Published On: Mon, Jul 2nd, 2018

The “Tommy Robinson” arrest psyop: the appeal, the con – and Leveson II?

[Please find a follow-up article here: Outcome of “Tommy Robinson” appeal: phony anti-establishment martyr, phony “far right” threat agitation]

Just in case anyone was thinking that, back on that fateful day in May, “Tommy Robinson” had turned up at Leeds Crown Court in order to cause a deliberate breach of the conditions of a suspended sentence, it now transpires that an internet domain name, SaveTommy[dot]com, that is now associated with an appeal for the funding of legal assistance for “Tommy Robinson”, was registered well over a year ago. It’s almost as if someone knew that something was going to happen whereby “Tommy Robinson” would need “saving”.

The URL was snapped up by Ezra Levant, proprietor of Rebel Media – and the reader who knows his beans will know that Levant has previously been discovered in possession of domain names for all sorts of occasions and eventualities that might arise from the Rebel’s special brand of “journalism”, or that would require coverage according to an Alt-Right talking point (the report linked to here only covers the tip of the iceberg).

And so, one could argue that Levant just had a feeling that, knowing “Tommy ‘The Scoop’ Robinson” for the genuine, hard-hitting, Bob-Woodward-and-Watergate type of journalist that he is, it would be inevitable that he would land in some trouble or other one day (but specifically, after May 10th, 2017). But is it not more likely that a shrewd operator – supposing that is what Levant is – would not work like that? Isn’t it more likely that shrewd operators would not gamble on mere possibilities, but instead invest in a certainty by knowing ahead of the game which horse was going to win?

Confirmation that the domain name is intrinsically linked to a fund-raising effort related to “Robinson’s” supposed predicament comes in a tweet from the pea-brained Katy Hopkins:

NEW! The FIGHT BACK for freedom for #TommyRobinson. New strategy approved by wife & family. New legal team and appeal. Help create a legal defence fund and family fund. Well done @ezralevant & @TheRebelTV (*Fully transparent accounts) WATCH

One is then supposed to watch a YouTube video, where the viewer is instructed in the description section to “VISIT SaveTommy[dot]com to donate to Tommy Robinson’s authorized legal fund”.

When one attempts to access the URL, one is redirected to a section of the Rebel Media website: a page dedicated to scrounging for money by which to “Help Save Tommy Robinson”. The form by which this “saving” appears to take comes in the shape of an appeal in the case of one Stephen Lennon. Of course, (“just in case you are confused”) it has to be explained  to the hard of having a brain, or the cognitively challenged who still do not understand that, in all the hashtagged advertising slogans urging their support, they are being asked to “save” a fictional character, Lennon is the “legal name” of “Tommy Robinson”. For those people who can observe this critically, however, the matter is only made more mysterious. The name on a document that did the rounds on the internet, and purported to a copy of the reporting restriction order issued by the judge at Leeds who sent “Robinson” to jail was Yaxley-Lennon. However, the given name “Stephen Lennon” appears to have come from “Robinson’s” hotshot legal team (“Tommy” switched lawyers to a “top law firm”, incidentally) in a statement given to Rebel Media – so, straight from the horse’s mouth. We await to see what transpires.

In any case, after getting past the sensational headline news that received somewhat off the cuff treatment at the top of the Rebel Media appeal page (to which we’ll return momentarily), one discovers that the appeal will not be against the conviction, but against the sentence. This should not be of any surprise, given that “Robinson” admitted to the offence. And his big time London lawyers obviously aren’t going to plough their time, or the money that until recently belonged to hundreds of thousands of dupes, into a futile effort that would waste it, are they?

Well, the chances of having “Robinson’s” sentence reduced is anyone’s guess. One twitter user, going by the name of @MsVictoriaVix , who replied to the abovementioned Katy Hopkins’ tweet, seemed to be well informed, and of the opinion that the sentence would not be altered:

The maximum sentence is also 2 years, he got 3 months for the 1st and 10 months for the second, I doubt after what the judge said last time they will reduce the 10 months sentence.

The author has not confirmed that the maximum sentence for contempt of court, which he understands to have been the offence for which the second longer term of 10 months was handed down, is in fact 2 years. However, what is understood in common with everyone else is that “Robinson” had been in breach of the conditions by which the first sentence had been suspended, and there is a time limit [length not known precisely hereabouts] by which to lodge appeals, so “Robinson” would probably have to serve the initial sentence at least. If it is true that “Robinson” got 10 months out of a possible 24, then he will probably be found to have been treated reasonably. Can “Robinson’s” band of big time solicitors achieve anything for the money that has been yielded up by the great mass of befuddled?

Well, Rebel Media states that “Robinson’s” upgraded legal representation wants to ask for bail until the appeal is heard (reported as being due on July 10th). This intention to gain bail (to “allow him to visit his family and friends… [and] to have proper meetings with his lawyers”) is a struggle to understand given that “Robinson” was convicted and given a suspended sentence in the first instance; he isn’t on a charge awaiting a trial. Indeed, the fact that a hearing date appears to have been set and is only 8 days away, plus the fact that “Robinson” is still incarcerated (as far as we know), appears to provide an answer about the real prospects of bail – but we await developments.

There is a case to make, then, that this appeal will not actually achieve anything, and if this is true then the question needs to be asked: for what real purpose is it being made? An answer might be tied to that previously mentioned “headline news”, to which we are slowly proceeding.

Firstly, we should briefly address the implications of what we do know about the appeal in relation to the money-making that has been going on around the “Tommy Robinson” arrest psyop. Once again, the appeal shows that no one in “Robinson’s” legally-informed camp thinks that he is suffering an unlawful imprisonment from which he must be freed – despite this being the impression that has actively been promoted by agent provocateurs and useful idiots under the slogan #FreeTommy. From information released by Rebel Media itself, we can conclude that the appeal constitutes an attempt to have “Robinson” released early, not an attempt to have his conviction quashed. This nuance has very likely been understood for a long time, and we might say that it probably drove a change of emphasis that could only be activated after the supposed prison transfer which, according to the Alt-Right media, would leave “Robinson” at risk from Muslim inmates. At that point, they could talk about #SaveTommy. They meant (and mean), save “Tommy” from his prison sentence – free “Tommy” is not the same thing in the slightest. The problem is, however, is that any impression that “Robinson” may have been at risk of being harmed in prison has been created by the very same sorts of people who are asking for money to #SaveTommy (using what could be a futile appeal as a motivator). The author would ask, at what point does this all become fraud?

Of course, stealing from the stupid would be activity that would pale in comparison with the possible ramifications for the internet that the “Tommy Robinson” arrest psyop, and ironically, its “free speech” cheerleading morons, could bring about. At last we get to it: the big news that Rebel Media has about the appeal is that it is being heard by “The Right Honourable Lord Justice Leveson, the most senior criminal judge in the United Kingdom”.

The first strange thing about this spectacular information that should occur to a person with a brain in his head is the seniority of the judge. Isn’t the “president of the Queen’s Bench Division and the Head of Criminal Justice” overkill for an appeal that won’t even challenge a conviction? Secondly, a thinking person should also get nervous that Leveson chaired the enquiry into the conduct of the press after the News International phone hacking scandal. The ramifications of the Leveson Enquiry for regulation of the official news corporate-media is something that we don’t need to dig into, because anything in the public domain regarding Government control of its media-arm is window dressing. However, the affair has forever after linked Leveson with media practice. He has become a persona that is automatically connected with the issue in an almost guru capacity. The purpose of applying this to the “Tommy Robinson” case would be to make a statement to the public to the effect that a problem-solver is now going to take a look at all the trouble. If the news is true, and Leveson is going to hear “Tommy Robinson’s” appeal, we should fear that the episode is going to be used to in some capacity towards achieving regulation of social media – which is always code for curtailment of alternative media (social media, per se, is not a threat to the Establishment).

Presuming that the 2012 article from which the following extract has been taken refers to Lord Justice Leveson, then the man has already stuck his oar in:

Given the boom of the internet, he predicted that new laws would have to be created to deal with this ever-changing sphere.

Lord Leveson went on to say there is a feeling that people can post what they wish without being responsible or accountable.

Moreover, the prospect of more “Leveson”, meaning a continuation of his enquiry into a second instalment, has recently arisen†. Is it possible [if it does go ahead] that this will have incorporated into it broader discussion, or provide an opportunity for an offshooting grander enquiry, that will encompass the regulation of the internet? Although, in the end, it doesn’t matter if “Robinson” wins early release, what we might expect to see happen will resemble the following: “Robinson’s” appeal politely declined, but not before an advocate for new legislation to regulate the internet is given a prominent platform to espouse his views. Thus the ball is set in motion (or given renewed impetus) for Government action. The sea of the “Robinson”-supporting thick will be furious, of course, and for all the wrong reasons, as usual, but the coffers will inevitably refill for poor old “Tom” and his “fight back” associates (with ne’er a police investigation taking place), and the Establishment will get to clamp down on those who actually do uncover its wrongdoing.

We wait to see.


Further FBEL reading:

All too predictable: dead horse gets flogged in “Tommy Robinson” arrest psyop (link)
“Tommy Robinson” psyop escalation falls at first hurdle; expect whip to be applied to dead horse (link)
The bleeding obvious gets more obvious: arson attack linked to “Tommy Robinson” (link)
UKIP (now with football fan street-politicking) and the “Tommy Robinson” psyop (link)
The “Tommy Robinson” arrest event is a psyop, but to what extent is it a hoax? (link)
While it remains to be seen if ghosts can be incarcerated, it’s certain that suckers are still born every minute (link)


† Earlier this year, the Government announced that a potential Leveson 2 would not go ahead. This does not mean it should be dismissed as never going to happen. Great pressure is being brought to bear in order to reverse the decision; the High Court hears a case in October. In any case, internet regulation doesn’t necessarily need a “Leveson 2” for its implementation; indeed, something like the “Tommy Robinson” case could lead directly to repackaged and refocused enquiry activity.


Update, 4/7/18:

Isn’t it funny how things occur? Not a whole day had passed after this FBEL article had been published when there came “bad news”: “Tommy Robinson’s” appeal had been cancelled. So said Ezra Levant in a July 3rd update at the SaveTommydotcom website (i.e. the redirection to Rebel Media). Apparently, the Crown Prosecution Service isn’t ready. To defend an appeal for a reduction in sentence?

Noticeably, we see the same old refrain of endangerment that there is not one shred of evidence for:

Every day for Tommy in prison is like a week — because he’s in solitary confinement, for his own safety from Muslim prison gangs who would kill him if they could.

The idea raised in this FBEL article, that this is device is for money-raising activity, with a token appeal as a motivator, and a rage-inducer when it all goes wrong, is only reinforced by the likes of the (frankly) lying, unverifiable and idiotic content at UKIPDaily – specifically an article on the cancellation of the appeal which frames the overall situation as a contest between an imagined deep-state (all government is rogue) and an imagined civil rights activist, and where “Tommy Robinson’s” life is threatened because of the ethnic makeup of Leicester (if you are from the Midlands, you know that, for donkey’s years, that city has had a large contingent in it originally from certain parts of Empire).

Initially, he was sent to Hull Prison on 25 May, which has one of the smallest Muslim prison populations. But then, at the direction of the Home Office, he was sent to Leicester prison . I have seen a figure that 70% of the prison population are Muslim, and if you look here [link removed], you can see the BBC crowing about how ethnically diverse Leicester is. The risk to his life became enormous, so he requested he be put in solitary confinement Thankfully the prison governor agreed, but that must be hell for the guy!

Meantime, a “Save Tommy” campaign started rolling. There were demonstrations, our own leader Gerard Batten spoke at them, and a website was created [link removed], the major aim to raise money for an appeal.  Among the best lawyers in the land were engaged, an appeal applied for, and a date given, the case was to be heard in the London’s Royal Courts of Justice next week, on July 10th, by Lord Justice Brian Leveson, the most senior criminal judge in the UK, famed for his role in the Leveson inquiry into the press, so he should know about free speech!

The link to the website that UKIPDaily would have its readers follow naturally leads to the SaveTommydotcom redirection at Rebel Media. Look at that! The best lawyers in the land were engaged – it must have cost a fortune.

So, here we have the story as everyone is supposed to know it, and from which there is no getting away from; it is, of course, just as the author said it was in the body of this article, and the same question raised there persists. “Robinson” was moved, the Alt-Right screamed blue murder, and there was a “Save Tommy” campaign – and there was a website to raise money. A website wherefor a domain name had been registered in 2017.

It's important to donate to FBEL - please see here to find out why
A PayPal account not required.
Displaying 2 Comments
Have Your Say
  1. Kevan Howley says:

    I appreciate your blog particularly for your insight, research and comprehensive presentation using well commanded language.

    But don’t you think perhaps your bias against ‘Tommy Robinson’ is affecting your judgement, eg in the above bulletin?

    Proving yourself to be so far off the mark with regard to this case causes reader to question not only the reliability of your narrative on this case, but wider.