Published On: Sun, Aug 22nd, 2021

Noticing and understanding the subtly shifting Plymouth shooting narrative

There’s more truth to be found about what is going on in Afghanistan by looking at the incident that happened in Plymouth on 12th August than there is by diverting an audience into a debate about whether or not it represents a defeat for the Anglo-globalists. Happening at the same time as there is an effort to represent being opposed to the “Covid-19 vaccine” as being capable of being violent in a mob, the shooting incident is a false flag in an ongoing campaign to have opposition to authoritarian technocracy equated with actual terrorism. There’s no longer a need to have extremist Islam seen as the main driver of an existential threat to the “rules based international order” (the New World Order) if Anglo-globalist expansionist ambitions into Islamic countries have been curtailed by the sudden superiority of Russian and Iranian military capability†. Indeed, the reason that Covid-19 is being used to operate adjustments to London satellite western economies is because the UK/US will lose the next war it wants to wage – and the need to inflict the abuses of economic blockade in the very heart of the empire is intrinsically linked with needing the threat of the domestic terrorist.

And so, at this site, we look at the things that we can potentially do something about.

Overnight on the 12th August, corporate-media began to report that there were five dead victims of the mass murder in Plymouth that has since been blamed on Jake Davison. Jake Davison, of course, was the overgrown mother’s boy and resident of deprived inner city housing estate, who had not been long out of special school when, in January 2018 – as it is now claimed – Devon and Cornwall Police implausibly and inexplicably issued him a shotgun licence for clay pigeon shooting. (It surely never happened).

At 6.30am on 13th August – the day after the incident – a live update by The Independent newspaper (via MSN) read as follows:

What do we know about the incident so far?…

  • Six people have been confirmed dead, including the suspect
  • Two women and two men were found dead at the scene on Biddick Drive, a residential cul-de-sac
  • Another male – believed to be the gunman – was found dead and may have shot himself in a murder-suicide attack, but this has not been confirmed by police
  • Another person, a child under the age of 10, is thought to be among those who died, according to several reports

The reader will note that at the time of the above report, there was no mention of two specific additional victims, Ben and Michelle Parsonage, a son and mother who, it would later be reported, had been attacked and had sustained non life threatening injuries in Biddick Drive. In the next article in this semi-series, there will be a closer look at the alleged attack on the Parsonage family – in the meantime, we just need to note its relation with the core narrative. Note that at the stage when this update report emerged, four victims, two men and two women, were dead on Biddick Drive.

At 9.30am, on the same morning, The Sun newspaper published its own live update entry:

Jake Davison stormed a home armed with a long-barrelled gun and blasted a woman, believed to be his mum, sister and brother.

The 23-year-old then rampaged through Biddick Drive picking off locals at random as he made his way to a nearby park.

Davison then shot the young girl as she walked her dog with her family and another innocent bystander.

If the reader has already read the first part in this semi-series (here), then the claim that Davison’s mother and sister being killed will no doubt remind of the “witness testimony” of Sharron Turner, who is said to have understood that a woman and her daughter had been murdered. In any case, note that things have been moved around the landscape of the narrative. There are now three people dead on Biddick Drive, with two in an adjacent park, and still no specific mention of two others wounded, but not lethally.

Also, mark the following well:

One eyewitness wrote on social media: “There’s [a man] on the rampage in my cul-de-sac with a real gun and he’s already shot two people.

“They are laying on the ground. One is dead – blood everywhere. I’m shaking like leaf.”

Another said: “The guy shot members of his family then went out onto the street.”

A witness named Sharon, who lives near Biddick Drive told the BBC: “Firstly, there was shouting, followed by gunshots – three, possibly four to begin with.

“This was when the shooter kicked in the door of a house and randomly started shooting … he ran from the house shooting as he ran and proceeded to shoot at a few people in the Linear Park up from the drive.”

The above is from a Telegraph article reproduced by MSN between 10pm and 11pm on the night of the incident.

What the reader is being asked to do is note that, with each piece of information considered together as a whole self-contained piece of reporting, the above presents scope for future tweaking of narrative. For sure, while there is more than one member of family shot, and the implication is that it is two, in reality what is being established is a variable for an integer between one and five. It is a variable called “people killed in Biddick Drive”. Likewise, there is the establishment of a variable for “people killed in the park”, and it is a figure that resides in a range between zero and a number, X, where X is five minus the people killed in Biddick Drive. In this way, if there are no deaths in the park, then anyone who a witness says was being shot at in that place can instead be a non lethally wounded victim.

Indeed, there was leeway for this when late on the 12th, Devon and Cornwall Police were being reported as saying that there had “been a ‘number of fatalities’ with several other casualties receiving treatment.” Indeed, in the morning, according to the 08:02 update from The Independent, Devon and Cornwall Police could still not commit to how many had been injured and hospitalised, even if the number of dead had stopped being a matter of potential.

If the reader was paying attention, then he will understand that the failure to commit to a figure of how many people were taken wounded to hospital from any location at the broader scene of the crime equates to having scope with regards to where to place the dead in the final narrative. It allows for flexibility in the delivery of the narrative that its creators might want to settle on. So, if they had too many dead victims in one location according to one script that had already created news reports, and a shortage of dead victims at another according to a final narrative that they wanted to present, then a non-fixed merely injured casualty count would be helpful for making the transition between the two. You can turn two people who had been dead at the first location, for instance, into folk who had only been injured – and this will give you room to have two people dead at another location, without exceeding a fixed number of the dead.

At 11.44am on 13th August, a press conference was conducted by Devon and Cornwall Police Chief Constable. Ahead of this press conference, it seems, the local media – the Plymouth Herald – had reported that “two people were injured in Thursday’s shooting on top of the six fatalities.” This was according to The Independent’s live update’s, as published at 11.18am. Forty minutes later than that – so at a time coinciding with the press conference in progress – The Independent published what would become the official narrative (as also shown in the graphic produced by The Sun, and published at 2pm on its live update):

“Police said James Davison murdered a woman at a property, then entered Biddick Drive, where he killed a “very young girl” and a male relative of hers.

He then shot two local residents who have been injured. Their injuries are not thought to be life-threatening.

Davison then moved into adjacent parkland where he killed a man. He then went to nearby road Henderson Place where he shot a woman, who died in hospital.”

In all probability then – and as much as we’d probably expect – the final scheme in terms of official narrative had been arrived at by the time of the Shaun Sawyer’s press conference, because after that event there has been no divergence from it, and before it, the story was still a thing to be fixed.

What the author suggests is that there was a change in plan for what would be the official narrative where the two additional dead victims in Biddick Drive would become survivors. Coming to this conclusion is not only aided by the fact that the story about the injuring of Ben and Michelle Parsonage has two versions, one more unbelievable than the other, that corporate-media has tried to reconcile to make a unified cock and bull story less believable than before.  The other thing that has led to the idea is the realisation that an account given by Robert Pinkerton, whereby he bumped into a gunman dressed in black, was changed overnight into the 13th August, by the adding of a few details. The addition of a location that was not mentioned before could turn the incident  from one that could be inferred as being one that happened in Biddick Drive, to one that happened in a location other than, and beyond it – all in order to support the narrative of dead victims being shot elsewhere than Biddick Drive.

The crucial and telling difference between the report that was made by the BBC on the night of the incident and that was cited in many other places on the same night, and the reportage that could be seen on the 13th and afterwards, is that Pinkerton puts himself in Henderson Place, and sees the female shooting victim who is destined to die later in hospital. None of this additional stuff appeared in the original BBC reporting, as reflected by the following, which is an update by The Independent that cites the article at 23:10 on the 12th:

“Robert Pinkerton told the BBC he had “walked around the corner” and “bumped into a bloke with a shotgun”.

He said the man was dressed in an all-black outfit.

Ultimately, Sky News ran a piece on Sunday 15th, and it was marvelled at in the previous part of this semi-series as gaslighting of the highest order with added chutzpah, only achieving the reinforcement, as it did, of an impression that Pinkerton could not be a real witness (even though it produced an image of a character said to be the man himself). Of course, now it becomes clear to the author why the risk of exposing Pinkerton even more than he was had to be run: it was absolutely necessary to have a definitive piece in corporate-media coverage where a witness story would prove the final narrative. This story, attributed to Pinkerton, meant that someone would be located so as to be a witness to killing outside of Biddick Drive.


† The subject matter of which the new so called Afghan crisis is the same sort of stuff has been covered a plenty at FBEL:

The American military’s “readiness crisis”: why war won’t be waged on Iran

Iran calls Trump’s bluff – Trump (with his many helpers) keeps on a-bluffin’ – plus, the readiness crisis goes terminal?

Britannia waives the rules: oil tanker theatre for preserving ongoing effort to restrict Iranian infrastructure

Of silent ships: keeping track of information that passes in the night

Houthis punch the Whore of Babylon on the nose: Iran must be blamed to save face, and more besides

All is not well, as US attempt to reduce Iranian influence backfires

With the Iranian ballistic missile attack, America’s Millennium Challenge 2002 experience stops being virtual

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