This is a fantastic series to read, so far. Thank you. They right royally stitched him up with the summary judgement but then “they” couldn’t risk another John Hill verdict. It might wake too many up!
Among all sort of writers incredibly important court cases occurred over the ''Obscene Publications Act 1959. Lady Chatterley’s Lover was found not guilty when prosecuted under this Act in 1960, subsequent guilty verdicts on Last Exit to Brooklyn and Inside Linda Lovelace were overturned on appeal in 1966 and 1976, respectively. ''
The works of J. G. Ballard, Georges Bataille, William Burroughs, Celine, the Marquis de Sade excellent, misunderstood moral horror comedies Norman Spinrads brilliant BUG JACK BARON; would all have been banned if not for these moments of legal sanity against bigotry.
During that and similar attempts at journalistic clampdowns various legal funds were set up - so what happened to them, and why aren't they being used in this instance?
A quick search with BING mentions 3 straight away- tho not devoted to solely Legal expenses.
The Journalists’ Copyright Fund (JCF)
The Society of Authors
The Royal Literary Fund
digging a bit deeper the more relevant (oh, what a chore & run about modern AI/statistical analysis is! - just answer the effin question! 🙄😅) - The Fund for Investigative Journalism - turns up. (tho may be US only ?)
The glaring lack of anything genuinely substantive in Sanders' lame debunk only add further weight to the argument that the bombing was a staged hoax.
I'd very much like to know how many of the alleged deceased were in on it from the outset and what became of them.
And does Martin Hibbert believe he's acting in good conscience, by helping the security state devise ever more insidious restrictions against its own citizens?
It is the SAME typography and acronym as the very well-known SIA of the
Security Industry Authority, that almost all of us who work in security require a badge/qualification from (including doormen/women to close protection agents/bodyguards like me- tho the later are typically ex-services personnel, while I am from a martial arts background instead ).
I feel I should add that 'most' SIA badge holders these days are decent folk, unlike the old skool of organised 'thugs' . Tho disingenuous people like to demonize us as 'all of one character type', I've found that most of the SIA folk I deal with (usually for risk assessment work) are far more aware of corruptions & injustice than the commentators who try and demonize them for their vocation.
There are always some bad eggs, however you'll find most SIA folk 'facilitate a pleasurable environment, and mitigate confrontations' , the simple fact is most clubs could not exist now without SIA involvement and the training is quite good and involves, mitigating confrontations, health and safety , and preempting risks to the public and the environments being used.
Why would the Spinal Injuries admin use the same acronym and typography- do they want to be confused with the Security Authorities , are they connected in any way?
''The Security Industry Authority (SIA) is a public body in the UK that reports to the Home Secretary. It was established under the Private Security Industry Act 2001. The SIA’s main goal is to contribute to public protection by setting and improving standards in the regulated private security industry''
I should also add that I've had many disagreements with the SIA, especially over their farcical and ignorant covid policy, and see several issues of compromise where they could assert more independence from the Home Secretary and his other corrupted cronies.
First class analysis as usual from Iain, Lee and Sanders are doing a well planned hatchet job on Richard D Hall and it seems they're shillin for the state in my opinion!
I am very much enjoying this little series, Iain - thank you!
It's a similar thing I really enjoyed about reading Dave McGowan - you get an ongoing series which is really engaging, even in a narrative sense of 'I want to know what happens next'...
I'm relieved that is how you are finding it. Yep, I liked McGowan's series too. I needed to write this response for my own peace of mind but it is also a bit of a Substack experiment. I think these first three parts are the most boring. But I couldn't avoid constructing it the way I have or the rest, which will be better hopefully, wouldn't make much sense unless I covered these points first.
I know what you mean - you need to present the background first. I especially like the way you've succinctly inserted the epistemic authorities' definition of 'conspiracy theory' (anti-democratic on their part - a crucial point). This is something that needs repeating, as it encapsulates the entire issue surrounding democracy and the demonisation of anti-Establishment (i.e. democratic!) opinion.
As a Substack experiment it's something which I heartily embrace - I've got a number of short stories/novellas (say, between 12k-22k words) which I present in a serialised form of around 2-3k each chapter, so the reader only needs maybe 10-15 minutes each time. In my case I'm doing them maybe twice a week rather than daily, but it's the same principle. In fact, your daily series is even better for this subject matter because I wouldn't want to have to wait several days for the next instalment - for a story it's a bit different, especially as most subscribers subscribe to multiple stacks.
But definitely a series is the way to go, split into readable parts - especially when a subject demands a long dissertation (say, 20k words). Most people would never read a 20k word thing all in one go. Split it up, though, and it suddenly becomes accessible.
The other thing I am enjoying about your series is what I said about the narrative - there are 'characters' involved here, and readers engage with characters. In this case there are recognisable good guys and bad guys, and as normal people we always want the good guys to win. What makes this more dramatic is that we sort of know that the good guys are seriously up against it and probably won't win. They should, as your series is ably demonstrating, but alas...
Oh, I noticed you mentioned Brent and Neil's thing is taking place to coincide with Richard's court case - now that's revealing...
This is a fantastic series to read, so far. Thank you. They right royally stitched him up with the summary judgement but then “they” couldn’t risk another John Hill verdict. It might wake too many up!
Among all sort of writers incredibly important court cases occurred over the ''Obscene Publications Act 1959. Lady Chatterley’s Lover was found not guilty when prosecuted under this Act in 1960, subsequent guilty verdicts on Last Exit to Brooklyn and Inside Linda Lovelace were overturned on appeal in 1966 and 1976, respectively. ''
The works of J. G. Ballard, Georges Bataille, William Burroughs, Celine, the Marquis de Sade excellent, misunderstood moral horror comedies Norman Spinrads brilliant BUG JACK BARON; would all have been banned if not for these moments of legal sanity against bigotry.
During that and similar attempts at journalistic clampdowns various legal funds were set up - so what happened to them, and why aren't they being used in this instance?
A quick search with BING mentions 3 straight away- tho not devoted to solely Legal expenses.
The Journalists’ Copyright Fund (JCF)
The Society of Authors
The Royal Literary Fund
digging a bit deeper the more relevant (oh, what a chore & run about modern AI/statistical analysis is! - just answer the effin question! 🙄😅) - The Fund for Investigative Journalism - turns up. (tho may be US only ?)
https://fij.org/apply-for-a-grant/
Great work, as always, Iain.
The glaring lack of anything genuinely substantive in Sanders' lame debunk only add further weight to the argument that the bombing was a staged hoax.
I'd very much like to know how many of the alleged deceased were in on it from the outset and what became of them.
And does Martin Hibbert believe he's acting in good conscience, by helping the security state devise ever more insidious restrictions against its own citizens?
His organisation for disability is the SIA .
Spinal Injuries Association
It is the SAME typography and acronym as the very well-known SIA of the
Security Industry Authority, that almost all of us who work in security require a badge/qualification from (including doormen/women to close protection agents/bodyguards like me- tho the later are typically ex-services personnel, while I am from a martial arts background instead ).
I feel I should add that 'most' SIA badge holders these days are decent folk, unlike the old skool of organised 'thugs' . Tho disingenuous people like to demonize us as 'all of one character type', I've found that most of the SIA folk I deal with (usually for risk assessment work) are far more aware of corruptions & injustice than the commentators who try and demonize them for their vocation.
There are always some bad eggs, however you'll find most SIA folk 'facilitate a pleasurable environment, and mitigate confrontations' , the simple fact is most clubs could not exist now without SIA involvement and the training is quite good and involves, mitigating confrontations, health and safety , and preempting risks to the public and the environments being used.
Why would the Spinal Injuries admin use the same acronym and typography- do they want to be confused with the Security Authorities , are they connected in any way?
''The Security Industry Authority (SIA) is a public body in the UK that reports to the Home Secretary. It was established under the Private Security Industry Act 2001. The SIA’s main goal is to contribute to public protection by setting and improving standards in the regulated private security industry''
I should also add that I've had many disagreements with the SIA, especially over their farcical and ignorant covid policy, and see several issues of compromise where they could assert more independence from the Home Secretary and his other corrupted cronies.
First class analysis as usual from Iain, Lee and Sanders are doing a well planned hatchet job on Richard D Hall and it seems they're shillin for the state in my opinion!
I am very much enjoying this little series, Iain - thank you!
It's a similar thing I really enjoyed about reading Dave McGowan - you get an ongoing series which is really engaging, even in a narrative sense of 'I want to know what happens next'...
I'm relieved that is how you are finding it. Yep, I liked McGowan's series too. I needed to write this response for my own peace of mind but it is also a bit of a Substack experiment. I think these first three parts are the most boring. But I couldn't avoid constructing it the way I have or the rest, which will be better hopefully, wouldn't make much sense unless I covered these points first.
I know what you mean - you need to present the background first. I especially like the way you've succinctly inserted the epistemic authorities' definition of 'conspiracy theory' (anti-democratic on their part - a crucial point). This is something that needs repeating, as it encapsulates the entire issue surrounding democracy and the demonisation of anti-Establishment (i.e. democratic!) opinion.
As a Substack experiment it's something which I heartily embrace - I've got a number of short stories/novellas (say, between 12k-22k words) which I present in a serialised form of around 2-3k each chapter, so the reader only needs maybe 10-15 minutes each time. In my case I'm doing them maybe twice a week rather than daily, but it's the same principle. In fact, your daily series is even better for this subject matter because I wouldn't want to have to wait several days for the next instalment - for a story it's a bit different, especially as most subscribers subscribe to multiple stacks.
But definitely a series is the way to go, split into readable parts - especially when a subject demands a long dissertation (say, 20k words). Most people would never read a 20k word thing all in one go. Split it up, though, and it suddenly becomes accessible.
The other thing I am enjoying about your series is what I said about the narrative - there are 'characters' involved here, and readers engage with characters. In this case there are recognisable good guys and bad guys, and as normal people we always want the good guys to win. What makes this more dramatic is that we sort of know that the good guys are seriously up against it and probably won't win. They should, as your series is ably demonstrating, but alas...
Oh, I noticed you mentioned Brent and Neil's thing is taking place to coincide with Richard's court case - now that's revealing...
You're very rarely boring, Iain!
Where is the best place to read Dave McGowan's work please?
https://centerforaninformedamerica.com/
Go to 'features' and you have Dave's series.
Thanks so much!