Undead, still being flogged: “Tommy Robinson’s” resurrected career as street protest provocateur stinketh, refuses to come forth

Watch out! Like a latter day Jeremy Beadle, “Tommy Robinson” is about – and executing “gotchas” on unsuspecting, lying, fraudulent, racist celebrity journalists. At least that’s the mythology that is now being established as fact by the surprisingly large armies of “Tommy Robinson” support on social media – surprising because they don’t reflect a reality all too evident in the turnout for “Robinson’s” “street protests”. The latest affirmation of “Robinson’s” failure to draw was at Salford’s MediaCityUK, and the puppet show that was staged there this past weekend. The good news from that place extended into the information that there was no occurrence of any event that could have been damaging to that part of the country which is desirous of Brexit at this, the most sensitive of times.

Touted as being a “takedown of the BBC”, “Tommy Robinson’s” documentary, which those assembled had been called to come to see, was shown on a big screen in a makeshift arena fashioned out of a car park – and so we discover, after previous doubts regarding this issue have been raised hereabouts, that the usual usage of the land appears to have been disrupted by “Robinson’s” interference upon it, and yet he wasn’t slung off for trespass. On this topic, incidentally, of all the responses that FBEL has provoked, both on the site and on Twitter when broadcasting the “Panodrama” related material created here, none have offered to deny the premise set out in the articles in question (here, and here) that there has been a multi-threaded case of collusion. If we think this way – and the author certainly does – then there should be no surprise that “Panodrama” not only didn’t take down the BBC on Saturday, it isn’t ever likely to; not least because, at this late stage, if the decent thing hasn’t already been done, there isn’t many an idiot who could suddenly find that there is cause to cancel a licence fee on the basis of “Tommy Robinson” presenting a recording of John Sweeney being an oaf.

What has emerged from the documentary, however, is the hyper-charged Hegelian dialectic dynamic in the relationship between “Tommy Robinson” and Hope Not Hate.  Such a state of affairs is only to be expected given that all appears to have been designed to the purpose. An article is slowly making its way to publication here at FBEL that explains why “Robinson” is essential for Hope Not Hate’s work. In the matter of this particular episode in Salford as a microcosm of the universal relation, where “Tommy Robinson”, the problem, has agitated Hope Not Hate, the reaction, to create a solution that looks to involve litigation, the wider fallout and connotation for freedom of expression remains to be seen. The subject matter that is driving the storm is of no concern here at FBEL given its depth of stupidity: “Robinson’s” documentary made a very serious allegation that had already been retracted [according, quite emphatically, to Hope Not Hate]. Suffice it to say, one Caolan Robertson is involved: he who brought us the tall story about “Tommy Robinson’s” prison cell only containing a “prayer” mat.

As a matter of fact, the content of the documentary is all academic, for, as has been pointed out in the most recent previous article on the subject matter, the crucial aspect of “Panodrama” was the rally at MediaCityUK, hence it was predicted that the film would be an anti-climax (of “poor quality”, to be exact). Indeed, excluding the litigatious content, the only serious and unanswered scandal comes in the form of an allegation that John Sweeney encouraged the mole from the “Tommy Robinson” industrial complex with whom he dined to accuse someone, presumably “Robinson”, of rape – or at least this is what “Robinson” fans appears to think has happened.

In actual fact, there appears to have been a wildly inaccurate interpretation of what John Sweeney said – and to think that “Tommy Robinson” has the temerity to accuse the BBC of “creating and inventing news” (incidentally, are people so stupid that they need “Tommy Robinson” to point this out?) The comment in question came from Sweeney in the context of “Tommy Robinson’s” female ex-colleague (or employee) describing how the two of them had had a blazing (public) row – he had got mad at her, and stormed off in a car. Sweeney pounced on the idea as a means to portray “Robinson” in a bad light: he could put a “gender” or “sexual” slant on this incident. In all objectivity, because the author has no desire to defend the BBC, the context, and the initial choice of the word “gender” indicates that Sweeney may have been searching for, and not finding the word “misogyny”. If he cared, the author would have advised “Robinson” not to interpret this in the way it evidently has been – however, this would be to (mis)understand that things are above board, when they are most certainly not. That there has been a misrepresentation is not down to the fact that the “Tommy Robinson” industrial complex lacks a good brain between it, instead it is entirely deliberate in order to trigger the audience. Such tactics, of course, are the same that “Robinson” would accuse the BBC of, and yet the cult of “Robinson”, such that it is, stubbornly refuses to reject its anointed one as it would do the BBC.

And on that point, the author noticed another moment of “Robinson” disingenuousness. In summarising his documentary, “Robinson” told his audience: “You pay the licence fee, and if you don’t, you’re taken to court just so the elitist fake news journalists can travel this country drinking champagne on your expense”. What “Robinson” does here is reinforce the lie that not paying the TV licence always leads to punishment – it demonstrably does not. The hearer of this lie is also made to feel aggrieved that action he must take to avoid punishment is spent on a lavish lifestyle by BBC employees. This is gross emotional manipulation, and deliberate language for agitation based upon a falsehood. And so, when “Robinson” then enjoins his followers to stop paying the licence fee, it is in fact an empty gesture that yet inspires admiration from people who have been deceived; the reason is this: the reinforcement of the awareness of the fear of punishment nullifies the exhortation to dare to generate that punishment. Knowing “Robinson” as a tool for Government, we couldn’t expect him to do otherwise.

Of course, then, while on one level it remains a mystery as to why it was possible that “Robinson” could pitch a stage and a giant TV screen, and cordon off a makeshift arena, all on the supposed private land of MediaCityUK, deeper down there is only suspicion that these things come about as part of “Robinson” being that tool (being the operative word). As hinted at above, FBEL has had an unusually larger audience for the “Panodrama” articles that have been published in the recent days, and also a greater number of reactions (flak that one incurs when one is over the target). There have been a number of unfriendly response on Twitter where FBEL articles are distributed onto certain hashtagged topic threads – and yet no one cares to explain why there can be no suspicion of collusion between “Tommy Robinson” and the BBC and/or MediaCityUK. Indeed, no one (not coherently, anyway) has taken up the offer made hereabouts to explain why the BBC should not be considered as being involved with the very production of “Robinson’s” documentary. Indeed, as news develops, there is only more evidence in support of the hypothesis that there was assistance by the hated Establishment for its public enemy number one, “Tommy Robinson”. Take, for instance, the BBC’s assertion that 4000 people attended the “Panodrama” rally. And yet the image that the BBC produced depicting the rally in full progress, as it was still ongoing, does not support even this modest figure (see below).

“Tommy Robinson” and his fans routinely complain of no exposure from the corporate-media – censorship, even – and yet the reality is that the corporate-media is always promoting him, exaggerating his support, and even, most recently, selling its audience the idea that he could become a Member of the European Parliament. The reason why they do it is the same as why Hope Not Hate claimed as many as 10,000 at a “Tommy Robinson” related rally in 2018 – a figure that was wildly too optimistic against honest appraisal of the images produced of the event. It’s all to do with using “Robinson” to demonise a large swathe of people as racists when they aren’t. It’s been explained before at FBEL, and as promised above, there is yet another revisit of the topic coming soon.

For its part, the BBC is keeping up all its appearances of neutrality: “Some of the footage which has been released was recorded without our knowledge during this investigation [of ‘Tommy Robinson’].” However, it also confirmed the fact that “Robinson” had been invited to attend the BBC-hosted venue to take part in an interview, crewed by a BBC unit, that became the scene from whence some of “Robinson’s” documentary material emanated – looking a lot like it had been filmed by the same cameras that were positioned in order to shoot the BBC interview. Alternatively, Panorama let “Tommy Robinson” bring a two or three man camera crew and let them set up fixed camera rigs at their gig (along with microphones, even, for establishing different audio recording levels?) – hardly likely. The BBC also confirmed that there would indeed be a Panorama documentary investigating “Tommy Robinson”, but this still does remain to be seen. If it doesn’t appear, of course, the “Tommy Robinson” industrial complex will claim a victory and excite its following into understanding that their learned helplessness, earned by divesting wealth and time and energy into “Robinson” as a surrogate actor to influence events, has been well rewarded. Of course, it will actually constitute evidence of a grand deception, where nothing has been achieved whereby the outcome is favourable for the deceived.

On the other hand, there is no good reason for the BBC not to produce a Panorama investigation on “Tommy Robinson” – it will, after all, help to maintain the notion proposed by the “Tommy Robinson” industrial complex that he is persecuted. Kerching, go the cash registers. Moreover, it will be more grist to the propaganda mill whereby there can be demonising of people who are guilty by the association that Hope Not Hate ascribes to them, all for the purpose of criminalising them and marginalising them and neutralising them as opposition to Globalist government. After all, this is what “Tommy Robinson” is for.