In a dramatic courtroom rebuke of politicized policing in Britain, journalist and activist Tommy Robinson won a decisive legal victory this week when Judge Sam Goozee ruled that law enforcement officials unlawfully targeted him because of his political beliefs. Robinson credited Elon Musk for financing his defense, declaring that “free speech won.” He added that without Musk’s intervention, “I’d probably be in jail.” The case stemmed from Robinson’s July 2024 arrest at the Channel Tunnel in Folkestone, where he was charged under the Terrorism Act after refusing to give police the passcode to his phone. Officers claimed suspicion after observing him driving a friend’s Bentley to Spain. Robinson countered that the phone contained confidential sources and the identities of victims tied to his reporting. Judge Goozee dismissed the charge outright, ruling that the stop and subsequent prosecution were politically motivated. “I cannot put out of my mind that it was actually what you stood for and your beliefs that acted as the principal reason for the stop,” Goozee said from the bench. The verdict underscored that political belief is recognized as a protected characteristic under the U.K.’s Equality Act, making discrimination on that basis illegal. The judge eviscerated the police testimony, finding it riddled with inconsistencies and evasions. Officers admitted destroying key notes, contradicting each other on major details, and issuing confused or deceptive statements. Goozee described police witnesses as unreliable and lacking credibility. The ruling affirms that Robinson was not suspected of terrorism; instead, the police appeared to have used counterterrorism powers as a pretext to harass a high-profile critic of the establishment. Video statements released by Robinson afterward showed him both grateful and angry. “I should be happy, but I’m not,” he said. “It shouldn’t take an American billionaire to defend British free speech.” His comments echoed a recurring theme: that the British state, aided by a complicit media, has sought for years to silence dissent by blurring the lines between journalism and extremism. Robinson highlighted how major British outlets sat through the trial and failed to report that the police admitted wrongdoing. “They all knew the evidence was corrupt and unlawful,” he said. “They just hoped I’d get another bent judge.” His frustration grew from the financial and emotional toll of years of legal battles — cases costing tens of thousands of pounds, only to end with him repeatedly exonerated. Musk, now openly positioning himself as a defender of free expression worldwide, became a central player in turning the tide. His support for Robinson’s case has reignited debate over the role of private citizens in defending rights the state itself seeks to erode. For many observers, the verdict represents far more than one man’s acquittal. It stands as an indictment of Britain’s weaponized bureaucracy and its two-tier justice system — one that has pursued a single journalist with ferocity while ignoring the crimes he has exposed. As Robinson put it, “I was arrested and prosecuted under counterterrorism legislation for being Tommy Robinson.” I WAS TARGETED BECAUSE OF MY POLITICAL BELIEFS!! Thank you @elonmusk for fighting in my corner, you’re an absolute legend!!! pic.twitter.com/vx405cCP6d — Tommy Robinson ?? (@TRobinsonNewEra) November 4, 2025 WOW!!! I am so humbled, and I can’t thank all of you enough for your support and engagement. And not forgetting the main man himself @elonmusk who gave me back my voice and saved freedom of speech in the west. I am eternally grateful to all of you. pic.twitter.com/37EYpaJZzB — Tommy Robinson ?? (@TRobinsonNewEra) November 3, 2025

America is watching with anxious anticipation as New Yorkers head to the polls, likely to install socialist Zohran Mamdani as the city’s next mayor. Since his shocking primary victory this summer, Mamdani’s candidacy has become a national story, with Americans wondering if the young radical represents a new direction for the national Democratic Party. And while Mamdani’s socialism and views on Israel are certainly cause for alarm, the policies he’s proposing for New Yorkers are just as shocking, though often overlooked. That’s why we asked Jane Menton, a lifelong New Yorker, to write about one Mamdani-backed policy that has New Yorkers on edge. Local Law 97 would force most buildings to “reduce emissions” by 2030, an expensive flight of climate fantasy that could price middle-class New Yorkers out of their homes. The policy, which Mamdani has pledged to enforce without mercy, is reminiscent of Biden-era climate policies that would have forced Americans to shoulder the burdens of climate extremists. America may have moved on from these policies. *** It’s Election Day in New York, and Zohran Mamdani, the socialist assemblyman from Queens, is almost certainly going to be the next mayor. But on his home turf, residents are terrified of the policies he supports. Among those policies is Local Law 97, which will require over 50,000 buildings to reduce emissions 40% by 2030 and 80% by 2050. For large buildings, full compliance requires full electrification and millions of dollars in renovations. The alternative is to pay hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars in annual penalties. And here’s the kicker: even if buildings follow through with electrification, at tremendous expense, there is currently an inadequate electricity supply to support the electrification mandates, and the city has no credible plan to provide it. Mamdani has pledged to enforce the law fully, with no adjustments. To him, Local Law 97 is about “taking on the real estate industry” and achieving “climate justice.” As with most of Mamdani’s policies — free buses, city-run grocery stores — the feel-good messaging ignores residents who are concerned about their quality of life. The law “is an existential threat for New York’s co-op and condo owners,” former New York Lieutenant Governor and Save NYC cofounder Betsy McCaughey said. “It will massively increase the costs for them to keep their home, while endangering the solvency of their homeowners’ associations. It may ultimately trap them from being able to sell their apartments as the market crashes and liens are placed against their developments for the unpaid conversion costs.” “This will financially destroy these middle-class homeowners and any dreams they may have had for a comfortable retirement.” On the eve of the election, 150 Queens residents gathered in the courtyard of Glen Oaks Village to oppose Local Law 97. Undeterred by the chilly, overcast weather, they warned their fellow New Yorkers that the radical climate policy could force them out of their homes. One of the speakers was Alicia Fernandez, the treasurer of a 726-unit apartment building in Mamdani’s state assembly district. “We had a full feasibility study done for our building, and the costs came to 60 million dollars for our 726 apartments. That is $60,000 per one-bedroom and over $125,000 for our three-bedroom units.” The looming implementation of the law has Queens residents on edge. “People don’t know if they can send their children to a certain college,” Fernandez said. “Should they reduce their 401(k) contributions? Can they afford to help their parents when their parents need help? Their lives are affected by this on a daily basis.” Glen Oaks, a middle-class apartment complex with 2,904 units and over 10,000 shareholders, is representative of the hundreds of thousands of residents facing this crisis. Bob Friedrich, the president of Glen Oaks, has been speaking out on behalf of his shareholders since Local Law 97 was first drafted in 2019. “[Our buildings] remain the last stronghold of affordable middle-class homeownership,” said Friedrich, noting that Local Law 97 “threatens that affordability.” “A clean environment and affordable housing is not a binary choice,” Friedrich noted. “You can have one without destroying the other. A mayor must understand this and unfortunately, mayoral candidate Mamdani does not.” Mamdani’s campaign has largely revolved around New York City’s affordability crisis. Like his ally, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Mamdani loves stoking conflict between the rich and the poor, the landlords and the tenants. He presents New York City as a town of the haves and have-nots, and that narrative has propelled him to the national spotlight. But it’s an incomplete picture. While progressive politicians love to present New York City as a town of the ultra-rich and ultra-poor, there are several neighborhoods — many of them in the outer boroughs Mamdani represents — where a middle class has been able to thrive. Members of that middle class say that Local Law 97, and politicians like Mamdani, hurt them by misrepresenting their concerns and ignoring their existence. “You know what no one is talking about? We are New York,” said Fernandez. Mamdani “is pandering to renters, to young people under 35, and all he cares about are bike lanes. That’s all Mamdani emails me about.” “He doesn’t care about the seniors. He doesn’t care about the vets. He doesn’t care about the generations who have supported our communities. We are the silent majority.” No matter who wins Tuesday’s race, the fight over Local Law 97 will continue until lawmakers make adjustments, or else doom New Yorkers to impossibly high housing costs in the name of climate justice. New York’s middle class is raising its voice. The city’s next mayor would do well to hear them. Jane Menton is a Queens resident and the Director of New Yorkers for Affordable Reliable Energy. The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

In a blistering internal report that reads like an indictment of the BBC’s own integrity, whistleblower documents reveal that BBC Arabic deliberately downplayed Israeli suffering in the Gaza war while racing to air unverified, Hamas-sourced claims designed to cast the Jewish state as the villain. The memo, written by Michael Prescott, a former adviser to the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines Committee, accuses the Arabic service of systemic bias, misinformation, and a shocking tolerance of antisemitic voices. According to the report, BBC Arabic repeatedly parroted Hamas talking points while omitting or minimizing Israel’s perspective — even when evidence contradicted militant propaganda. Allegations against Israel were rushed to broadcast “without adequate checks,” suggesting not mere carelessness but, as Prescott wrote, “a desire always to believe the worst about Israel.” The BBC’s English-language coverage told one story; its Arabic wing, quite another. In July 2024, after Hezbollah rockets killed nine children in the Israeli town of Majdal Shams, the BBC’s English site mentioned the victims and Israel’s retaliation. BBC Arabic? It omitted the children’s deaths entirely, highlighted Hezbollah’s denials, and the next day suggested Israel might have faked the attack. Prescott’s letter accuses BBC Arabic of providing a platform to extremists who openly glorify violence against Jews. One contributor, Samer Elzaenen — who once posted “We shall burn you as Hitler did” — appeared on the network 244 times. Another, Ahmed Alagha, who called Jews “devils” and “not human beings,” appeared more than 500 times. Yet BBC executives defended these individuals as “eyewitnesses,” not staff reporters. Prescott wasn’t buying it: “Most viewers would consider hundreds of appearances… to amount to being part of the BBC’s reporting team.” The report also blasted the BBC for amplifying Hamas propaganda about Gaza’s death toll, long after the United Nations revised down its own inflated statistics. BBC Arabic continued to treat Hamas-run agencies as credible sources, even after internal reviewers warned that claims of Israeli “mass graves” and “genocide” lacked any independent verification. In one instance, BBC coverage suggested Israeli forces buried thousands of Palestinians in hospital courtyards — a narrative later disproven, as the graves were dug by Palestinians themselves. Another blunder involved a claim that 14,000 babies were “hours from starvation,” when the real number referred to children at risk over a year. The BBC quietly corrected the article online — but repeated the falsehood the same night on “Newsnight.” Perhaps most damning, the BBC misreported that the International Court of Justice had ruled Israel’s war a “plausible genocide.” That was false — and took months to correct. Former BBC television director Danny Cohen condemned the leadership’s response: “Having made such serious and misleading errors, BBC executives chose to hide them from the public rather than correct the record.” When internal reviewers flagged these issues, senior managers brushed them aside. Jonathan Munro, the BBC’s news content chief, praised BBC Arabic’s “exceptional journalism” and even bragged it was “almost as trusted as Al Jazeera.” Prescott shot back: “Is Al Jazeera the new gold standard? The BBC exists to reflect British values — not echo Qatar’s propaganda outlet.” The scandal follows another major credibility crisis for the corporation — a Panorama documentary that doctored a Donald Trump speech to make it appear he incited the Capitol riot. Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy and media regulator Ofcom now face growing calls to launch a full investigation into the BBC’s bias and editorial collapse. As the memo concludes, “The BBC is prone to claiming it gets equal complaints from both sides. But looking at the evidence, it’s hard to argue the BBC is biased toward Israel. Quite the opposite.” At a time when Britain’s taxpayer-funded broadcaster is supposed to counter global disinformation, it is helping Hamas craft its narrative and eroding trust in one of the nation’s most sacred institutions.

'An abuse'

'You don’t know how to get out of it'

'Civil Rights' Leaders Complain Media Coverage Of Terrorism Makes Arab Town Look Bad

What do you think?

'I’m thinking they’re going to pretty much finish me off'