurden. Instead of actually asking Tommy any questions; instead of actually asking the people who had spent all day with Tommy, Street relied on his imaginary drunk friend on the street. Street: yup.
The police lawyer, Mr. Clemens, is back up, redirecting questions to his witness.Clemens and Gurden are now conferring quietly.
Gurden: did you know anything about Tommy's politics? Street: no Gurden: but you said you thought Tommy Robinson was an 80's football hooligan? Street: yes Gurden: and that was the Tommy Robinson who was mentioned in the briefing? Street: um.
Street was asked about policing EDL demos.
Street said he was told all about Tommy Robinson.
Street said Tommy's name came up in teh police briefing.
But Street thinks that "Tommy Robinson" was some hooligan from 35 years ago?
The judge has one question of her own, I think:Judge to Street: "did you say Luton police said Tommy was a risk? Street: a risk or a potential risk.
Street is done. It's 12:30. But it appears we're going to hear from another cop now. I'll try to catch his name.