Iain, I’d very much like to know why the case wasn’t inadmissible to begin with under the principle that freedom of speech can’t be curtailed by a claim that it's harassment- maybe that it's incitement to rioting or how to build a chemical weapon but not harassment. So the situation is that, despite a widespread understanding in the popu…
Iain, I’d very much like to know why the case wasn’t inadmissible to begin with under the principle that freedom of speech can’t be curtailed by a claim that it's harassment- maybe that it's incitement to rioting or how to build a chemical weapon but not harassment. So the situation is that, despite a widespread understanding in the population to the contrary, a Western liberal democracy like Britain in fact does not protect freedom of speech in the law? Any clown who can’t answer speech that they don’t like only with more speech in a rational dialogue to reveal truth can instead say that free speech is harassment and go all the way to a high court trial to claim damages for it?
I agree and I ask the same questions myself. I can only speculate, but as I have suggested in this series, in my opinion this was a show trial. The purpose, in my view, is to set some sort of case precedent for the reinterpretation of freedom of speech in a publication, especially with reference to Article 10 of the ECHR. But I think we'll have to wait for the ruling to find out what it is really about.
Is normal freedom of speech and its expression not protected in the law?! Indeed not freedom to incite hatred or share state secrets or to how make weaponry or such but everything else.
Isn't research of a public domain event and then coming to a view and expressing it immediately ascendant over any claims to this being harassment or invasion of privacy? Is the situation not that speech that is disagreed with has to be responded to only with more speech in a discussion over the facts and reasoning to better understand in the normal rational and scientific way? And claiming harassment is obviously utter nonsense and pathetic? If providing lawyers with something to do and be paid for, alongside the deep state agenda.
Is it really that there is a situation where normal free speech is in wrongful for another person? And particularly Hall always stating it's his opinion and evaluation? Obviously anyone who is worried about alternative views, because theirs are wrong, would then just have to claim it's harassment.
And if it's harassment he then has to go to the next step to show that his view is correct because the claim against him can only be defeated because of the fraud it truthfully happens to involve?
I'm disturbed that the court seems to be focused on this next-level issue. It's been assumed that Hall's free speech has caused harassment and that harassement without good cause is wrong. The documents certainly seem to be presupposing that Hall expressing his view is wrongful and they're just defending the person who doesn't like it. Why aren't they defending Hall's expression in total DISREGARD for its content and nature?
So Hall can't just win his case easily in respect of him obviously being free to have any view where it doesn't matter what that view is? In a Western country with all its democratic liberal values?
(I've punted through the recent Order and Appeal, noting that statements like these show gross lack of objectivity and blatant acceptance of the official view-
Although the Master did not address the detail of the Applicant's evidence in order to reach this conclusion on issue 1, it is plain he had carefully considered it [It is not in the least plain at all]
The Applicant has no real prospect of persuading the appeal court that Master Davison was wrong to conclude that he had not raised anything other than a fanciful case [A reasonable intelligent person would conclude that the Applicants evidence is not fanciful] )
By the way, hope you're familiar with Eustace Mullins' understanding of the American legal system, having brought dozens of claims as plaintiff. Says the judges will just be LAUGHING THEIR HEADS OFF, and at most asking how much money you've got. The whole entire thing is lies.
Best wishes, Sean (55 year old Englishman at a university in China)
Every year the monarch gives a solemn oath to uphold common law as laid down in the Magna Carta and the Bill of right. You will note it is the High Crown Court all Judges give an oath to obey the crown.
One point that was not raised unless it is in the transcript is why Mr Hibbert did not contact Richard to complain or to ask him to remove his material on them . This could be done except for books already printed without changing the rest of the reporting on the bang.
I guess it's looking bd for RHD or it would've been laughed out of court to begin with- the final judgement against him was probably written months ago.
You seem to be informed w/ fake trials, check my page, how about this "CJ Hopkins" case. Would like to hear ur thoughts :) We also discuss Rich Hall in the comments shortly EDIT, if u mean this Andrew Johnson I agree he was strange also pushing the Jewdie Woods space beams nonsense and UFOs etc
Iain, I’d very much like to know why the case wasn’t inadmissible to begin with under the principle that freedom of speech can’t be curtailed by a claim that it's harassment- maybe that it's incitement to rioting or how to build a chemical weapon but not harassment. So the situation is that, despite a widespread understanding in the population to the contrary, a Western liberal democracy like Britain in fact does not protect freedom of speech in the law? Any clown who can’t answer speech that they don’t like only with more speech in a rational dialogue to reveal truth can instead say that free speech is harassment and go all the way to a high court trial to claim damages for it?
I agree and I ask the same questions myself. I can only speculate, but as I have suggested in this series, in my opinion this was a show trial. The purpose, in my view, is to set some sort of case precedent for the reinterpretation of freedom of speech in a publication, especially with reference to Article 10 of the ECHR. But I think we'll have to wait for the ruling to find out what it is really about.
More notes...
Is normal freedom of speech and its expression not protected in the law?! Indeed not freedom to incite hatred or share state secrets or to how make weaponry or such but everything else.
Isn't research of a public domain event and then coming to a view and expressing it immediately ascendant over any claims to this being harassment or invasion of privacy? Is the situation not that speech that is disagreed with has to be responded to only with more speech in a discussion over the facts and reasoning to better understand in the normal rational and scientific way? And claiming harassment is obviously utter nonsense and pathetic? If providing lawyers with something to do and be paid for, alongside the deep state agenda.
Is it really that there is a situation where normal free speech is in wrongful for another person? And particularly Hall always stating it's his opinion and evaluation? Obviously anyone who is worried about alternative views, because theirs are wrong, would then just have to claim it's harassment.
And if it's harassment he then has to go to the next step to show that his view is correct because the claim against him can only be defeated because of the fraud it truthfully happens to involve?
I'm disturbed that the court seems to be focused on this next-level issue. It's been assumed that Hall's free speech has caused harassment and that harassement without good cause is wrong. The documents certainly seem to be presupposing that Hall expressing his view is wrongful and they're just defending the person who doesn't like it. Why aren't they defending Hall's expression in total DISREGARD for its content and nature?
So Hall can't just win his case easily in respect of him obviously being free to have any view where it doesn't matter what that view is? In a Western country with all its democratic liberal values?
(I've punted through the recent Order and Appeal, noting that statements like these show gross lack of objectivity and blatant acceptance of the official view-
Although the Master did not address the detail of the Applicant's evidence in order to reach this conclusion on issue 1, it is plain he had carefully considered it [It is not in the least plain at all]
The Applicant has no real prospect of persuading the appeal court that Master Davison was wrong to conclude that he had not raised anything other than a fanciful case [A reasonable intelligent person would conclude that the Applicants evidence is not fanciful] )
By the way, hope you're familiar with Eustace Mullins' understanding of the American legal system, having brought dozens of claims as plaintiff. Says the judges will just be LAUGHING THEIR HEADS OFF, and at most asking how much money you've got. The whole entire thing is lies.
Best wishes, Sean (55 year old Englishman at a university in China)
Every year the monarch gives a solemn oath to uphold common law as laid down in the Magna Carta and the Bill of right. You will note it is the High Crown Court all Judges give an oath to obey the crown.
One point that was not raised unless it is in the transcript is why Mr Hibbert did not contact Richard to complain or to ask him to remove his material on them . This could be done except for books already printed without changing the rest of the reporting on the bang.
Cool...
Sure, insanity on stilts...
I guess it's looking bd for RHD or it would've been laughed out of court to begin with- the final judgement against him was probably written months ago.
that's very interesting. can you give any more info on the theater and minger johnson? thanks
You seem to be informed w/ fake trials, check my page, how about this "CJ Hopkins" case. Would like to hear ur thoughts :) We also discuss Rich Hall in the comments shortly EDIT, if u mean this Andrew Johnson I agree he was strange also pushing the Jewdie Woods space beams nonsense and UFOs etc