While listening to the evidence 3 weeks ago, it was clear the police who arrested him, had tacitly been given 'permission' to attack Mr. Robinson. If so, that could only have happened if the authority behind it supported it of course.
And who exactly is this authority? It is certainly not wealth and power.
This 'permission' is not incitement in the legal sense. It is the state attacking selected constituencies of its own people. Which is more sinister of course - because then the group of people with protected characteristics are not protected from it, in law. And the group who are protected are fully complicit by implication.
The law does not attend to this yet. And never has historically. Because you cannot condemn a large group of people. You need a 'legal person'.
So it's a significant mistake to believe its the media acting on behalf of the government as Mr. Robinson says (though I fully understand it politic)
At a deeper level its the media acting on behalf of one of 2 large constituencies:
- those who obey the narrative and
- those who do not
Blaming wealth and power in any way, only serves authority with more obedience(control at scale) because it deflects from root cause - helping the people to escape obvious complicity.
Think: this is not about wealth and power. It is about a battle between the commanding narrative of each group and the wilful obedience to each narrative by the people of the group.
This isn't to say 'a legal person' is complicit. It is to say the collective of people which that narrative commands, is. The group as a whole is fully responsible - the tribe.
If you look at it this way, a lot more becomes clear as to how to proceed.