Published On: Wed, Oct 24th, 2018

“Tommy Robinson” arrest psyop plays out: ahead, a stay of political execution?

Share This
Tags

Like an emptied can of flogged-dead-horse, the “Tommy Robinson” contempt of court case got kicked further down the road yesterday. It might be good news for those fund-raising to “SaveTommy” from certain death in Mulsim-majority prisons, or prison-wings – or particular landings, even – for there remains much to do, presentation-wise, to effect the great escape, and presumably none of it will be free or the least bit inexpensive. Moreover, the British Government is evidently looking for its own escape from a miserably failing psyop – only “400 or so” fans – according to the BBC – congregated in support outside the Old Bailey: “There appeared to be fewer protesters than at Robinson’s last hearing in September”, noted the Independent. As such, it looks to be preparing to exonerate “Robinson” – perhaps even with full exposure and in every detail. This is the new opinion of the author, for reasons about to be stated, which has been modified slightly since writing the following (from here):

It had appeared to some of us that the Court of Appeal judges had suggested quite plainly that a rehearing was necessary because “Robinson” might not yet have been suitably treated by the law in terms of extracting a debt to pay on his side. However, the first act of the City of London’s man was to remove the certainty of the necessity of further process. And what we might very well see going forward is the case against “Robinson” dropped entirely without any arguments for and against being supplied for public consumption.

Being referred to in the quote is the Recorder of London’s initial invite to both parties in the case, on his first having the matter referred to him, to submit arguments regarding the need for a “substantive hearing”. In today’s brief episode, a week after he had announced he would officiate at “Robinson’s” rehearing at the Old Bailey – something prescribed by the Court of Appeal – Recorder Hilliard gave a strong impression that there would be a fuller trial. The trigger, apparently, was a statement entered by “Robinson” ahead of the hearing. The mystery, of course, is how “Robinson’s” defence was never so formidable as it appears to be now.

The following is explanation by Hilliard, as reported by the Guardian:

I think it necessary to look at quite a lot of the detail of what Mr Yaxley-Lennon said in the broadcast [featuring the alleged contempt] as to come to the overall picture as to what happened…

I’m satisfied in the light of the issues as they now appear as they emerged from the statement of yesterday, that cross-examination of Mr Yaxley-Lennon is necessary for a proper and thorough examination and resolution of the case that is in the public interest.

And yet, there is a chance that this will not happen: the matter has been referred to the Attorney General – the government’s chief legal adviser, currently Conservative MP Geoffrey Cox – where it might yet still disappear. Indeed, the office of the Attorney General put out this statement via Twitter:

We can confirm that the matter of contempt of court by Stephen Yaxley-Lennon has been referred to the Attorney General’s Office. A Law Officer will consider all material afresh, and make a decision whether or not to refer him to the High Court for contempt.

The returning reader will know that here at FBEL it has often been wondered how “Robinson” would not ultimately be found guilty as charged given the noises that have come from his legal representation hired to conduct his appeal (see here, for example). We have also noticed how #FreeTommy became #SaveTommy, and thought the explanation was that the “Tommy Robinson” industrial complex knew all too well that the best to be hoped for was a reduction of sentence rather than a successful defence against the charges. Indeed, the latest information being reported by some corporate-media on the very eve of the hearing of the 23rd October reveals more along the same lines.

The Times was cited in multiple publications of having knowledge of a “Tommy Robinson” interview with a German website, PI News, in which he purportedly said:

I sacked my solicitors because they tried to broker a deal where I apologise and I admit guilt, and then if I do that then I go home. And I said, I’m never going to do that.

I’d rather go to jail for the next 25 years than accept guilt for telling the truth… I know 100% I am going to jail.

That “Robinson” has changed his defence team somewhere along the way since the Court of Appeal appears to be confirmed in at least one other place that the author can find. So, from what “Robinson” is supposed to have said, it looks like his previous representation might have been hoping for leniency from the Recorder of London in return for a guilty plea. Incidentally, the sacking of his defence lawyers has other implications if “Robinson” knew that the alternative to rejecting their advice was further time in jail. Jeremy Dein’s would have been very expensive counsel bought by crowd-funded monies raised to keep “Robinson” out of prison. However, this is all stuff for another time.

For now, notice “Robinson’s” own pessimism in his interview – and wonder at the turn of events whereby he could produce a stunning defence that suddenly created doubt about that which had appeared inevitable.  Evidently, a new option for the way forward has emerged – one that doesn’t entail his going to jail for entering a not-guilty plea – and the author thinks its mushrooming out of such an unpromising patch of legal mire was way beyond the ability of any new and miraculous representation that “Robinson” could find to write a statement on his behalf. Deus ex machina.

For a little while, the author thought that this psyop – for that is what the whole thing constitutes from start to finish – involved “Robinson” and his producers pitting him against unsuspecting judges. Now that the matter is wholly in the hands of Government, via that black hole of justice, the Old Bailey, we may be finding an explanation as to why there have been so many twists and turns: neither side has been dealing straight. In all the carnival that this saga has provided, it has been very easy to forget that if the objective has been to engineer a socially provocative situation, it has never mattered if “Robinson” was in contempt of court or not. The point has always been to agitate with the question of his guilt as the means to do it.

The author suspects that “Robinson” is about to be exonerated: for it will be more powerful for “Robinson” to appear as the justified, temporarily martyred, than to go to jail. “Robinson” is innocent in the eyes of most of his support: he is persecuted for “exposing” Muslim rape gangs (not understanding, of course, that if such criminals are already being processed by the legal system then he didn’t expose any of them). Obviously, there is a necessity to prevent core clientel wandering off of the plantation. If “Robinson” wins a trial (or if a trial is deemed not necessary), all those who have given sustenance to the cause, financial or otherwise, can be told that they have been justified – and the Establishment will look like it has a particular weakness where “Robinson” is concerned. “Robinson” could yet provide a talismanic attraction for those who must be led up the garden path rather than into effective opposition of the Establishment. On the other hand, if the alternative outcome came to pass, he would be the loathsome cretin who raised a lot of money to stay out of jail, and then went to jail. Besides which, “Robinson” has already been in prison, and there weren’t riots in the streets.

And afterall, “Robinson” has so much work to do:

The intention of this imprisonment was to prevent the public having knowledge… I want to spend the next six months travelling to towns that have been blighted by these problems. By next summer the entire world is going to learn the true extent of the rape of Britain.”

This is what he told the gaggle of idiots who welcomed him outside of the Old Bailey yesterday. In the next six months, don’t look at Brexit – look at “Tommy Robinson’s” $$$$-stirring (agent-provocateurism that is immensely financially rewarding). Indeed, the work to conflate “far-rightism” with Brexit (and thus damage it) continued when “Robinson” proceeded from the Old Bailey to the House of Lords to be hosted for lunch by ex-UKIP leader, Malcolm Pearson, and current UKIP leader, Gerard Batten. It’s all so tiresomely predictable.

Update, 16:13 [date as published]: As must have been expected by those orchestrating the stunt, “Robinson’s” luncheon at the Lords has turned into a media scrum – after a helping hand from the Commons, of course:

The Commons Speaker, John Bercow, has condemned Tommy Robinson as “a loathsome, obnoxious, repellent individual” following outrage from some MPs over the anti-Islam activist being invited to dine at parliament.

Yawn. More talking point creation activity for the British Government’s agenda.

As discussed hereabouts before, another role for “Robinson” would be to assist in the turning of UKIP into a busted flush so that there could be no viable avenue at the ballot box for a reaction against Fake Brexit (for articles on the subject, please search this site for the term). Consequently having nowhere to turn – or so they thought – people would be directed to street politics by the Alt-Right Nexus, which includes the new football hooligan toting UKIP. The agenda in question, then, is the process to denude resistance to continued Globalism of its potent effectiveness by criminalisation and marginalisation.

On the other hand, productive opposition to Fake Brexit will involve individuals withholding monies from the State apparatus of control, as has been discussed extensively at FBEL. This is why the Government is so keen to have a restorationary zeitgeist, and subsequent public consciousness and behaviour, converted into a perceived repulsive revolutionary superficiality, and to corral its own engineered activity, designed to provoke majority disdain for the so-called “anti-Establishment” movement, into its controlled space of street-based confrontations – which are ultimately containable.

Further FBEL reading:

The vilification of civil disobedience; Part One: the second referendum (link)

The vilification of civil disobedience; Part Two: the System Resistance Network (link)

Social media purges & the operation to place controlled sides for and against the undermining of the Establishment (link)

The “Tommy Robinson”-Alt-Right-Infowars-QAnon nexus of disinformation and deception (link)

All too predictable: dead horse gets flogged in “Tommy Robinson” arrest psyop (link)

National Action Series; Part Three: honey trapped, and tarred by the same brush (link)

UKIP (now with football fan street-politicking) and the “Tommy Robinson” psyop (link)

 

It's important to donate to FBEL - please see here to find out why
A PayPal account not required.

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these html tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>