Yes indeed, Francis: the monster has at last come out of the shadows and revealed itself in all its ghastliness.
Now, we can have no illusions about what we're really up against.
In all the mayhem that this case will entail, we must remember that people such as (Mis-)Judge Steyn are nothing more than mortal humans who've elected to serve the wrong god. They will need compassion and understanding - AFTER correction and true justice.
These are the days that signal the end of an epoch. What comes next is wholly unknowable, if we're perfectly honest with ourselves.
It all reminds me, in a somewhat perverse way, of Douglas Adams' "The restaurant at the end of the universe."
I have removed this comment. "We" do not think Hall is a pervert or a masochist or whatever, I certainly don't. I think he had every legitimate right to conduct his on-the-ground investigation as he did. The High Court's insistence that this amounted to harassment was not born out by the evidence presented in the court and the High Court barred the evidence Hall could have presented in his own defence.
My first or second time here commenting and im not surprised.. Whenever there is a truth to be squashed these vermin parasites appear and overwhelm the arena/content.. Richard obviously has them worried/bang to rights, otherwise they would have allowed him to defend himself, but they can't afford to, speaks volumes... That's all we need to know...
I don't give these cockroaches the time of day, but they can't leave me alone, again speaks volumes...
The Establishment spend more money, time, manpower and effort controlling the narrative than they do on anything else, hence why The Media Are The Worlds Most Insidious, Pernicious, Prolific and Accomplished Serial Killers, being polite...
Are you going to censor me for stating you blatantly ignored the REAL evidence of the time-stamp of the Pawley footage?
The doctored audio of the Pawley/Zach footage?
That you somehow overlooked the Jordan Kenney testimony which proves Bickerstaff is lying?
You let yourself be humiliated by Aisling O'Loughlin regarding the Bickerstaff footage, yet if you would have been prepared with REAL evidence you could have wiped her out? Very odd.
Let's go over some points of this farcical interview:
1:02:52 she points out the obvious flaw that RDH offered to all about the "LIVE" video footage shown in the Bickerstaff footage, HALL had ZERO evidence that this was "LIVE" - this rang alarm bells for me straight away, she was handed this along with others on a plate from Hall and she threw it at your face, instead of giving an honest reply that HALL should NEVER have included that as evidence, you stated she is missing out the "main tranche" of the Bickerstaff footage, well Mr. Davis so are YOU.
1:03:10 "The main tranche of the video (Bickerstaff) is the conduct of the people around him"
You had the opportunity to drown the evil witch, all you had to do was produce the Jordan Kenney testimony:
"Aisling O'loughlin appears to have outed HERSELF as some sort of op"
To whom! Not a casual observer, she made Davis look like a fool in many parts of that interview because he was not armed with any evidence, take the Bickerstaff footage for example, she wiped the floor with him.
It's so good to see and hear this. Well done to whoever filmed it - I have scanned many of the legacy media reports, and not a word in any of them on Richard's speech. He shows them up to be the craven establishment lackeys they truly are.
Thanks to all the authors who contributed to the above and the publication of it! It is very thorough and will take me some time to digest (on top of other correspondence that I am behind with)! I hope that others will also give sensible comments and contributions in response!
By the way, the first report I heard yesterday was BBC Radio 4 news headlines, and they made a point of saying that the claimants won damages of “over £22,000 each”… those two little ducks again!
I suspect the reason why no-one appeared at court to support Fibbert is because all were hired hands and they were done with their allotted roles once the Queen had dropped in to the hospital for a quick chat.
The Queen's visit was the official sanctification of the narrative in the public mind.
I wonder if she knew it was all baloney, or was she just another unwitting dupe?
This could be cheated up in 5 minutes by showing all the CCTV. if it's a case real people children were bombed then certain parties from both sides in a Skif. However that argument is not apparent when the State want to push an agenda they quite happily show bombings of people and Children when it suits them.
Thanks for that, Richard has them by the short and curlies, God Bless All fighting these Parasites...
It's a Masonic Control System, The Scottish Rite (Skull & Bones) and Swiss Octogon being top of that tree, one War (BlackRock/BlackWater/BlackStone/BlackWatch/MIC), one Financial (Vanguard/BIS/WHO/WEF/CERN) and both everything in-between.....
Even HUDGE-HELL solicitors can now gloat over the numerology.
"£22,500 to Mr Hibbert and £22,500 to his daughter Eve"
I never bothered with IAIN to be honest, another BOOK about the attacks, yet completely ignored THE EVIDENCE along with RDH....but my interest was suddenly invigorated with his interview with that useless witch and how she absolutely made a mockery of him, she was freely allowed to pelt him with rotten cabbages as though he had placed himself in the stocks voluntarily.
I have been reluctantly scrolling through the tripe being posted on here, I can see why you are leaving, it's nothing but a devoted fan-club of RDH with 'Gatekeeper' of the Substack PROLIES as it's drooling poodle guard dog to try and bark down any REAL input.
WTF it's now showing signs of Schizophreniform disorder, I am now someone else? I believe 'Prolies' accused me of the same grave crime when I first posted about the CARLO photographs.
Anyone who now points out some truths that rattles 'ProSchizo' is now BlubSturgeon!
He is a political prisoner. They were gunning for him and the court was corrupt. What a way to go to open up space for lazy journalism - if it can be called journalism - just write what you are told and stick your name on it at the end. True journalism is being squashed by the corrupt cabal.
Thank you again Iain. I am so glad Richard has you. I am beside myself with distress for the iniquity upon iniquity that has been piled upon Richard who has always acted openly and honestly. I am so glad you are speaking up so clearly for him and pointing out the many dreadful injustices against him. This case should never have even got as far as the court. It was begun when Mariana Spring put that evil seed of how he could gain money and fame by jumping on the 'I'm a victim of a conspiracy theorist' bandwagon. For he clearly thrives on these two things, as even without attacking Richard, this vicious little honey badger, had already clocked up vast appearances on TV and in the media, and had raised £thousands to travel to Australia (twice in all) for miracle treatment at an eyewatering price.
I don't want to talk about that. I just cannot bear how people are able to tell such lies and get away with it. How a judge can ignore evidence and decide to believe the opposite of the truth even when the truth is in the public domain.
Maybe today was my most upsetting time though. I have been a loyal member of UK Column. On the News Brian asked people to support Richard. I thanked him in the chat.
Then in the ‘Extra’ part of the News for Members, after the main News, Brian talked about first the Judge and her background, then he addressed Ben Rubin saying would this have come to a trial without the BBC. without Mariana Spring getting involved with the family. Brian went on to say, 'Whatever Richard D Hall did or did not do, and none of us are perfect ..... he could not form a proper defence in court because we have already been told what the government has told us what the truth is really. We are seeing the final nail in the coffin of so-called justice here in the UK.'
He handed over to Ben to comment. I expected him to respond to that last part, having clearly been told at the start, comments of judgement of Richard were not relevant (I wondered if Brian had already talked to Ben before going on air and was trying to prevent what next happened.)
Ben began, 'Yeh it's absolutely staggering umm I agree with that' then he seems to waffle a lot, his eyes moving all around as though trying to get ideas, and not speaking to the problem of how Richard had his defence evidence stitched up or whether the BBC had engineered this trial. His aim became obvious. He wanted to distance himself from Richard and show how he, a good guy, was not a bad guy like Richard. He obviously knew nothing about Richard, or the evets brought to the trial. But he spoke as though he were an authority on it and anyone disagreeing was demeaned and belittled.
(Around -18.40) 'Love him or loathe him and there are people who come down on both sides of that argument and err on err' (this dichotomy of course is false, it leaves no normal feelings for the man in between). He was waffling here and saying ‘people on both sides’ introduces the idea Richard is loathed. He was continuously waffling but filling gaps with ‘err um and an excess of unnecessary words. It went along the lines of 'if the Truther Movement.. people who have really actually really been and gone and done the work and looked at it … had really done the work and looked at it, have come down on either side of the argument regarding Richard Hall.’ I honestly have no idea who this ‘Truther Movement’ are and this idea that some people have ‘really looked at it’ they could not have seen any differently to the rest of us, That is to know that Richard keeps above and beyond the rules and ethics of his profession as an Investigative Journalist.
Rubin’s waffle continues and here is where I was completely shocked and utterly disgusted. Not just with him but with how the man in charge did nothing on behalf of UK Column. Listen,
‘Um and you know I would certainly say his methods were not methods I would employ like so actually you know like going and staking out people's houses and putting hidden cameras outside their houses strikes me you are begging for trouble if you behave like that.'
What?! Clearly Rubin neither knows Richard, nor has read his research, and clearly this message is exactly the kind we saw from Neil Sanders who, while pretending to be Richard’s friend, having taken so much help from Richard in his work, then stabs him in the back. Their motive is so plain! It is the speech of the weak minded, unprincipled coward who throws the decent and honest man to the wolves just to save his own skin. What makes it so much more contemptible is they try to boast their own glory while so doing.
Rubin continued like this throughout the rest of ‘Extra’, gibing at Richard’s supporters, using ‘forced choices’ or ‘either or’ descriptions, saying we either think Richard is a Saint or we agree with them he is ‘not perfect’ which is the ‘nice person’s’ way of saying he is wrong. Nothing else. Those who oppose Rubin are by implication soft in the head since Ben Rubin has… wait for it… met Richard! He says this as though to shut us up for he now has the superior ground. What is revealing of his character, is that he does not seem aware that among us all there could well be others who might have met Richard too!
I immediately wrote in the Chat which Brian reads as the broadcast goes out, that this is not what Richard did. Instead of withdrawing it, those of us pointing out this lie were scorned for making Richard a ‘Saint’.
Lots of heated comments here though relatively small number of commentators .Should I wonder if any have ever attended one of of Richard `s tour shows? I admit, I haven't but will now try to do so.
Due to an impending injunction certain sections of the website have now been redacted.
The donations I have had so far have just about, but not quite, funded all of my own legal costs which were well in excess of £100,000. Thank you to all who have donated.
I am now facing £45,000 in damages plus £234,000 in the Claimants' costs, totalling £279,000. If anyone wishes to assist me with this recent bill, obviously I would be very grateful!"
According to some frequent commentators on Iain's pages "it's all about who did what and when". So:
(1) What is Oakley's hourly rate?
(2) How many hours work did he do?
(3) What other costs is he charging for?
If RDH has reached the figure of £100k - there must surely be a breakdown of costs that delivered that figure?
(4) Did RDH know that Oakley effectively enabled the blackwashing cartoon characters such as Carl Benjamin/Sargon of Akkad, Mark Meechan/Count Dankula/Count Duckegg, Paul Joseph Watson, to send UKIP down the pan faster than it otherwise would have gone?
Corollaries:
(5) Sending UKIP down the pan ushered in the Conservatives, with a large parliamentary majority, who Oakley himself later joined, who then presided over and enabled the largely unchallenged Covid madness. Apparently, Oakley is now in Freemason Kong's small party.
(6) Mark Meechan himself had a court case (publicised by the BBC and that silly GB News idiot and living-Marxism fan Andrew Doyle did a documentary about him, AIRED BY THE BBC). On the back of that court case, Meechan ran several FUNDRAISING PAGES; and I can't see what happened to the money on the latest one that he did. Has anyone checked whether Benjamin and Paul Joseph Watson have done similar fundraisers?
(7) What serious consideration did the commentators on Iain's pages give to Michael O'Deira's video (also posted in the comments of Iain's pages) that the defence barrister is an officer of the court and may have their own intersts at stake when issuing their legal advice?
(8) Is there not a place for someone giving legal information (not advice) who will say "I will never take your case" but will give you information about non-legal and legal remedies?
Unfortunately, I have no idea about any of them, except maybe the last.
Barristers can certainly opt to work pro bono (no fees) if they choose, but I think they are still subject to the jurisdiction of the court.
Offering advice off the record would also be perfectly feasible, but then Richard would've had to represent himself in court and judges tend to regard such actions as disdainful and presumptuous.
At the end of Richard's statement, outside the court, I noticed he praised Oakley as a brilliant barrister. Well, in my experience Barristers are only legitimately brilliant if they win your case, so I'm not quite sure what Richard meant by his remark.
I think it's reasonable to expect a full breakdown of costs from Richard, especially with regard to those who contributed and may be inclined to do so again.
Above is his court case, supported by Tommy Ten Names / Wasim Kempson; and "yes" several donations campaigns were bounced off the reported events.
And the BBC gave him his own 2-minute clip on the webpage (to what kind of people do they grant that privelege?) and had silly Living Marxist Andrew Doyle do a documentary about it and air it on the BBC.
Do you think allowing Duckegg to advance in an organisation, as Oakley did, is not a tad suspicious? Do you not think that Oakley's desire to self publish is not a tad suspicious? Will he use the revenues from his book to give RDH a discount?
I haven't tried the legal AI. But there is a post from Nushi (or one of her contacts) on one of Iain's recent comments pages describing her investigations with it. It was very interesting and what the AI bot said did not surprise or dissapoint me. I highly recommend that everyone reads that post.
Well spotted about (deliberately?) vague locutions, on the part of the legacy media. The attack was most certainly "staged." It was all 'theatre', in fact and we are the audience, as much as the teenage fans were on that evening of infamy.
Crucially, however, the difference between the likes of RDH, you and me and the ignorant huddled masses is we're not willing to suspend our disbelief and kowtow to the scriptwriters.
Fighting a heavyweight opponent with hands tied behind his back, Richard shows us all what injustice looks like.
Yes indeed, Francis: the monster has at last come out of the shadows and revealed itself in all its ghastliness.
Now, we can have no illusions about what we're really up against.
In all the mayhem that this case will entail, we must remember that people such as (Mis-)Judge Steyn are nothing more than mortal humans who've elected to serve the wrong god. They will need compassion and understanding - AFTER correction and true justice.
These are the days that signal the end of an epoch. What comes next is wholly unknowable, if we're perfectly honest with ourselves.
It all reminds me, in a somewhat perverse way, of Douglas Adams' "The restaurant at the end of the universe."
At least we have a ringside seat.
Let's see the dish of the day!
Oops: FrancEs! Little bit of vowel trouble, there.
What the hell are you actually talking about?!
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
Nobody can pretend anymore that there is no conspiracy to silence people who question official narratives.
Spot on, Ben. You know this as well as anyone!
I have removed this comment. "We" do not think Hall is a pervert or a masochist or whatever, I certainly don't. I think he had every legitimate right to conduct his on-the-ground investigation as he did. The High Court's insistence that this amounted to harassment was not born out by the evidence presented in the court and the High Court barred the evidence Hall could have presented in his own defence.
My first or second time here commenting and im not surprised.. Whenever there is a truth to be squashed these vermin parasites appear and overwhelm the arena/content.. Richard obviously has them worried/bang to rights, otherwise they would have allowed him to defend himself, but they can't afford to, speaks volumes... That's all we need to know...
I don't give these cockroaches the time of day, but they can't leave me alone, again speaks volumes...
The Establishment spend more money, time, manpower and effort controlling the narrative than they do on anything else, hence why The Media Are The Worlds Most Insidious, Pernicious, Prolific and Accomplished Serial Killers, being polite...
Are you going to censor me for stating you blatantly ignored the REAL evidence of the time-stamp of the Pawley footage?
The doctored audio of the Pawley/Zach footage?
That you somehow overlooked the Jordan Kenney testimony which proves Bickerstaff is lying?
You let yourself be humiliated by Aisling O'Loughlin regarding the Bickerstaff footage, yet if you would have been prepared with REAL evidence you could have wiped her out? Very odd.
Let's go over some points of this farcical interview:
https://iaindavis.substack.com/p/iain-davis-and-aisling-oloughlin
1:02:52 she points out the obvious flaw that RDH offered to all about the "LIVE" video footage shown in the Bickerstaff footage, HALL had ZERO evidence that this was "LIVE" - this rang alarm bells for me straight away, she was handed this along with others on a plate from Hall and she threw it at your face, instead of giving an honest reply that HALL should NEVER have included that as evidence, you stated she is missing out the "main tranche" of the Bickerstaff footage, well Mr. Davis so are YOU.
1:03:10 "The main tranche of the video (Bickerstaff) is the conduct of the people around him"
You had the opportunity to drown the evil witch, all you had to do was produce the Jordan Kenney testimony:
https://x.com/Richard63240134/status/1801041610664239577
Which clearly proves he was WITH his friend in the Bickerstaff footage, not panic stricken and separated as he testified.
You FAILED, miserably.
You state in regard to the Bickerstaff footage: 1:04:10
"we can absolutely categorically prove that he started filming that at least one minute and seven seconds before the purported time of the blast"
WEAK
If you had of presented the KENNEY testimony you could have proven that it was filmed LONG before the supposed blast.
"You can't maintain it" you holler!
Oh YES she can, because the evidence you offered was WEAK.
No. I will never censor or remove any criticism you make of ME. No matter how unhinged or vitriolic it is.
Why did you not use the Jordan Kenney testimony to strike down O'Loughlin?
"Aisling O'loughlin appears to have outed HERSELF as some sort of op"
To whom! Not a casual observer, she made Davis look like a fool in many parts of that interview because he was not armed with any evidence, take the Bickerstaff footage for example, she wiped the floor with him.
It's so good to see and hear this. Well done to whoever filmed it - I have scanned many of the legacy media reports, and not a word in any of them on Richard's speech. He shows them up to be the craven establishment lackeys they truly are.
Complete absence of reporting on most '' truther '' sites too.
Yes, Pighooey: it's hard to imagine any more bitter gall than this.
The BBC and their co-conspiritors are attempting to leave us disenfranchised, destitute and hopeless.
What choice do we have, other than to resist?
If it hasn't been made obvious enough by other posters:
Damages: £22,500 a piece.
Omit the sterling symbol:
22,500
Omit the zeros:
22,5
Change the comma symbol for the kind of symbol that is used in describing dates:
22/5
In english:
22nd of May.
I wonder what made the judge decide on that sum of money?
Great analysis, which I need more time to consider.
H, of course, is 8 in English ordinal.
IX has sometimes been used with the "I" floating so that it can be IX or XI. i.e. 9/11.
During the 9/11 and Iraq saga who was the weapons inspector? Hans BLIX.
BLIX
The "No L" or "Noel" rule gives:
BIX
In English ordinal "B" is 2:
2IX
Covert the lot to roman numerals:
II/IX
Convert the right hand side to numerical figures:
II/9
Read from right to left as some cultures do, you get: 9/11 - the very event that prompted blIX to be called in by the UN in the first place!
Rather unfortunately, "OSS" is part of my name on these comments, but was not chosen because of the OSS!
Thanks to all the authors who contributed to the above and the publication of it! It is very thorough and will take me some time to digest (on top of other correspondence that I am behind with)! I hope that others will also give sensible comments and contributions in response!
By the way, the first report I heard yesterday was BBC Radio 4 news headlines, and they made a point of saying that the claimants won damages of “over £22,000 each”… those two little ducks again!
You're kidding!? They must be laughing themselves sick.
I suspect the reason why no-one appeared at court to support Fibbert is because all were hired hands and they were done with their allotted roles once the Queen had dropped in to the hospital for a quick chat.
The Queen's visit was the official sanctification of the narrative in the public mind.
I wonder if she knew it was all baloney, or was she just another unwitting dupe?
Murrell? Morrell? The legacy media dinosaurs can't even agree on the spelling of her surname!
You'd think she might've tried to put them straight, but apparently not.
God, it stinks!
Why bother with TBSM? There's no edification in it and you waste valuable energy that would be much better allocated elsewhere, surely?
This could be cheated up in 5 minutes by showing all the CCTV. if it's a case real people children were bombed then certain parties from both sides in a Skif. However that argument is not apparent when the State want to push an agenda they quite happily show bombings of people and Children when it suits them.
Thanks for that, Richard has them by the short and curlies, God Bless All fighting these Parasites...
It's a Masonic Control System, The Scottish Rite (Skull & Bones) and Swiss Octogon being top of that tree, one War (BlackRock/BlackWater/BlackStone/BlackWatch/MIC), one Financial (Vanguard/BIS/WHO/WEF/CERN) and both everything in-between.....
"Richard has them by the short and curlies"
Pathetic.
Even HUDGE-HELL solicitors can now gloat over the numerology.
"£22,500 to Mr Hibbert and £22,500 to his daughter Eve"
I never bothered with IAIN to be honest, another BOOK about the attacks, yet completely ignored THE EVIDENCE along with RDH....but my interest was suddenly invigorated with his interview with that useless witch and how she absolutely made a mockery of him, she was freely allowed to pelt him with rotten cabbages as though he had placed himself in the stocks voluntarily.
I have been reluctantly scrolling through the tripe being posted on here, I can see why you are leaving, it's nothing but a devoted fan-club of RDH with 'Gatekeeper' of the Substack PROLIES as it's drooling poodle guard dog to try and bark down any REAL input.
We are currently living through preparations for the enthroning of the Antichrist. Trust in God and stay strong!
https://archive.org/details/lordofworld00bens
Yes Chap, Absolutely, and you...
Fuck me, even the cult religious fanatical zombies dwell here.
Amen
WTF it's now showing signs of Schizophreniform disorder, I am now someone else? I believe 'Prolies' accused me of the same grave crime when I first posted about the CARLO photographs.
Anyone who now points out some truths that rattles 'ProSchizo' is now BlubSturgeon!
I knew you were fucking bonkers from the off!
https://substack.com/home/post/p-145914900
I think we have more than enough evidence here :)
The Deep State at Work.
He is a political prisoner. They were gunning for him and the court was corrupt. What a way to go to open up space for lazy journalism - if it can be called journalism - just write what you are told and stick your name on it at the end. True journalism is being squashed by the corrupt cabal.
Thank you again Iain. I am so glad Richard has you. I am beside myself with distress for the iniquity upon iniquity that has been piled upon Richard who has always acted openly and honestly. I am so glad you are speaking up so clearly for him and pointing out the many dreadful injustices against him. This case should never have even got as far as the court. It was begun when Mariana Spring put that evil seed of how he could gain money and fame by jumping on the 'I'm a victim of a conspiracy theorist' bandwagon. For he clearly thrives on these two things, as even without attacking Richard, this vicious little honey badger, had already clocked up vast appearances on TV and in the media, and had raised £thousands to travel to Australia (twice in all) for miracle treatment at an eyewatering price.
I don't want to talk about that. I just cannot bear how people are able to tell such lies and get away with it. How a judge can ignore evidence and decide to believe the opposite of the truth even when the truth is in the public domain.
Maybe today was my most upsetting time though. I have been a loyal member of UK Column. On the News Brian asked people to support Richard. I thanked him in the chat.
Then in the ‘Extra’ part of the News for Members, after the main News, Brian talked about first the Judge and her background, then he addressed Ben Rubin saying would this have come to a trial without the BBC. without Mariana Spring getting involved with the family. Brian went on to say, 'Whatever Richard D Hall did or did not do, and none of us are perfect ..... he could not form a proper defence in court because we have already been told what the government has told us what the truth is really. We are seeing the final nail in the coffin of so-called justice here in the UK.'
He handed over to Ben to comment. I expected him to respond to that last part, having clearly been told at the start, comments of judgement of Richard were not relevant (I wondered if Brian had already talked to Ben before going on air and was trying to prevent what next happened.)
Ben began, 'Yeh it's absolutely staggering umm I agree with that' then he seems to waffle a lot, his eyes moving all around as though trying to get ideas, and not speaking to the problem of how Richard had his defence evidence stitched up or whether the BBC had engineered this trial. His aim became obvious. He wanted to distance himself from Richard and show how he, a good guy, was not a bad guy like Richard. He obviously knew nothing about Richard, or the evets brought to the trial. But he spoke as though he were an authority on it and anyone disagreeing was demeaned and belittled.
(Around -18.40) 'Love him or loathe him and there are people who come down on both sides of that argument and err on err' (this dichotomy of course is false, it leaves no normal feelings for the man in between). He was waffling here and saying ‘people on both sides’ introduces the idea Richard is loathed. He was continuously waffling but filling gaps with ‘err um and an excess of unnecessary words. It went along the lines of 'if the Truther Movement.. people who have really actually really been and gone and done the work and looked at it … had really done the work and looked at it, have come down on either side of the argument regarding Richard Hall.’ I honestly have no idea who this ‘Truther Movement’ are and this idea that some people have ‘really looked at it’ they could not have seen any differently to the rest of us, That is to know that Richard keeps above and beyond the rules and ethics of his profession as an Investigative Journalist.
I can only surmise that Ben Rubin talked to Sanders and Lee. He ought in that case to read your, Iain Davies, work ‘Brent and Neil go to Manchester’ all of it beginning at https://iaindavis.substack.com/p/brent-and-neil-go-to-manchester-part1
Rubin’s waffle continues and here is where I was completely shocked and utterly disgusted. Not just with him but with how the man in charge did nothing on behalf of UK Column. Listen,
‘Um and you know I would certainly say his methods were not methods I would employ like so actually you know like going and staking out people's houses and putting hidden cameras outside their houses strikes me you are begging for trouble if you behave like that.'
What?! Clearly Rubin neither knows Richard, nor has read his research, and clearly this message is exactly the kind we saw from Neil Sanders who, while pretending to be Richard’s friend, having taken so much help from Richard in his work, then stabs him in the back. Their motive is so plain! It is the speech of the weak minded, unprincipled coward who throws the decent and honest man to the wolves just to save his own skin. What makes it so much more contemptible is they try to boast their own glory while so doing.
Rubin continued like this throughout the rest of ‘Extra’, gibing at Richard’s supporters, using ‘forced choices’ or ‘either or’ descriptions, saying we either think Richard is a Saint or we agree with them he is ‘not perfect’ which is the ‘nice person’s’ way of saying he is wrong. Nothing else. Those who oppose Rubin are by implication soft in the head since Ben Rubin has… wait for it… met Richard! He says this as though to shut us up for he now has the superior ground. What is revealing of his character, is that he does not seem aware that among us all there could well be others who might have met Richard too!
I immediately wrote in the Chat which Brian reads as the broadcast goes out, that this is not what Richard did. Instead of withdrawing it, those of us pointing out this lie were scorned for making Richard a ‘Saint’.
The ‘Chat’ section can be found on https://community.ukcolumn.org/forums/uk-column-news-extra/uk-column-news-extra-11th-november-2024, beginning at approx. 23.38 or -19.44
Lots of heated comments here though relatively small number of commentators .Should I wonder if any have ever attended one of of Richard `s tour shows? I admit, I haven't but will now try to do so.
I attended one of Richard's talks about 7 years ago, in his home town of Merthyr Tydfil.
He's always seemed like the real deal to me, even if I don't subscribe to all his views.
There is no law.
There is not that law most people think, and it begins with the legal fiction…
The question is what are you, and what are your intentions?
no justice :(
The spambots have arrived in force, I notice:).
From Richplanet.net:
"CURRENT SITUATION - Updated 10/11/2024
Due to an impending injunction certain sections of the website have now been redacted.
The donations I have had so far have just about, but not quite, funded all of my own legal costs which were well in excess of £100,000. Thank you to all who have donated.
I am now facing £45,000 in damages plus £234,000 in the Claimants' costs, totalling £279,000. If anyone wishes to assist me with this recent bill, obviously I would be very grateful!"
£100,000: What hourly rate is Oakley working for? Did he bill for any costs other than his own labour and how much were they?
Barristers don't come cheap, unfortunately.
It would be nice to think that Oakley will waive those costs, or at least give a significant discount.
I am left wondering what Oakley believed he would be able to achieve, given the enormous odds against succeeding.
Was it simply about the money, or was he in it for other, undisclosed, reasons?
According to some frequent commentators on Iain's pages "it's all about who did what and when". So:
(1) What is Oakley's hourly rate?
(2) How many hours work did he do?
(3) What other costs is he charging for?
If RDH has reached the figure of £100k - there must surely be a breakdown of costs that delivered that figure?
(4) Did RDH know that Oakley effectively enabled the blackwashing cartoon characters such as Carl Benjamin/Sargon of Akkad, Mark Meechan/Count Dankula/Count Duckegg, Paul Joseph Watson, to send UKIP down the pan faster than it otherwise would have gone?
Corollaries:
(5) Sending UKIP down the pan ushered in the Conservatives, with a large parliamentary majority, who Oakley himself later joined, who then presided over and enabled the largely unchallenged Covid madness. Apparently, Oakley is now in Freemason Kong's small party.
(6) Mark Meechan himself had a court case (publicised by the BBC and that silly GB News idiot and living-Marxism fan Andrew Doyle did a documentary about him, AIRED BY THE BBC). On the back of that court case, Meechan ran several FUNDRAISING PAGES; and I can't see what happened to the money on the latest one that he did. Has anyone checked whether Benjamin and Paul Joseph Watson have done similar fundraisers?
(7) What serious consideration did the commentators on Iain's pages give to Michael O'Deira's video (also posted in the comments of Iain's pages) that the defence barrister is an officer of the court and may have their own intersts at stake when issuing their legal advice?
(8) Is there not a place for someone giving legal information (not advice) who will say "I will never take your case" but will give you information about non-legal and legal remedies?
Those are all pertinent questions.
Unfortunately, I have no idea about any of them, except maybe the last.
Barristers can certainly opt to work pro bono (no fees) if they choose, but I think they are still subject to the jurisdiction of the court.
Offering advice off the record would also be perfectly feasible, but then Richard would've had to represent himself in court and judges tend to regard such actions as disdainful and presumptuous.
At the end of Richard's statement, outside the court, I noticed he praised Oakley as a brilliant barrister. Well, in my experience Barristers are only legitimately brilliant if they win your case, so I'm not quite sure what Richard meant by his remark.
I think it's reasonable to expect a full breakdown of costs from Richard, especially with regard to those who contributed and may be inclined to do so again.
You do not address Oakley's own self-publishing schemes, nor the time at which he deployed them. Why did he engage in them at all?
Nor do you address (former UKIP General Secretary) Oakley's enablement of Carl Benjamin and Count Duckegg.
Would you employ the latter?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43864133
Above is his court case, supported by Tommy Ten Names / Wasim Kempson; and "yes" several donations campaigns were bounced off the reported events.
And the BBC gave him his own 2-minute clip on the webpage (to what kind of people do they grant that privelege?) and had silly Living Marxist Andrew Doyle do a documentary about it and air it on the BBC.
Do you think allowing Duckegg to advance in an organisation, as Oakley did, is not a tad suspicious? Do you not think that Oakley's desire to self publish is not a tad suspicious? Will he use the revenues from his book to give RDH a discount?
I haven't tried the legal AI. But there is a post from Nushi (or one of her contacts) on one of Iain's recent comments pages describing her investigations with it. It was very interesting and what the AI bot said did not surprise or dissapoint me. I highly recommend that everyone reads that post.
Well spotted about (deliberately?) vague locutions, on the part of the legacy media. The attack was most certainly "staged." It was all 'theatre', in fact and we are the audience, as much as the teenage fans were on that evening of infamy.
Crucially, however, the difference between the likes of RDH, you and me and the ignorant huddled masses is we're not willing to suspend our disbelief and kowtow to the scriptwriters.
We want to improvise our own truths.
How inconvenient we must be!