Showing posts sorted by date for query Tommy Robinson. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Saturday, April 11, 2026

Study of WHITE SUPREMACIST Tommy Robinson’s social media reveals how online influencers mobilise supporters without direct calls to action

Analysis shows how influencers shape public behaviour and legitimise violence through narratives, not instructions

University of Bath

New research from the University of Bath reveals that online influencers can mobilise followers and legitimise harmful behaviours without ever issuing explicit instructions, offering fresh insight into how digital platforms shape public attitudes, emotions and decision‑making.

The researchers found that far‑right influencer Tommy Robinson (whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon) used his Telegram channel to comment on ongoing events and legitimise violence during the anti-immigration protests and riots of 30 July to 7 August 2024 without ever giving direct instructions, allowing him to maintain plausible deniability.

The researchers, publishing in the British Journal of Social Psychology, show that Robinson acted not as an organiser issuing commands, but as an online opinion leader who shaped how followers interpreted events.

Dr Darja Wischerath, from the University’s Institute of Digital Security and Behaviour (IDSB), said: “We found no direct orders to riot. Instead, Robinson used emotional appeals and conspiracy narratives to set up a worldview where violence felt like a natural, even necessary response. There was a consistent pattern of messages that heightened anger, fear and mistrust.

“This research shines a light on the subtle but extremely powerful ways online figures can mobilise unrest. As digital platforms evolve, understanding these mechanisms is crucial for protecting public safety and democratic discourse.”

The study, which analysed more than 230 messages and 156 multimedia posts from Robinson’s public Telegram channel over the ten days surrounding the riots, provides the first in‑depth look at how online personalities can inflame real‑world unrest through subtle narrative framing rather than direct instructions.

The researchers identified several key tactics used to frame events and normalise participating in protests: reframing protesters as “the concerned British public”; amplifying emotions around child safety and national pride; portraying the government, police and media as betrayers; and blaming government inaction for the riots, claiming authorities had “pushed the British too far.”

The researchers describe this as ‘indirect mobilisation’: influencers create the emotional and moral conditions that make violent action appear justified, without ever instructing anyone to carry it out.

Telegram’s one‑way broadcast feature means subscribers see a steady stream of posts without debate or correction. The researchers say this creates an environment in which a single narrative can dominate.

“When there’s no challenge or discussion, messages and their impact accumulate,” said co-author Dr Olivia Brown, Associate Professor in Digital Futures and Deputy Director of the IDSB. “It becomes easier for a particular interpretation of events to feel obvious, shared, urgent and requiring of action.

“Much of the content is what’s referred to as ‘lawful but awful’. None of Robinson’s posts individually breach current UK speech laws or platform rules. It’s the cumulative effect of dozens of messages, videos, and conspiracy theories that build a narrative that engenders violence.”

The study urges officials and platforms to pay more attention to the broader narrative environment surrounding major events, not just explicit instructions.

The researchers also warn that influencers like Robinson are part of a wider “alternative influence network”, where dozens of far‑right personalities reinforce one another’s messaging across different platforms.

Influencers can leverage parasocial relationships, the sense that followers “know” them personally, to build trust and authority far more effectively than traditional political leaders.

This, they argue, creates a challenge for regulators attempting to balance free expression with public safety, particularly as people consume more information through personalised feeds and broadcast‑style channels.

Indirect Mobilisation and Violence Legitimation through Influencers on Alternative Platforms, is published at: https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjso.70079

Ends

Notes to editors

For more information please contact the University of Bath Press office at press@bath.ac.uk or call +(44)1225 386319

University of Bath

The University of Bath is one of the UK's leading universities, recognised for high-impact research, excellence in education, an outstanding student experience and strong graduate prospects.

We are ranked in the top 10 in all of the UK’s major university guides.
The University achieved a triple Gold award in the last Teaching Excellence Framework 2023, the highest awards possible, for both the overall assessment and for student outcomes and student experience. The Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) is a national scheme run by the Office for Students (OfS).
We are also ranked among the top 10% of universities globally, placing 132nd in the QS World University Rankings 2026.

Research from Bath is helping to change the world for the better. Across the University’s three Faculties and School of Management, our research is making an impact in society, leading to low-carbon living, positive digital futures, and improved health and wellbeing. Find out all about our Research with Impact: https://www.bath.ac.uk/campaigns/research-with-impact/

Journal

British Journal of Social Psychology

DOI

10.1111/bjso.70079

Method of Research

Data/statistical analysis

Subject of Research

People

Article Title

Indirect Mobilisation and Violence Legitimation through Influencers on Alternative Platforms

Article Publication Date

10 Apr-2026

Sunday, April 05, 2026

Britain

Together against the far right march breaks records

Friday 3 April 2026, by Echo Fortune, Terry Conway

The Together Alliance march against the far right on Saturday, 28 March, was probably the biggest anti-fascist protest in British history. It was comparable to some of the early Palestine solidarity demonstrations.

Organisers claim it was half a million people – it’s difficult to be certain with such a mammoth crowd, but it was over two and a half hours after the front banners left Park Lane before the back did so. Just getting anywhere through the crowd was like swimming in treacle!

This was a crucial demonstration after 100,000 people turned out for far-right activist Tommy Robinson’s Unite the Kingdom protest last September, with a small and demoralising counter-demo.

While Anti Capitalist Resistance (ACR) has criticisms of the Together Alliance organisers for their emphasis on soft slogans against the far right, as well as the inclusion of prominent transphobes amongst its key spokespersons, this historic display of solidarity on London’s streets is a moment to celebrate and seize as an opportunity to build resistance in our communities.

Migrants and asylum seekers are on the front lines in this struggle, and our support must be unwavering. They are joined by disabled, trans, Black, and other racialised people, as well as women in general, as targets of the new far right, who only augment the institutional and structural violence of the state.

Diverse

The mobilisation was enormously diverse. There was great publicity outreach – leafleting for weeks in many communities and workplaces, as well as coverage in the few days before in the Mirror, the Guardian, and the London Evening Standard. People heard about it and came with their mates. The music was an attraction. Others came through contact with Greenpeace, War on Want, and other NGOs, and charities.

There was a Palestine feeder march of several thousand, as well as many Palestine flags throughout the gathering. Democrats abroad brought No Kings papiermache masks marking the massive protests taking place in the United States against Trump, the same day. Again, anti-Trump messaging was common. A substantial Eastern European contingent made an impact on the demonstration. Their message was simple: you have to fight the far right not just in the West but also in the East of Europe. Many on the contingent were Ukrainian whose friends and families are on the front line resisting annexation by Putin or living under a regular bombardement. One of the slogans chanted was “from Ukraine to Palestine, Occupation is a crime”. The Ukraine Solidarity campaign was a very viisible part of this with their flags.

Many unions had worked to bring members and banners onto London’s streets, with NEU and UNISON having the strongest showing. Quite why the turnout for this section of the demonstration was so much more significant – looking like a respectably sized march of its own – than they have mobilised against the genocide of Palestinians is a question that many activists will undoubtedly be raising over the weeks ahead.

Parties

As for political parties, the situation was more complicated.

Rob Marsden reports on the Green Party presence:

I found small groups of Green Party members or individuals walking with friends and family, often with home-made signs referencing Zack Polanski, Hannah The Plumber, or riffing on the ‘Green Menace’ tag.

Many of these people were not only new to the Green Party and to organised politics; in many cases, they had never been on a demonstration before. Hopefully, the breathtaking size and spectacle of the Together March will be a lasting inspiration and a spur to ongoing activity.
Those of us who did make it to the ‘official’ Green Party bloc, way at the back of the march, behind a battalion of Extinction Rebellion samba drummers, still found that it numbered maybe a thousand people and was identifiable by a large number of local Green Party banners, including many of the upright teardrop or feather type. Green Parties from across Britain were represented, but many, maybe most, do not currently have their own banners.
And here lies a bit of a problem for the Greens. There were no centrally produced GP placards or leaflets of any type. This seems not to be a resource issue. Compared to a couple of years ago, the Green Party and its local branches are awash with cash.

Rather, it is a question of GP culture and an over-focus on local electoral campaigning rather than a more general approach to winning wide layers of people to the politics of the GP and building a solid base within social movements.

Your Party also had its own block, on which Dave Kellaway reports:

It was estimated at around 500 participants. Those organising the block have counted more than 50 groups of supporters from across Britain – from Glasgow to Devon, many with their own banners, some never making it to the block, which again was way back in the crowd. Your Party centrally did nothing to argue that members should be visible and organised at the event, sending a mere mention of the march in passing in an email from the chair on 23 March.

The fantastic lead banners and placards – ‘Hate yachts not dingies’, ‘ Capitalism divides, Socialism unites’, and ‘Our solution = socialism’ – were organised by comrades from the All London delegate assembly rather than the elected leadership, which abrogated responsibility. New connections were made with activists from different places, and solidarity was built. A positive experience in the face of leadership abstention.
Meanwhile, Labour had no official role in mobilising for the day. The leadership could have easily pivoted to the demo and sent somebody from the front bench, Starmer could have made some bland anti-Reform message, but nada, nothing.

Even the left, the Mainstream/Momentum alliance, was not prominent. Three or four Labour Party banners did make it – the bureaucracy could not easily repeat the blocking of activists who wanted to take them on Palestine solidarity marches. Labour should be worried – many who turned out are people who used to vote for you, who are no longer doing so, and who are getting more organised.

ACR was present in force, with members from all over England and Cymru/Wales attending on the day, and many of us went on to Croydon afterwards to protest Nigel Farage’s appearance there, making it clear that he is unwelcome on our streets. We handed out our new anti-fascist broadsheet, talked to other protesters, and celebrated solidarity.

As with our popular Palestine broadsheets, many took the broadsheet to carry with them as a placard – some repurposing those they were previously carrying to do so. Our contingent had written its own chants, many of which were taken up by others around us,

What next? We need lots of lively local events, particularly targeted around the local elections in areas where Reform is strong. This requires some organised outreach, as often the left itself is weak in those areas.

One problem for the left is that Reform is often strong where the left is weak, so this would require organised outreach. We need to build on the great vibes on this demonstration – a real boost to people’s confidence and morale – and for another mammoth turn-out by the left against Tommy Robinson on 16 May.

The interlocking crises of capitalism, termed the polycrisis, encompassing social reproduction, economy, and ecology, demand an ecosocialist future. Fascism represents a direct challenge to that future that we must defeat. That means more than demonstrations; it means resistance in our communities and, in the medium term, building a mass party that can take political power from the hands of fascists and their enablers.

With thanks to Dave Kellaway and Rob Marsden for their input.

Anticapitalist Resistance

Portfolio

Thursday, April 02, 2026

The UK, Repackaged for US Culture Wars

Peter Bach

April 2, 2026

Photograph Source: Shayan Barjesteh van Waalwijk van Doorn – CC BY-SA 4.0

Tiresome though it may be for some of us over here on Airstrip One, it seems domestic political argument in the United Kingdom is still being regularly repackaged for an American audience. As Motihari-born Eric Blair, later celebrated as George Orwell, once observed, “Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

An odd patchwork of British figures—among them Liz Truss, Tommy Robinson, and Nigel Farage, continue, in varying forms, to present the United Kingdom to US audiences as a cautionary tale. Nor is this confined to the most recognisable names. When off-shoot figures such as Rupert Lowe appear on platforms with Tucker Carlson, the framing is much the same. The UK is cast as a scuttled country in sinking decline, awash with either liberal or technocratic elites, depending on the mood of the drowning that day. It is like watching all day long the radicalised in hot pursuit of the radicalised. One day the serpent will eat its tail and we will all be able to go home.

Truss, for instance, strutted into Dallas last week for the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC, warning of “deep state” forces and advancing seriously contested claims about parallel legal systems in the UK. It seemed most unusual—when not in the US, she saunters around her neighbourhood here, close to where I am writing from, and always seems happy with her lot.

Robinson, meanwhile, has long gorged on the sprats of sympathetic US media ecosystems and donors, presenting the UK as best he can as an object lesson in the supposed dangers of immigration and the perils of restrictions on speech. Even when a complaint has a modicum of truth to it, why play so feverishly to a foreign gallery? It is as though our so-called lovers of country are unified only through a lack of love for said country when abroad. In fact, many reasonable people in the UK find the prominence afforded Robinson in the United States baffling, to say the least.

Farage has cultivated perhaps the most sustained transatlantic presence, from regular appearances on US cable news to campaigning alongside Donald Trump, though Trump was reportedly too busy to entertain him last trip. Farage’s interventions have often positioned a Brexit-era UK as part of a broader populist alignment, even if these also serve to bolster his domestic political profile.

Clocked from London, the overall impression is that parts of the American political ecosystem are not only flirting with insurgent-style movements in Europe, they are rhetorically in bed with them. During and after Brexit, slices of American conservatism openly cheered it as a model. Trump-era language around nationalism and “taking back control” pounded like migraine across many European debates.

More recently, protests and unrest in European countries have been amplified by US commentators, jumped on, even, as further evidence of liberal failure—a jack-booted kind of interpretation that can be so easily segued into moral encouragement for anti-establishment mobilisation, even when no formal coordination exists. Listen to Trump decrying not just Starmer but Macron as well. Hear the views of the present US administration on the likes of Orban. You would think they were terrified of the left. Frightened kittens. In recent days, Donald Trump has used Truth Social to cast the United Kingdom in unusually stark terms, folding it into the same narrative of civilisational decline he applies to domestic opponents. Watch the flowers of freedom wilt and slowly die. See the sky about to rain.

Trump’s rhetoric towards supposed allies, including the United Kingdom, maybe especially the United Kingdom, probably reflects a broader scepticism towards joining anything other than his own private club, rather than straightforward hostility. However, his repeated insistence that NATO partners are “not paying what they should,” alongside earlier criticisms of Theresa May’s handling of Brexit, signalled an unusual willingness by an American politician to intervene in domestic British politics, though Obama had earlier told Brits not to vote Brexit.

There is still little evidence of any truly coordinated US state effort to fund insurgent-style movements in Europe. However, there is a looser ecosystem of private donors, media platforms, and overbearing think tanks. Wealthy American backers, such as Robert and Rebekah Mercer, have supported transatlantic populist politics, while well-known figures like Steve Bannon have openly sought—albeit with limited success—to forge bonds between like-minded movements. More often, influence flows through amplification, through noise, not through direct financing. The din of discord, if you prefer. US media platforms and personalities grant visibility, legitimacy, and audiences that can be just as politically valuable as greenbacks.

By contrast, whatever people may think of the credentials of Keir Starmer as a politician, the UK prime minister adopts a very different vibe. Rather than engaging in tit-for-tat provocations, he has emphasised the legitimacy of institutions, as well as alliance cohesion. Where Trump seems to get off on kicking over tables, Starmer positions himself as a defender of process, stability, and good table manners. I suspect that some of us by now would far rather fall asleep listening to someone drone on, than have to watch our backs, check our pockets, and lock our doors the whole time. As an American—Thomas Jefferson—put it, though as an argument at the time for isolationism, “Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.”

At least this portrayal of the United Kingdom as a society in decline is far from uncontested within the UK. Albeit disputed as a number, half a million people gathered at the weekend in London for a rejection of the far right, though one or two groups in attendance were supporting continued violence in the Middle East. Political leaders across the spectrum, at different times, have rejected depictions of systemic collapse over here, while Sadiq Khan has repeatedly pushed back against claims in US media that London has become unsafe or ungovernable. UK institutions—from the Metropolitan Police Service to parliamentary voices—have often had to correct narratives that begin abroad. Commentators such as Rory Stewart warn that the UK risks becoming a kind of political theatre, its internal debates simplified and exported to serve ideological battles elsewhere. This may be the nub of the problem. We are being used and don’t even see it.

“The eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend,” is a quote often attributed to Henry Bergson. In short, the American response to UK politics is loud, visible, and politically useful to actors on both sides of the Atlantic, particularly within media ecosystems that reward provocation and making things simpler. The noise, to be honest, is grinding. It may not be the whole story, nor a particularly intelligible transatlantic strategy. But it is a bugbear that increasingly shapes how the UK is perceived—and often misperceived—abroad.

Peter Bach lives in London.

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment