Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood recently described Danny Tommo, the leader of Patriot Platform, as “a far-right and outright racist”, warning that he would feel “the full force of the law” if he or his organisation committed any crimes. Such fierce language is rarely directed at illegal immigration or Muslim rape gangs – except, perhaps, in the immediate vicinity of an election. Instead, it is reserved exclusively for Britain’s mythical ‘far-right’, an entity which enjoys about as much real-world influence as Alf Garnet ever mustered. Nonetheless, it is uncanny how fast our government can move when motivated. Earlier this week, Mahmood got her wish.
Following an incident in the English Channel, where Tommo appeared to slash an empty dinghy that had just been used to ferry roughly 50 illegal immigrants, he was arrested and charged with criminal damage and failure to give his phone’s PIN. The maximum sentence for the latter offence is two years’ imprisonment. While even the BBC admits there were no migrants on board at the time, a French crewman stepped onto the empty craft just as Tommo approached it, apparently intent on towing it back to France. Tommo can be seen on the livestream making sure the man steps back onto his own vessel for his own safety:
After a lengthy campaign of protest, including an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to block the transport of illegal migrants at Portsmouth, Tommo has obviously concluded that he needs to get closer to the source of the problem – hoping to break the supply chain of the French and British authorities while still at sea. Some may consider this extreme, but it’s worth reminding ourselves that compared to our European neighbours, Tommo and his men are remarkably restrained. The Greek coastguard, for instance, routinely throws migrants overboard, blocks their boats, and even fires at illegals attempting to breach their borders:
While my working knowledge of the law may not quite be up there with Arthur Daley, I’m struggling to understand exactly what Tommo’s charge amounts to. Isn’t the government’s official mantra to “smash the gangs”, and “stop the boats”? Isn’t that precisely what Tommo was doing? Moreover, isn’t that what we pay the French a billion quid to do, on the rare occasions they get off their arses? Doesn’t “criminal damage” suggest the people traffickers now need to sue Tommo for the loss of property? And will we be jailing the French border force, who have committed the exact same ‘crime’ in the past?
What’s curious in Tommo’s case is that he is being charged with the refusal to give up his phone – which I believe is under terrorism legislation. Imagine if Burnham’s finest investigated the phones of the illegals we’re bringing in daily – how many ISIS terrorists might we uncover? Perhaps that’s why they don’t look.
Despite the hundreds of supporters who gathered outside Basingstoke police station demanding Tommo’s release, Chris Derrick, Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor for The Crown Prosecution Service obviously thinks this prosecution has legs: “Our prosecutors have worked to establish that there is sufficient evidence to bring the case to court and that it is in the public interest to pursue criminal proceedings.” As a reminder, these are the self-same authorities who didn’t consider it in the public interest to publish information about the Muslim rape gangs. Funny that.
Like the State persecution of Tommy Robinson before him, it was inevitable that the government would come for Tommo to quash the rebellion before it could gain momentum. This follows a pattern of Englishmen punished for taking responsibility for domestic security, while the authorities refuse to. But it was not always so. Going back just two decades, Home Secretary Jack Straw was famously lauded as a “have-a-go hero”, and the Labour government determined to relax the laws on self-defence. Fast forward to 2026, and you are more likely to get your collar felt for preventing shoplifting, the gang-rape of your daughters, or the illegal invasion of your own country than you are for committing the crimes themselves.
This is the latest two-tier slap in the face for the white British population, with the authorities merely performative vis-à-vis actual crime. When it’s Black Lives Matter riots, Muslim sectarianism or the desecration of priceless works of art by Just Stop Oil, the police act with kid gloves. Stand for the wrong political persuasion, however, and you face years in chokey – just like Portsmouth protestor, Del Somerville, who was recently handed a two-year sentence for throwing a plastic bottle and swearing at police. As Judge Daniel Sawyer admitted, this was as “a deterrent to others”. Are we to conclude therefore, that the routine suspended sentences handed down to Muslim rioters and rapists are intended to “encourage them”?
What’s notable is that none of this occurs in a vacuum. On Wednesday of this week, 781 illegals arrived in Britain aboard 10 dinghies – the highest daily figure so far this year. And while the vast majority are fighting-age men, the women that do come are now being gang-raped en route. This reality reveals two things: first, the Channel crossing is not nearly as hazardous as one might suppose if those making the journey have time for a bit of hanky-panky; second, those arriving are emphatically not coming here to contribute to society.
As I have argued previously, the British government, the Civil Service, the Constabulary and the establishment en masse are now so firmly anti-white, anti-British, and anti-democratic, that we should not only be considering them a hostile force, but treasonous into the bargain; my definition of which is the betrayal of one’s country, or aiding its enemies. Post Blair, every administration has de facto aided the enemies of Britain. As though that were not enough, they forced the taxpayer to fund it. Since Starmer’s election alone, so many illegals have crossed the English Channel, that their number now supersedes the strength of the British Army. Those of a more conspiratorial nature might read something into that.
Like them or loathe them, there’s a reason the British State despises the Tommy Robinsons and the Danny Tommos of this world: by doing more to combat illegal immigration with a smartphone than the Home Office achieves with a billion-pound budget, they make it impossible for the State to claim incompetence as a defence. And in reserving the full force of the law for the dissenters not the invaders, our government proves itself not merely complicit in the rape of Britain; but actively desirous of it.
Tommo has crowdfunded a top-tier KC, and will hopefully secure bail – although considerable restrictions on his freedom will undoubtedly follow. This leaves the rest of the populace in a dilemma: are we once again, as we were post Southport, to be cowed into submission, or do we keep fighting?
Since the social contract has been ripped up and torn to shreds by the powers that be, there is no longer any obligation on the public to toe the line. With the assault on English ethnicity, the rewriting of whites out of their own island story (except in the case of going off to die for it), and the claim that our very flag is racist, the time has surely come for organised, civil disobedience. Indeed, what better justification could there be than the state-sponsored invasion by hostile forces?
That protest is what Tommo was trying to achieve, and that is exactly what must continue in his absence. Rather than meekly submitting to the dubious wearing of face masks or the banging of saucepans for a non-functioning NHS, I suggest the mass non-payment of council tax, coordinated strike action, or the removal of children from the classroom. The government needs to learn that the full force of the law can be met by the full force of the public. They can take out one man; they cannot take out us all.
Frank Haviland is the Editor of The New Conservative, and the author of Banalysis: The Lie Destroying the West.