My thanks go to the reader who drew my attention to the comments of Neil Sanders about my work. It appears to be his response to the series of articles I wrote about the nonsense he and Brent Lee concocted—it was mainly Sanders—about the Manchester Attack and the work of Richard D. Hall.
Admittedly, I haven’t taken Sanders comments very well. I’m a bit miffed if I’m honest and I am not going to passively accept his scathing criticism.
My ten-part series—yes, ten—can be read HERE. Reading the whole thing will take you two or three hours—depending on how long you can bear it or how many coffee breaks you need. This is less than half the time it will take you to wade through Neil and Brent’s bloated eight-part podcast series which is available HERE.
Unfortunately, if you are expecting any objectivity or insightful commentary from Brent and Neil’s ravings about the Manchester attack and the work of Richard D. Hall I fear you will be disappointed. For example, according to Neil Sanders, the BBC hadn’t heard about Richard D. Hall’s work on Manchester until alerted to it by Martin Hibbert, who won a subsequent harassment civil claim against Hall. Sanders can only have come to his woefully inaccurate conclusion by ignoring all the evidence that reveals how absurd his so-called analysis is.
In his little rant aimed at me, Sanders asserted that I outlined “how the New World Order took over the world with the Federal Reserve” in this article. Of course, I didn’t say anything of the sort but who cares about the details? Neil moved on from such trifles some time ago and it shows.
( For those interested in what I meant by the term “the New World Order” this article might be of some interest. )
Brent Lee and Neil Sanders were very proud of their 21 points they boldly proclaimed to have “annihilated his [Hall’s] evidence.” They actually failed miserably in nearly every respect. By studiously avoiding virtually any mention of the observable physical evidence Hall reported, they dismissed most of Hall’s evidence without examining it and floundered around trying to sell irrelevant speculation as objective research.
If you can’t be bothered to read all ten of my articles critiquing Brent and Neil’s evidence free claims, or to listen to their podcast series—and I wouldn’t blame you on either count—you could just skip to Part 10 of my series to get the gist of my “poorly written, uninformed, paranoid gish gallop.”
With regard to Manchester, Neil Sanders has stuck rigidly to the official narrative as if his hoped for but unrealised mainstream media career depended on it. He delivered a six hour long waffle in which he offered his misinformed listeners a slew of strawman arguments and logical fallacies to manufacture the kind of desperate, propagandist bilge that Lord Haw-Haw would have applauded.
Sanders also has a lot to say about Hall’s subsequent trial and, again, has unquestioningly parroted every single official line. He is so wildly wrong about even the most basic aspects of the case that I am not going to suggest you even bother to listen his clueless rambling.
Instead, I heartily recommend you read Dr David A. Hughes forensic analysis of the trial and the ruling. Unlike Neil Sanders, Hughes hasn’t just swallowed whatever the Establishment or the mainstream media fed him. Nor has he mindlessly relayed a nonsensical judicial rulings as if he were a High Court stenographer with a podcast.
So, given that Neil Sanders has determined that the ruling against Hall was entirely legitimate, objective and balanced; seeing as he flatly denies the appalling implications of the set case precedent and, as he is avidly selling the states’ narrative, I’ll leave the last word to a real investigative researcher and journalist, Dr David A. Hughes:
Richard D. Hall was persecuted by the British State for daring to conduct real investigative journalism into the Manchester Arena incident. His trial was clearly instigated by the Establishment, with the BBC leading the way. Martin Hibbert served as an entirely unconvincing vehicle through which to wage lawfare, and the High Court of Justice delivered a preposterous judgment against Hall that makes a mockery of the British legal system.
