Published On: Fri, Jun 1st, 2018

The “Tommy Robinson” arrest event is a psyop, but to what extent is it a hoax?

What can we understand about the “Tommy Robinson” arrest event as the dust settles, the reporting restriction is lifted, and the corporate-media and help-mates lecture their audiences about the dangers of contempt of court? Key to that understanding will be an appreciation of what the event has achieved for the Establishment. One particular consequence is already noted, and we will deal momentarily to what purpose the Establishment has suddenly acquired an interest in schooling the general public in the importance of a fair trial. But what other talking points or social trends are evident after the event?

As the reader of FBEL should well know, the episodes that trigger a nudge along the tracks towards the fully engineered society desired by the British Establishment would not happen if things were left to their own devices. When we answer the question about what has emerged from the event as new political landscape, we can also find clues by which we can appreciate the event as being a psychological operation by design, and not a happy accident.

On 29th May, parts of the corporate-media regaled its audience with articles that, according to the assurances contained therein, could only now be published thanks to the coming to his senses of Geoffrey Marson QC, the judge presiding at another trial which had been endangered by dint of being prejudiced by the intervention of “Robinson”. “Why contempt of court matters?” rhetorically quizzed the BBC. The Mirror, under the headline Why ex-EDL leader Tommy Robinson was jailed – and why no-one could report it until now, asked “What is contempt of court?”

Obviously, contempt of court had become a talking point – and it doesn’t take much imagination to foresee where this is going to lead. Examine the following extract from an “editorial” at the Independent:

The wider question that this episode raises is the future (and present) viability of contempt laws in an era when social media and the internet can be so easily and rapidly deployed to the detriment of justice and a fair trial. Tweets can be tweeted and web broadcasts made before anyone in authority even realises they are out there. That is a fresh challenge with which, as we see in the case of Robinson, the law cannot easily cope. If the contempt laws are not workable, they will fall into contempt themselves, in the more colloquial sense of the phrase…

What is urgently required is for the Ministry of Justice, or rather its political chiefs, to attempt to bring the law itself up to date, to clarify procedures for judges caught up in difficulties of this kind, and to try and find some method of encouraging the social media giants to cooperate.

The idea being presented here is that contempt laws must be adapted so that they are workable in the context of a challenge presented by “social media”. For social media, read alternative media. We should suspect that the concern that the Establishment harbours is all for the undermining of its State Crime, and the show trials it uses to commit patsies to jail – the latest being Darren Osborne and Ahmed Hassan. If there was any real anxiety about “ignoring the court and its constitutional role in making sure that justice is done”, as the BBC describes contempt, then this discussion would be generated whenever the corporate-media deems a false flag terror suspect guilty of the supposed crime on the same day as it is committed, let alone during the trial.

As it happens, the Independent is one of two news outlets – the other being “Leeds Live” [which appears to a local version of the Mirror] – that some corporate-media tells of being behind the lifting of the reporting restrictions on the arrest of “Tommy Robinson”. Indeed, the writer of the piece from which the above extract is taken makes the claim, and the Guardian published the following:

Another court order preventing reporting of Robinson’s arrest and the subsequent court proceedings was lifted on Tuesday after a challenge by Leeds Live and the Independent.

There is a reason to doubt the veracity of this version of events. A copy of the “Postponement Order” pertaining to “Robinson” appeared online, and read as follows:

His Honour Judge Marson QC made the following Order under section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 on 25th May 2018

Since it appears to be necessary for avoiding a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice in these proceedings

The publication of

Any reporting of these proceedings

Shall be postponed until

after the conclusion of the trial of T20177360 and T20187130 Akhtar and others

Now consider the screenshot, below, taken from the website. It shows details, for the 29th May, of the trial named in the Order.

The reference to the lifting of reporting restrictions must apply to the listed case numbers and no other. Could this be why the Order in the case of “Tommy Robinson” no longer applied? But something doesn’t sit right, because the listings for Leeds Crown Court, the 24th May, show that it was on that date that the judge had performed the summing up in said trial, and, therefore, the jury had first retired [supposedly when reporting restrictions are usually lifted].

Additionally, the jury in this trial continued to deliberate all day on the 30th.  On the 31st, the trial does not appear in the listings, and court room 12 is hearing something entirely different [the trial reappears on the 1st June (Court 12) – still reporting “Jury retire to consider verdict”]. Figuring out what this all means is beyond the scope of this article, but one does start to wonder if the reporting restriction applied to “Robinson’s” arrest was entirely necessary.

Consider the image above: it is the listing for the appearance of “Tommy Robinson” in Court 12, 25th May. Notice that the defendant appears in the listings as “Tommy Robinson”. How could this possibly ever happen? How could a man appear in a real court under a fiction? The Postponement Order that appeared online frames the case as Regina -v- Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon – but we have merely assumed that it is genuine document. Notice, too, that there is no status event recorded in the details for “Tommy Robinson” that reflects that reporting restrictions have been applied to his case. A term is available for this purpose if the compiler of these lists so wishes to use it; it reads like this: “Reporting Restrictions. For details please contact the Court Manager”. But then again, why would recording this information, or not, matter if the case pertained to a fiction? The upshot is this: if we think that the fictional character “Tommy Robinson” is in jail, can we say the same about the man who goes by the name of “Tommy Robinson”?

We should also notice that on the 25th May there was early reporting of the incident in which it was stated that “Tommy Robinson” had been released. RT stated that the “Latest reports indicate that Robinson has just been released from custody.” Breitbart stated that “Robinson has now been released, although it is unclear whether police will pursue charges at this point.” Caolan Robertson, who is best described as “Robinson’s” accomplice, wrote in a since deleted tweet: “UPDATE: Tommy Robinson has just been released. Heading to the police station now for further updates.”†

Fascinatingly, the Breitbart and RT pieces were pulled down after the emergence of the supposed reporting restriction, while a particularly important article in the Independent – which even manages to mention the trial that shouldn’t be mentioned‡ – remained firmly fixed on the internet:

Tommy Robinson has been arrested for allegedly breaching the peace outside a court during an ongoing grooming trial…

Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Lennon, had claimed that verdicts were due on Friday but court officials confirmed that the trial of nine defendants is ongoing.

It should be noted that the Independent piece did not report “Robinson’s” release. We don’t have the information to more fully venture the hypothesis that is crying out to be stated, because articles other than those published by RT and Breitbart were also pulled (according to the latter title). We’d be looking to see if they had mentioned news of “Robinson’s” release.

At this point we must take a look at an article that has been widely touted as a complete counter to the “Tommy” as political prisoner presentation of this incident. The writer goes by the alias of “the secret barrister”, and is evidently of the school that believes the corporate-media represents “accurate” and “responsible” journalism. We don’t usually take any notice of the blogosphere (for obvious reasons), but also we definitely do not like reinventing the wheel. And it is important to see that certain ideas have been grasped at the one end of the thread in this story that is tangible in the world of received thinking, even though the bigger picture to which it is connected remains hidden. We don’t need this writer to see the balloon on the end of the string; the fact that the cord has been discovered is what is of interest. The first paragraph of our study is the following:

While… the reasons for the postponement order [the reporting restriction] appear sound, the consequence of preventing fair and accurate reporting by responsible journalists was that there was no factual counterpoint to the selective and inaccurate details of Yaxley-Lennon’s situation that were inevitably flooded through social media by his knuckle-dragging cheerleaders, not least his racists-in-arms across the pond. Thus sprung a (largely unchallenged and unchallengeable) narrative of Tommy The Brave being arrested outside court for no reason and imprisoned in secret by the deep state, culminating in petitions for his release and a Nazi-themed march on Downing Street.

The point made is very important. The reporting restriction around the arrest of “Tommy Robinson” produced an opportunity for a single narrative to dominate [and across the entire span of a Bank Holiday weekend in which there was definitely an attempt from the usual suspects to inspire street protest]. We are faced, then, with the possibility that the environment was engineered specifically for the outcome. If it turns out that the reporting restriction was indeed unnecessary because of the real status of the trial which was cited as needing protection, then what was a possibility becomes more of a probability.

The next paragraph of our study didn’t make it into the iNews version of the article, but appeared in what seems to be the original published at the writer’s own website. Obviously, the term “far-right” is meaningless, and it is not sympathisers who are doing the stirring; sympathy implies the giving of solace in an accidental situation. The people stirring the pot are leading the merry dance, not following it. When the FT writes of how “Tommy Robinson won the support of the global alt-right”, then it too is agitating on behalf of the purpose for which “Tommy Robinson” is merely a tool. Is the FT a “far-right sympathiser”? The intention of that article would be to deceive regarding the real numbers of those who are interested in “Tommy Robinson” as a political rallying point (the reality is probably this: 0% of the world’s population cares about “Tommy Robinson”). Using the word “global” is the continuation of a trick that began when “Robinson” and his Alt-Right ilk were astroturfed on social media (meaning, given highly inflated follower and engagement numbers). Indeed, when writing the previous article on this issue, the author was a victim of a claim for an inflated attendance figure at a meeting in London on Saturday 26th May# (the YouTube video linked to in the comments section underneath the said article shows that the turnout was not huge, and definitely not “mass”, as has been described in some corporate-media).

…there are two types of people currently propagating the Free Tommy Robinson myths: far-right sympathisers deliberately sowing discord and falsehoods, whose concern for due process is a cipher for hero-worship of a racist cult leader; and good people confused and worried about what they’ve heard about the “threat to free speech” posed by the overbearing English and Welsh justice system. The first category are never going to be swayed by facts or rational argument. That is plain from their every interaction on social media, and their every appearance on Fox News. Their motives are clear, their integrity irretrievable and they are not only beyond reach but, frankly, not worth the effort. The second group will, I hope, realise from this explanation that the toga party they have wandered into is in fact a Klan meeting, and will understand the urgency and frustration that underpins the argument.

It’s not a surprise that this blogosphere writer thinks that people who have been duped by the “Tommy Robinson” psyop would suddenly have the scales fall from their eyes after having everything  explained in terms of groupthink.  The very essence of the “Tommy Robinson” psyop is that it is communicating to people who see that there is a problem with the perspective from which the legal code is written. If people don’t understand clearly that “legislation is to enforce government policy”, as was expressed in the FBEL article, The police as militia, and the “policing by consent” deception, then they have a vague and disquieting notion about it. Legislation is not law, and crime above what is commonly appreciated as such is defined by those who negate lawful rights with legislation. And once a ruling class has the monopoly of force, then crime can be defined as being the insistence of rights that are detrimental to the interests of the ruling class.

Let’s dip into this further using a paragraph from the piece by “secret barrister”; it forms part of an attempt to show that it was ok for the police to arrest “Robinson” for a breach of the peace, and then to be jailed for contempt of court:

Police officers have common law powers (i.e. powers not set out in statute) to arrest somebody where a breach of the peace is committed or where the officer reasonably believes it will be committed in the immediate future. As to what constitutes a breach of the peace, it is defined in case law as follows: “there is a breach of the peace whenever harm is actually done or is likely to be done to a person or in his presence to his property or a person is in fear of being so harmed through an assault, an affray, a riot, unlawful assembly or other disturbance.” (R v Howell [1982] Q.B. 416) As we can see, it’s a fairly broad definition.

This means to say that a private individual can arrest anyone who he believes is going to cause him harm. Well, we all can envision the outcome of a scenario where police intervene in the case of a man who goes to hang his landlord because the extortionate rent has meant no proper food for a wife that has consequently died in childbirth. However, how do we think it would go with the man when he goes to arrest his landlord because the situation he is forced to live in is endangering the life of his expectant wife? He’ll attract the ire of the State enforcers, because there will be legislation, that denies the man his lawful right, to protect those to whom the State represents vested interests. So, the legal code is written from a perspective. Legislation is not law, as we have said before at FBEL, it is the means by which the ruling class dominate. This is the problem that people see – or feel. The danger that comes from exposure to the “Tommy Robinson” psyop is that people will attack this in the name of the supposed injustice suffered by a ghost, and it will do terrible harm. Going to the street and volunteering into contextual circumstances whereby the Establishment can sweep up with its law-denying legislation is suicidal. The successful way forward takes a completely different, and quiet route (see So, the British Government is entirely corrupt. What happens next?here). That is why the Establishment wants riots.

And those who are duped should take a hint by the way “Robinson” himself surrendered into the realm of the empowered State. If the police really did arrest “Tommy Robinson” for breach of peace, and they did it to protect the malfeasance of the State as has been claimed, then that could be argued as constituting common assault. “Robinson” didn’t bring any of this stuff up, and admitted contempt of court when the charge was put to him in a court room, to which he had been brought after submitting, without complaint, to the arrest for breach of peace. Let’s get this clear, no one can claim that “Robinson” is an injured party in this, because he doesn’t do it himself.


† Strangely, the following line appeared in the Metro on Saturday 26th May: “[Robinson’s] fans fear he may be jailed again as he’s already under a suspended sentence over contempt of court at a gang rape trial in Canterbury last year.”

‡ Let it be clear that this FBEL article is not connecting the named individuals in the trial listings shown within it with crimes that have been described as “grooming”. However, the “grooming gang” phenomena will need to be covered in future; the hunch here at FBEL, based on the fact that certain areas around and in Leeds seem to be a hotspot for State Crime and a source for participants in it, is that there might be a connection between crime, and activity in the service of the intelligence agencies.

# The corporate-media is claiming that “hundreds” of people (one outlet says 400 – “around 500” says the Daily Mail) protested in Leeds on 1st June, and in particular outside the Leeds Crown Court. The author isn’t seeing “hundreds” in the images available, but they could be cunningly photographed to conceal the real size of the crowd. It begins to look like this psyop has the full cooperation of the corporate-media, and is meant to run through the summer. On top of everything else written about in this article in terms of Establishment objectives, we can expect lots of people to be getting agitated about the fictional character, “Tommy Robinson”, when they should be focussing on the Fake Brexit.

The police patrolled the protest with horses, and appeared to be there in good numbers, so it looks like they were prepared, and blessings had been given for the assembly. It figures.

It's important to donate to FBEL - please see here to find out why
A PayPal account not required.
T-shirts to protest compulsory face coverings - click image