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!
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?
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!
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?
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!