The Plymouth false-flag attack: inspecting the disastrous Parsonage family plank of narrative

What is one to make of it when a person who has relatives involved in the Plymouth shooting incident takes to Facebook to thank people for expressing concern at their welfare, and also to give an update on their progress in recovery, but then also protests too much about the apparent fact that in spite of the sacrosanct narrative, there are heretics who are being disrespectful and hurtful to the feelings of the relatives of victims by holding very different ideas about what happened on the evening of the 12th August?

Of course, when this difference of opinion is called “stupid and pathetic rumours”, and additionally – according to the corporate-media where this has been more broadly distributed – when the people who would replicate their heresy in others by communicating it are asked to stop because, “other than the people who were involved, only we [family] know the truth that has happened”, then apart from being struck by the resemblance to a religious situation where the victims are the anointed ones and the families the richly rewarded keepers of the secrets of the meaning of “anointed”, a person is automatically reminded of how two Plymouth MPs took to Twitter on the night of the incident to tell people in the city not to take to social media to share what they knew. It all suggests that the stupid and pathetic rumours are facts on the ground that, in order to preserve the official narrative, shouldn’t reach the light of day – or at least, beyond the pages of Facebook (where Jordon Parsonage preached the central message of false-flag victim righteousness of “just keep your opinions and speculations to yourself”).

As mentioned, the Facebook writer was one Jordan Parsonage, brother of Benjamin, who on the evening of the 12th August was struck in the stomach with a projectile from a shotgun (but yet had been discharged from hospital by the time this information was appearing in corporate-media two days after the incident), and son of Michelle Parsonage, who was in hospital needing an operation on her arm, and the implication was that this was related to being hit on that limb during the shooting.

Although we are told in a later Daily Mirror article that Jordan Parsonage had asked for his surname not to be used (presumably with a view to the inevitable exposure that would occur in corporate-media), at 00:42 on the morning of 14th August, The Sun published an article entitled “Lucky to be alive”:

RELATIVES of a mum and son blasted by gunman Jake Davison have told of the pair’s miraculous survival.

Michelle Parsonage, 53, and her son Ben, 33, avoided death despite both being shot by the gunman midway through his horrific rampage.

A friend revealed that Davison had shot at the Parsonage’s front door.

When startled Ben opened it, he fired again and hit him in the stomach.

Davison then fired a third time — striking Michelle in the arm.

But according to Ben’s brother Jordan, the two are doing okay and are expected to make a full recovery.

He wrote on Facebook: “An update on my mum and brother. Ben is home and going to make a full recovery.

The author isn’t able to access such material as this on Facebook, but from the way things are being reported, he is able to detect that the account of how mother Parsonage and devoted son (he was visiting at the time) became injured is not something that Jordan revealed on his Facebook page. Instead, the story originates from one of The Sun’s famous unnamed sources – this time, a supposed friend (of whom is not explicitly related, but we must suspect that we are invited to assume a connection with the family).

To be clear, at the point when the Parsonages became victims, Davison had supposedly just shot a little girl and her father to death in Biddick Drive. As he was by then a man on the sort of rampage where he was targeting people he came across in the street, as opposed to just firing indiscriminately, it seems very odd that he would discharge his weapon at the door of a house. In the UK, a shotgun magazine only holds a maximum of three cartridges, so whatever variation of the gun he was using, Davison would have had to think about when it needed reloading, and thus how to most effectively discharge it according to his purpose. Did he know that the Parsonages answer their door as if someone had rung the bell when a shotgun cartridge pounded into it so that he was in fact summoning victims to the killing zone? The answer, dear reader, has to be no.

Indeed, exactly as if this story was too ridiculous to be believable, another version was being launched into the world around about the same time of the publication of the above cited Sun article (which was the earliest that the author could find carrying that particular adaptation).

The following is from a Daily Mail article that first appeared at just gone 10pm on 13th August, but was updated at approximately half past four the next morning:

Still on Biddick Drive, he aimed and shot at two locals, named by family members as Ben Parsonage, 33, and his mother, Michelle, 53, who had gone out to help the earlier victims. Both received ‘significant’ injuries but survived.

Ben’s brother, Jordan, confirmed his brother and mother had been caught up in the carnage.

In a message posted on social media later, he said: ‘Just a little update… Ben is now home and going to make a full recovery.

‘My mum has to have an operation on her arm and is expected to make a full recovery.’

To clarify, then, this extract relates an account of how Ben and Michelle Parsonage were shot different to another version that was being reported at the same time. In this one, mother and son had gone outside to lend assistance to the father and daughter who had already succumbed to wounding by shotgun. It has to be said that even if this was the sole version of events, it wouldn’t be believable if one treats as genuine a witness account of the shooting of the father and child that appears in the same article. This witness report is from an unnamed neighbour who heard gun shots and then looked out of his kitchen window:

‘A man was running with his little girl who was pushing a toy pram as she ran. There was no noise or screaming, they were just running.

‘This bloke with the gun stopped about 15ft from them, raised his gun to his shoulder, and shot the man in the back.

‘He fell on to his daughter, protecting her even though he may have been dying.’

Speaking of Davison, the witness added: ‘He walked up and stood over them and fired from inches away to finish them off.

‘It looked like first he shot the man in the head, then through the body, and I think that shot went through and killed the child.

‘This is on the pavement across the road from my house. You don’t witness a murder, two people killed right in front of you, every day. He was just shooting indiscriminately.’

In fact, for a witness to have seen what this one is claiming to have, and then call it “shooting indiscriminately” indicates to the author that this account is a work of fiction written to make it seem as if what was in fact a very efficient and skilfully executed assassination could be the work of trainee crane operative bumpkin and special school alumnus, Jake Davison, even if Lee and Sophie Martyn were indeed killed in the way described. And if Lee ad Sopie Martyn were executed in the way told of in the witness testimony, it is surely very surprising that the Parsonages would survive their brush with whoever that gunman was in Biddick Drive. It is surprising indeed that they dared to leave the safety of Michelle’s home when others in the street, apparently, were so badly affected by what they experienced from within the secure walls of their own domiciles.

Moreover, when the above account in the Daily Mail leaves off describing the deaths of the Martyns, it doesn’t then proceed to give the same sort of detailed blow-by-blow account of how the Parsonages were shot – which is a shame, because then there wouldn’t have been a need for corporate-media, in its separate divisions, to compensate for a weak piece of information in its own separate ways – which is what probably happened so that there were two versions.  Indeed, note again from the second account of the attack on the Parsonages that there is no indication that it is Jordan who is the source of the information. To be precise, according to how the piece in the extract reports itself, the only thing that Jordan confirms is that, at the time of the writing of the Facebook message, his brother was at home, and his mother was expecting to have an operation on her arm. Although he writes “only we know the truth that has happened”, there is nothing to confirm to us that he knows from first-hand experience that Ben and Michelle Parsonage were involved in the incident, and that if they had been or were still in hospital, it had anything to do Jake Davison (or someone said to be him).

It happens to be the case that the Parsonages are potentially the only named personages involved in the incident, either witnesses or victims, who could link any particular shooter – supposedly Jake Davison – with his crime by seeing it being committed in real time.  So, that a flaw, with regards the way the Parsonages fit into the narrative, is such a potentially fatal one is perhaps why the Daily Mail actually addressed the issue in an article published on 15th August; as a rule, anomalies of narrative are shrugged off, and never raked over like what happens in the following:

Ben Parsonage, 33, and his mother Michelle, 53, were gunned down by Davison during his 12-minute killing spree in Plymouth – but survived.

The former junior boxer was wounded by a blast to his stomach but was later discharged from hospital…

Mr Parsonage was visiting his mother at the time of the shooting in Plymouth on Thursday.

There have been conflicting reports surrounding how the mother and son were shot and it remains unclear.

The Daily Mirror reported that the gunman fired at the family’s front door then shot the pair when they opened it.

While a family friend said they had been shot after they ran out to help the other victims.

The friend added: ‘[Mr Parsonage] has been through a lot of stuff. He was on the beach getting chased by the gunman in Sousse. They were all lucky to escape. Ben was out there with his partner and sons. He has been through it twice.’

The reader is asked to notice that with the above piece of news, both versions of the attack on the Parsonages are then provided by a nameless “friend”. As such, we are supposed to believe that the two versions were due to two friends hearing completely differently tales from the ultimate source they must have shared; i.e., this unified “we” of family that exclusively knows “the truth that has happened”. Of course, from the perspective of the naive, one might say that the problem is failure to check facts by corporate-media “journalists”, but the truth is that there can be no hope of this happening if, fundamentally, there is no truth, and the details of a story depend on the creativity of individual intelligence operatives at separate arms of Mi7.

Fascinatingly, this dislocation survives even when the issue is being dealt with within one supposedly self-contained arm of the Ministry of Truth’s Records Department, in this case the Daily Mail. Earlier on the same day (15th August) as the article mentioned above was published, there was a separate Mail article that looked to reconcile the two versions by claiming that Michelle Parsonage went into Biddick Drive after she had been shot in order to cover the Martyns with a sheet; the reader will notice the emergence of the fuller description that earlier we saw was missing:

A witness told MailOnline today: ‘She’s a very courageous woman because the gunman had only seconds left the street and headed into the park.

‘She herself had already been shot and wounded yet she put her life on the line to make sure the father and daughter killed had some dignity.

‘Her door had been shot through but I saw her come back out of the house and lay a bedsheet or blanket over their bodies before going back inside.

‘The gunman was still going at this point and there were still gun shots ringing out.’

The witness, who asked not to be named, revealed how he watched Davison, a loner who suffered from mental health issues and who had built up a hatred of women, target some of those killed.

He said: ‘The man and his little girl had tried to make a run for it but the gunman hit him in the back from about 20-30ft away.

‘As he slumped down to the ground, he tried to shield his daughter and kind of fell down on top of her to try and give her some sort of protection.

‘But the gunman walked up to both of them and fired a couple of shots at them at close range.

‘He stood there momentarily until someone at the Parsonage’s home opened their front door to see what was going on and the gunman swung round and fired a few shots at them.

‘I was watching out the window and he momentarily caught sight of me and so I ducked down out the way.

‘My wife was about to open the door to see what was going on but I grabbed her and told her to get upstairs to safety.

‘By this point I was on the phone to a police controller and telling them what was going on.

‘I saw the gunman head down towards the park and just as he was out of sight, Michelle came out with the blanket.’

Because this corporate-media piece is so brazenly preposterous, with it appearing to be manifested as if to treat a nervous twitch caused by fatal narrative malfunction (very much in the spirit of the obsession with having the unchallengeable lie on final record, as per the Ministry of Truth in Nineteen Eighty Four), and with the reader being asked to believe that Michelle Parsonage, fresh from receiving a wound to her arm that would need to be operated on (and ahead of tending to her shot-in-the-stomach son), would be thinking about and bothering herself with finding a sheet for shielding the bodies of other victims (who she couldn’t know were dead), or indeed would even be able to hold a bed sheet in order to place it, the particular “journalist” responsible must be named: not Winston Smith this time, but one James Fielding. We can also tell that the account is a work of fiction by Mi7, in the tradition of writings to create the heroics of Comrade Ogilvy, to invent the particulars of an infamous crime or terror attack intended to traumatise the nation and propel a political agenda, because there’s absolutely no reason why the witness cited in the piece should remain nameless.  No reason whatsoever, unless it was attributing something to a real person that that person never said.

For what it is worth, 192.com reports that a Benjamin, Jordan and Michelle Parsonage lived in the area covered by the Plymouth PL1 postcode in 2010 and 2011 (while Biddick Drive is in PL2), and the author cannot claim to know that there is not any grain of truth in any of these people’s involvement in the incident (after all, Benjamin was meant to be on the scene of a 2015 terror attack in Tunisia [as referred to in one of the quoted articles above], so maybe he’s just that sort of person who finds himself around these sort of things). However, the particulars of this involvement stink, and one cannot be surprised that pleadings have been issued to Facebook to not engage in sharing what one knows, or what one can quite easily surmise by what one is told. But then, this development of quite raggedy narrative integrity control quite befits what has been one of the poorest false flags ever delivered by the Krypteia, what with their having to pull it off in what is essentially their own backyard so that control of information could be total, and even then with no visuals of the incident as it played out presented to the public whatsoever, but instead only a commentary of supposed witness testimony – which had a total pigs ear made out of it in any case.

Maybe it is too cruel to say that it’s one thing to fall prey to the Krypteia in a very cunningly executed extravaganza, but in these days of consistently and embarrassingly bad false-flag attacks, it is an act of extreme obtuseness. It’s probably better to say that the Krypteia cannot be held in more contempt for its willingness to kill in order to scratch out such paltry results. In any case, the message is to stay vigilant, because come any day when too many are watching out for a false flag attack, and too many people know what one looks like when they see one, then come the day when the particular jig will finally be up for UK Government.