Please read Parts 1 - 4 for a full report on the court proceedings in the civil claim for harassment and GDPR breaches brought against investigative journalist Richard D.
I mentioned Jo Cox in a previous part comment. Funny how noone has come after Hall for his analysis of this false flag. Bizarro world is real. Steyn is following orders from above.
Overall I think Richard and his team did an excellent job in Court.
The eventual summary and decision will be hugely significant for Richard of course but massively for the whole of the media industry as well.
The BBC, for the disgusting, filth riddled organisation that it is could yet have massively contributed to it’s own downfall.
More importantly, with regards to Richard here’s hoping that on the basis of law alone this ridiculous effort to dismantle him so publicly ends up precisely where it belongs, as a decisive, embarrassing failure.
Incredibly detailed and you are to be thanked again Iain.
Do you know when a transcript will be available (if not I will check Richards site or wait for email update)
It is good that Richard was able to show the undamaged Market stall Image
When challenged about the Parker photograph Richard could of asked what he though that bright area above the doors was if not undamaged lighting that would have been damaged had there been a bomb go off.
There did not seem to be a response to the X-Ray and medical evidence presented and allegedly seen.
Richard has examined the questionable X-Ray the medical evidence presented is for long after the night of the bang and unshared but allegedly seen medical reports is not evidence.
It was a much better trial as afar as it went but without a jury . We do not know what peer pressure the Judge might face from her Masonic friends to come to the correct decision.
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.
Yet you Mr Davis, like all other commentators , never did proper research into consequence of claim & instead helped hype this 'show/theatre trial' by evasion of important facts: despite much good work otherwise from you; like book & reports.
Fact= Hall could not PAY any 'damages' beyond means, and the only money available is what he has, which could be argued to be almost nothing. Also 'business' & 'personal' distinction needed consideration.
Fact= Hibbert never had a real chance to prove impact of claim or win case if genuine.
Fact = Hall should counter sue BBC for same abuse Hibbert claimed etc.
The ''double-take restaurant photograph' WAS a very important element/ HINGE. Yet you act like child about it & encourage months of abuse from your friend PROTURD here, doing exactly what the Hibbert/Hall case hinged on= harassing freedom of speech, thought & speculation .
If the photo had been scrutinised by any honest person the case would have been thrown out & that is why HALL, his fans & you tried so hard to ignore & dismiss it. Yet but still & never the less in your overview of court proceeding the fact of photos importance was highlighted, though not fully discussed.
Why did other journalists not combat this rancid theatre court action ? Most probably because they KNEW & were in on it.
This case proved beyond doubt how consolidated or shallow the 'alternative media' really are. That is the important message any serious person will be left with on this.
Also it exposed a network of mutual support among 'nark commentators' like Hall/Johnson/ Milky jew girl actress / Sarahaha Plumlump/ Delingpod/ psycho bigot Gemma O'D/ rubber Johhny dribble face Vendwhore, etc.
Now let us see what time-vampire initiatives are next on the list of endless oppression & fake opposition.
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)
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.
Court case & Media focus is devised to borrow Hall more credibility as his work is very patchy for proper researchers (with obvious exception like Manky bomb blast Book originally covered by UK critical thinker & then HALL took it over & gets credit)
& Hall gave himself away too many times in past as 'little greyman' & 'secret space' utter bullshit salesman with Andrew Minger Johnson. Also Hall has police employed brother now forgotten about. So a big fish market stinking on a dog day afternoon.😆😂
Theatre of this now history of Iain Davis TROLL TEAM psycho-plants on previous Mankey Bomb comments sections here- psycho shite PROTRUE being overt maniac lost in stalking mania , claiming to be Halls friend & helper.
THE DUB SURGEON account had much of interest on this that is ignored & missed out
(after much abuse & character assassination attempts) on this game between the soul-less & souled out.
see his posts & notes -especially NOV 25th 2023 - and wonder why so much hatred was aimed at him: https://substack.com/@dub1
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.
The BBC and ITVX covered the opening of the Trial but there have been no updates that I am aware of.
As it is likely that the BBC through Marianna Spring have suggested or encouraged or arranged Mr Hibbert to bring this case with the hope of bringing in laws to help the state control there failing narratives. It is surprising that there has not been more updates , maybe they don't think things have gone as well as they hopped.
As OFCOM was mentioned a number of times it is worth pointing out that OFCOM has the same use of Accuracy as the BBC indeed OFCOM also applies this to impartiality. They have there own definition they call it DUE Accuracy "The BBC is committed to achieving due accuracy in all its output. This commitment is fundamental to our reputation and the trust of audiences. The term ‘due’ means that the accuracy must be adequate and appropriate to the output, taking account of the subject and nature of the content, the likely audience expectation and any signposting that may influence that expectation [1]."
OFCOM "“Due” is an important qualification to the concept of impartiality. Impartiality itself means not favouring one side over another. “Due” means adequate or appropriate to the subject and nature of the programme. So “due impartiality” does not mean an equal division of time has to be given to every view, or that every argument and every facet of every argument has to be represented. The approach to due impartiality may vary according to the nature of the subject, the type of programme and channel, the likely expectation of the audience as to content, and the extent to which the content and approach is signalled to the audience. "
In plain English the BBC or OFCOM will decide on the level of accuracy/impartiality that they think is appropriate in the information that they give or assess based on what BBC or OFCOM think that people who are watching would expect.
I have repeatedly tried to highlight this point. The game is rigged. The point of Ofcom regulation is to censor and nothing else. The legacy media, including the likes of Spring, can report any old "due" claptrap and will never be censored by Ofcom. If you question the the jabs, for example, no matter how much evidence you cite, you will be censored. If anyone considers Ofcom to be anything other than a branch of the Ministry of Truth they're deluding themselves in my view.
I'll respond simply for now as an increase in my pain had called for me to take some extra painkilling medicine and it makes me drowsy.
I am so glad Mr Oakley pointed out that this claim should never have been accepted in court least of all the High Court. He makes it so starkly clear that Hibbert could not have been putting his daughter's interests first all along, by participating in the BBC program and by making this claim.
For this moment I will simply highlight what is so starkly shown by Mr Oakley's concentrating on the timeline of events which have been substantiated by Hibbert to bring out what, for me is the crux of this whole court affair. Indeed without it this court case would never have happened.
I shall quote from your reports, Iain, as I explain it.
This claim would never have reached court, (least of all the High Court of all places! if Mariana Spring had not seen how easily she could exploit Martin Hibbert and had the attention-seeking Martin Hibbert not been so keen to grasp the opportunity to be on television when invited by Mariana Spring for the BBC unethical ‘Disaster Trolls’ rubbish.
The evidence is in the dates.
2017 May Initial Impetus BANG!
2019 Summer RDH drives once to the road where Hibbert’s daughter lives with her mother, rings their doorbell, no reply. He speaks to a few neighbours, waits a while in his car, legally parked on the street. His dashcam records them arriving home and he sees the daughter is in a wheelchair. RDH decides not to bother them and leaves.
2020 RDH publishes the book and film about the Manchester Arena explosion.
Hibbert said he was only made aware of RDH’s visit in 2021.
Hibbert said he only became concerned about Hall’s work in the summer of 2021—more than year after it was first published and broadcast.
Hibbert conceded he was made aware of Hall’s work by third parties via social media but he had no evidence to sustain this. He stated that he had known Marianna Spring since 2021 and that Spring was among the people who had mentioned Hall and Hall’s work to him.
And there we have it.
The claim that should never have come to court at all , Is right here in the Central High Court (at massive expense).
Hibbert claimed to be in fear of his family’s and his safety after the BBC Panorama episode Disaster Deniers—first broadcast in October 2022. ‘Based on the alleged journalism of the BBC’s first social media and disinformation correspondent, Marianna Spring, Disaster Deniers featured Hall and levelled many of the same allegations, later made by Mr Hibbert, against him.’
In court Hibbert agrees that RDH did not contact any of them after that one visit in 2019. (Presumably until he, Hibbert, started the claim and RDH needed to reply, - about which this case has another incredible anomaly making us wonder why the hell it wasn't thrown out...)
In 2021 Hibbert says he met Mariana Spring who invited him to be part of her BBC program.
Hibbert said he was only made aware of RDH’s visit in 2021 and contacted the Police.
The Police ‘subsequently conducted door-to-door inquiries in the street where Miss Gillbard and Eve lived. As Part of their inquiries GMP investigated Hall’s book and his documentary.
In July 2021, the GMP concluded their investigation stating they found no evidence of any wrongdoing by Mr Hall. The GMP ceased their inquiries, and no further action was taken.’
Am I the only person in the country (or to borrow Hibbert’s preferred exclusivity, in the world,) to wonder why the GMP, regarding Hibbert's complaint about Richard, ' ‘saw no evidence of wrongdoing' BUT Mariana Spring of the BBC, can whip the nation to a fury of hatred against the proven innocent RDH, by her allegations of what she wants people to believe are his serial stalking and continual hounding of people recovering from what we must believe is the nation’s most terrible terror attack?
The Police spoke to people living in the road where Hibbert’s ex and daughter live, read his book and watched his film, and said they ‘saw no evidence of wrongdoing’. Yet Mariana Spring of the BBC, who is known for her fictitious CV and for inventing people online so she may falsify data, is believed! Despite the Police doing a proper investigation, M Spring finds the opposite of their result?
For have no doubts about it, if you feel tempted to pick your way through anything odd-looking, and start wandering up the avenues of conspiracy theories, you are absolutely placing yourself on the funny farm for bonkers idiots with mental disorders who are utterly unable to see the truth as it is placed plainly before them by reliable sound minded organisations such as the BBC. Just look at the programs the Beeb have bothered to make to prove this is so.*
We’ve seen Ms Spring, performing the very evils of which she accused Richard. She doesn’t like him filming people. She thinks it’s bad that he went to see people (he went once and didn’t see them to speak to and the Police were perfectly happy). But she persistently pestered Richard to be on her disgusting BBC show. Then, even after he had written to her telling her that he did not want to talk to her, and asking her in writing to stop bothering him, she turns up with a camera crew where he’s working, upsetting decent people, and films him and won’t go away until she has been asked many times to leave.
That is appalling conduct in a journalist. But far worse is the whipping up of hatred towards him which she has deliberately achieved by creating an entirely false impression of a very honest and decent man.
Of course she saw a fellow con artist in Hibbert. I’m not talking about his wheelchair use or any of that. She saw a man who adored the limelight, he was gasping for publicity. A man who could not suck up enough of the country’s delight in expressing righteous disgust. He just loved encouraging people to say they were, ‘Oh So Horrified and Disgusted!’ at the villainous deeds of the bad man for doubting their heroic survivor of that terrible attack! He even was dropping self pitying and 'would you believe it - if I hadn't saved her they'd have left her for dead, twice!' stories. Mariana is not just Mistress Man-ipulator, she recognises which ones to throw out there and be the biggest bait to ensure nobody ever doubts the Official Line, endorsed, of course, by the BBC! She saw in Hibbert the one who would play the part in the drama to the nth degree.
This trial would not have happened had not Mariana Spring set her predatory eyes on the attention-seeking Martin Hibbert, and had he not been so keen to grasp the opportunity to be on the BBC unethical ‘Disaster Trolls’ rubbish.
Once Mariana Spring set her eyes on Martin Hibbert poor Richard's life was inexorably and ruthlessly knocked out of his control.
But Richard has shown he is not beaten. I think no matter what the result - for the times are not right and we all know justice isn't prevalent, Richard has shown his integrity is so strong nothing will break him.
He is decent and honest and none of us will let him or his family suffer for the likes of people who do not know the meaning of 'truth'.
Just apologising for rather long rambling sentences above, I hope the gist is understandable. I had to take some morphine (flair up of pain) but I wanted very much to thank you today Iain.
Everyone - Iain wrote a lot of life-saving sense (because she was driving me out of my head) on Mariana Spring in case you missed it. Also a great piece about the rubbish work of Experimental Psychologists on 'Conspiracy Theorists' Listen to what he says on that;
(I'll copy in my note I wrote when I copied it into my notebook)
Why I love Iain Davis – an example
'It is difficult to express the monumental scale of the idiocy entailed in the experimental psychologists’ definition of “conspiracy theory.” It is exactly the same as asserting that any evidence offered to indicate that a crime has been committed is completely irrelevant unless the police have already caught the perpetrators and their guilt proven in court.'
later...
'It seems that Professor Gorman, at least, is convinced by this pabulum and was willing to present it to the BBC as scientific fact. Alas—rather as with Kaplan’s paper—these scientists’ conclusions, seemingly referenced by Gorman, were not supported by their own experimental results.'
Appreciated Leserly. Excellent comment above--not too long at all--and thank you for the praise in this comment. Sorry to hear about your pain. All the very best. Take care.
You're very kind Iain. Thank you it means a lot. I so wish I were able to do more - that I could move about and get to London and be with you all. But I don't lose faith - I do believe God moves in a mysterious way. I am certain that we are in the end times and the part where the devil, forces of evil, or whatever people personally name it - this extreme wickedness is totally prevalent at this time. I believe it is strongly working through the UN and all its 'bits' (e,g. the WHO). May I make a punt for a short but V helpful book? It isn't about religion! It's 'Agenda 21 – Your Life In Their Hands' by Martin Edwards £10.00, from https://shop.ukcolumn.org/product/agenda-21-your-life-in-their-hands-by-martin-edwards/
I hope people aren't put off by my belief in God and the prophecies in the Bible. I know it's extremely difficult to have this belief especially if you've had a bad religious education. I was incredibly lucky to have an experience that showed me that God is real. Most of all though, please may I urge people not to fall into the trap (used by satanists to fool you) that God can't be good because of all the evil and bad things in the world. All those horrible things, from illness to parasites to war, suffering and poverty etc are the work of the devil.
Please forgive this bit of a 'sermon' - I genuinely mean it lovingly and to help people, and I rarely speak of it. I know it isn't for everyone, and it's hard to explain unless we are in the same room..
My message is, ride the storm and hang in there. Support each other. The devil does not win in the end.
And God bless you Iain, for supporting Richard, for your excellent work and for bringing us together here.
With Love from Leserly xx
(don't panic! I'm no stalker! I'm old enough to be your mum and in my 'granny-age'! My love is genuinely similar to that of a granny for a grandchild.)
The events prophesied in the Revelation to John have all occurred some centuries ago and it is in fact possible to date the exact time that book was written based on the most quoted parts from within it. So I can honestly say there will be no second coming, it's already been and gone, the "end times" also. I can perhaps write a piece about it if you would like to learn more.
You are correct about the UN connection which is a Theosophist organisation at heart, one of their aims is to redefine the heavenly hierarchy into their disingenuous image. They aim to dethrone the Christ in heaven. The reasons behind this become obvious once you learn the real story of the secular life of the man known as the Christ and what he achieved which defeated the status quo of his time and which would topple the same today if the truth about him were widely known.
Practically all of the Bible is heavily distorted, all secular references have been removed, times, places and names have all been changed and obscured but for anyone seeking salvation and with a desire to know the Christ the gospels of Matthew, Mark, John and Luke despite the meddling still convey the core teachings and are of value. The rest is debatable.
As for the cause of all the suffering I have to disagree with you, the scripture teaches us that God is the creator of all good and all evil, one to reward the other to chastise. There is no omnipotent evil deity called the devil or satan. These are caricatures of a mortal man who can be identified in secular history. The imagery we have is the result of medieval superstition designed to manipulate the masses.
the most important being-'His dashcam records them arriving home and he sees the daughter is in a wheelchair.'
He could not confirm it was EVE, & to assume it was is naive considering the SPECTACLE constructed around this fiasco.
In fact I challenge anyone to find a CONVINCING image of EVE anywhere, as it seems most likely she never existed as PORTRAYED & imagined by the media/Hibbert.
Hearsay is not proof & assumptions are the key to much deceit.
All the images of EVE on-line involve image manipulations & that is why the DOUBLE images from the Restaurant were so important, yet evaded & ridiculed when ever they were mentioned- including among Davis & his sycophantic cronies here.
Many thanks for your efforts, Iain and much respect to Richard D Hall who now waits for a verdict. I hope the stress can be forgotten, if never forgiven.
The pressure had visibly taken a toll on Richard. Of course he was extremely stressed. Under cross examination the real Richard suddenly re-emerged. He was fluid and self-assured. He ran Price ragged. It was quite an amazing physical transformation. Afterwards it was as if a massive weight had been lifted from him. It was great to see, no matter what the ruling.
Excellent summary Ian 👏 Oh but what a a total scam & sham this case is. I was hoping the clearly excellent Mr Price would mention Richard's genuine 'harassment' by the poisonous bbc shill that is Marianna Spring! If only truth would prevail, but I fear the fascists in charge are hellbent on making an example here - and the rights of all investigative journalists to publish an alternative opinion are effectively ended if indeed this goes against Richard, as I fear will happen.
Yep. I suspect that is what it is really about. Shame so many so-called independent media voiced haven't covered the case or Hall's work. In fact, it has been a real eye opener for me.
Yes Iain, although there are 2 who have i.e. Sarah Plumley (of 'The Plumley Pod') & Nick Kollerstrom (who knows Richard), but ofcourse the masses would not ever know or care to listen anyway bc they're in the MSM bubble which demonised him long ago 😴 💤 It's a sorry state of affairs.
Good Lord: hats off to Hall and Oakley! And thank you, Iain, for these wonderful write-ups.
If Hall is not completely cleared, it would be a travesty. I mean, we all know he should not have been prosecuted at all; but the content of the trial itself cannot possibly lead to a justifiable or understandable "guilty".
Just thinking out loud here, and primarily directed towards Agent Slazenger and/or her CO, I am seriously wondering why your Mr. Price, and the Judge, didn't keep interrupting Mr. Hall and preventing him from talking about 'evidence', seeing as you barred this evidence from being presented to court. How come when Hall asked to show the photo of the merch stall there was no objection? Why did Price ask these leading questions?
Are you fucking with us here?! I mean, seriously, I perfectly understand your love of inflicting cognitive dissonance on people but even so...
Of course, one thing to consider is whether the MSM report on these details (the photo/evidence). If they don't, then clearly that stuff is only intended for the kind of types who read Iain's reportage. And people who read Iain's work already know all this stuff and it won't make a blind bit of difference.
At the same time, it's a classic subversive trick you're pulling here - shoving even more shit into the 'conspiracy theory' movement, then getting your judge to issue a negative judgement precisely in order to rile people up. I'm sure you find that great fun and a good source of amusement you can all laugh about in Gringo's Grill over chilli & enchiladas & sangria. I'd find it amusing too, tbh. I'm a big fan of chilli and cook a seriously good version of it myself. Except my version uses freshly minced Limousin beef, ample cumin seeds, and a generous handful of dried chilli seeds.
One thing I did enjoy about this article was that I read it with little plate of comte and sun-dried toms washed down with a fair few glasses of cote de groan. It worked.
The bizarreness of this trial stems from the undeniable fact that it should never have even come to trial. Like Iain said, Iain's book is out there in the public domain so it can't be the public availability of the material that's the issue. Very convenient, that. Therefore, the reason for the trial must be something else entirely. We may have covered that, in fact. For the likes of us who read Iain's work the reasons are obvious. For the general public, mindset governed as it is by Slazenger and the Aunties, the reasons are equally obvious if completely different.
One thing I would say, in conclusion, as a kind of direct question to Slazenger and her CO, is a genuine question, out of psychological curiosity, about how it feels to be a liar? A liar in the sense of deliberately manipulating masses of human beings for a purpose which is obviously not beneficial to humanity. This suggests you really are aware that you are a different species, because it defies logic to think of a member of a species knowingly acting against the interests of their species. So you must think of humans as a different species. Unless you think of them as epsilons and deltas and the world would be better off without them. I wouldn't disagree at all there, btw, especially given these recent riots and the voting habits of the British population. I just wish you'd get the fuck on with it.
So my conclusion is that you, Marianna, must genuinely believe that you are doing what you do for what you perceive to be a morally good reason. You genuinely believe you are doing good. Same for your CO. Because it's not possible for a normal person to knowingly do something bad. And I just want to know what your reason is. That's all.
I would just seriously love to have a deep psychological/philosophical conversation with you about all this.
The excellent cote de groan in question, btw, only cost us 3.60 euros a bottle. And the weather here is beautiful right now. We have one of the clearest skies of the year in which the milky way, devoid of artificial light, stretches out above us and makes me feel, I don't know, at home...
I'm sure Mis disinfo MurkyAnus Spring is hanging on your every word Everlyn' .... & quaking in her pops socks at the enticing offer of you stating you would ' just seriously love to have a deep psychological/philosophical conversation with you about all this.'... except you are incapable of such modes of conversation & thought.🙄😂
Also reading your incessant BS it amazes me you claim to be unfamiliar with LIES, yet everything you have done involves them , typically while doing the 'classic subversive trick you're pulling here - shoving even more shit into the 'conspiracy theory' movement''.
The fact that you can convince busy gnome Davis you have hit a nail in your head (like in Hellraiser?) after the meat of your comment was mentioned (by me & others) several months ago, & ridiculed here, just adds to the surreal sycophantism & hypocrisy's on display today.
This is masterly court reporting, on a par with the defence counsel's superb conduct. Bravo.
Overall, regarding RDH's chances, I'm reminded of the lyric:
"Everybody knows that the dice are loaded
Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed."
I reminded of lyric-
'' we are all prostitutes ,
everyone has their PRICE..
and you too will learn to live the lie.'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnfKcZhbF_k
Was that lyric a premonition?
''U2 will learn to live the lie'' .. or at least BONO will.
The rest of the lyrics....
''Capitalism is the most barbaric of all religions
Department stores are our new cathedrals
Our cars are martyrs to the cause
Our children shall rise up against us
Because we are the ones to blame
They will give us a new name, we shall be
Hypocrites, hypocrites, hypocrites
Hypocrites, hypocrites, hypocrites''
I mentioned Jo Cox in a previous part comment. Funny how noone has come after Hall for his analysis of this false flag. Bizarro world is real. Steyn is following orders from above.
Excellent reporting Iain, thank you.
Overall I think Richard and his team did an excellent job in Court.
The eventual summary and decision will be hugely significant for Richard of course but massively for the whole of the media industry as well.
The BBC, for the disgusting, filth riddled organisation that it is could yet have massively contributed to it’s own downfall.
More importantly, with regards to Richard here’s hoping that on the basis of law alone this ridiculous effort to dismantle him so publicly ends up precisely where it belongs, as a decisive, embarrassing failure.
Gold. All five. Thanks.
Dickens would be impressed with this reporting! "Mr Price moved on...Mr Price moved on swiftly." Mr Price seems truly a worthy lawyer for Mr Hibbert.
Incredibly detailed and you are to be thanked again Iain.
Do you know when a transcript will be available (if not I will check Richards site or wait for email update)
It is good that Richard was able to show the undamaged Market stall Image
When challenged about the Parker photograph Richard could of asked what he though that bright area above the doors was if not undamaged lighting that would have been damaged had there been a bomb go off.
There did not seem to be a response to the X-Ray and medical evidence presented and allegedly seen.
Richard has examined the questionable X-Ray the medical evidence presented is for long after the night of the bang and unshared but allegedly seen medical reports is not evidence.
It was a much better trial as afar as it went but without a jury . We do not know what peer pressure the Judge might face from her Masonic friends to come to the correct decision.
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.
Yet you Mr Davis, like all other commentators , never did proper research into consequence of claim & instead helped hype this 'show/theatre trial' by evasion of important facts: despite much good work otherwise from you; like book & reports.
Fact= Hall could not PAY any 'damages' beyond means, and the only money available is what he has, which could be argued to be almost nothing. Also 'business' & 'personal' distinction needed consideration.
Fact= Hibbert never had a real chance to prove impact of claim or win case if genuine.
Fact = Hall should counter sue BBC for same abuse Hibbert claimed etc.
The ''double-take restaurant photograph' WAS a very important element/ HINGE. Yet you act like child about it & encourage months of abuse from your friend PROTURD here, doing exactly what the Hibbert/Hall case hinged on= harassing freedom of speech, thought & speculation .
If the photo had been scrutinised by any honest person the case would have been thrown out & that is why HALL, his fans & you tried so hard to ignore & dismiss it. Yet but still & never the less in your overview of court proceeding the fact of photos importance was highlighted, though not fully discussed.
Why did other journalists not combat this rancid theatre court action ? Most probably because they KNEW & were in on it.
This case proved beyond doubt how consolidated or shallow the 'alternative media' really are. That is the important message any serious person will be left with on this.
Also it exposed a network of mutual support among 'nark commentators' like Hall/Johnson/ Milky jew girl actress / Sarahaha Plumlump/ Delingpod/ psycho bigot Gemma O'D/ rubber Johhny dribble face Vendwhore, etc.
Now let us see what time-vampire initiatives are next on the list of endless oppression & fake opposition.
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)
WHOLE THING THEATRE for propaganda purpose though Sean.
Hall could only be FINED what he could AFFORD to begin with, so pointless exercise unless for publicity/ fear seeds.
Also pivotal photo of songbird Martin & intangible Eve had duplicate image without make up on EVE taken WHEN (& never mentioned by either side!) ?
Whole thing a joke on legal ignorance of public & rancid consolidation of (all) journalists.
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.
Court case & Media focus is devised to borrow Hall more credibility as his work is very patchy for proper researchers (with obvious exception like Manky bomb blast Book originally covered by UK critical thinker & then HALL took it over & gets credit)
& Hall gave himself away too many times in past as 'little greyman' & 'secret space' utter bullshit salesman with Andrew Minger Johnson. Also Hall has police employed brother now forgotten about. So a big fish market stinking on a dog day afternoon.😆😂
that's very interesting. can you give any more info on the theater and minger johnson? thanks
Yes I can Peter, but why should I ? 🤔😊
It is obvious that minger Johnson is two faced scum selling rotting fish- just watch his secret-space BS. Only secret space is up his backside.
This now dead insightful man had dealings with the 'little grey men' Hall & minger Johnson: https://aweisbecker.com/
https://blog.banditobooks.com/an-open-letter-to-richard-d-hall-richplanet-tv/
Theatre of this now history of Iain Davis TROLL TEAM psycho-plants on previous Mankey Bomb comments sections here- psycho shite PROTRUE being overt maniac lost in stalking mania , claiming to be Halls friend & helper.
THE DUB SURGEON account had much of interest on this that is ignored & missed out
(after much abuse & character assassination attempts) on this game between the soul-less & souled out.
see his posts & notes -especially NOV 25th 2023 - and wonder why so much hatred was aimed at him: https://substack.com/@dub1
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...
The BBC and ITVX covered the opening of the Trial but there have been no updates that I am aware of.
As it is likely that the BBC through Marianna Spring have suggested or encouraged or arranged Mr Hibbert to bring this case with the hope of bringing in laws to help the state control there failing narratives. It is surprising that there has not been more updates , maybe they don't think things have gone as well as they hopped.
As OFCOM was mentioned a number of times it is worth pointing out that OFCOM has the same use of Accuracy as the BBC indeed OFCOM also applies this to impartiality. They have there own definition they call it DUE Accuracy "The BBC is committed to achieving due accuracy in all its output. This commitment is fundamental to our reputation and the trust of audiences. The term ‘due’ means that the accuracy must be adequate and appropriate to the output, taking account of the subject and nature of the content, the likely audience expectation and any signposting that may influence that expectation [1]."
OFCOM "“Due” is an important qualification to the concept of impartiality. Impartiality itself means not favouring one side over another. “Due” means adequate or appropriate to the subject and nature of the programme. So “due impartiality” does not mean an equal division of time has to be given to every view, or that every argument and every facet of every argument has to be represented. The approach to due impartiality may vary according to the nature of the subject, the type of programme and channel, the likely expectation of the audience as to content, and the extent to which the content and approach is signalled to the audience. "
In plain English the BBC or OFCOM will decide on the level of accuracy/impartiality that they think is appropriate in the information that they give or assess based on what BBC or OFCOM think that people who are watching would expect.
I have repeatedly tried to highlight this point. The game is rigged. The point of Ofcom regulation is to censor and nothing else. The legacy media, including the likes of Spring, can report any old "due" claptrap and will never be censored by Ofcom. If you question the the jabs, for example, no matter how much evidence you cite, you will be censored. If anyone considers Ofcom to be anything other than a branch of the Ministry of Truth they're deluding themselves in my view.
So, in short, the use of 'due' turns an absolute standard into a subjective judgement.
How handy dandy.
Superb reporting Iain. Bravo! Absolutely brilliant.
I'll respond simply for now as an increase in my pain had called for me to take some extra painkilling medicine and it makes me drowsy.
I am so glad Mr Oakley pointed out that this claim should never have been accepted in court least of all the High Court. He makes it so starkly clear that Hibbert could not have been putting his daughter's interests first all along, by participating in the BBC program and by making this claim.
For this moment I will simply highlight what is so starkly shown by Mr Oakley's concentrating on the timeline of events which have been substantiated by Hibbert to bring out what, for me is the crux of this whole court affair. Indeed without it this court case would never have happened.
I shall quote from your reports, Iain, as I explain it.
This claim would never have reached court, (least of all the High Court of all places! if Mariana Spring had not seen how easily she could exploit Martin Hibbert and had the attention-seeking Martin Hibbert not been so keen to grasp the opportunity to be on television when invited by Mariana Spring for the BBC unethical ‘Disaster Trolls’ rubbish.
The evidence is in the dates.
2017 May Initial Impetus BANG!
2019 Summer RDH drives once to the road where Hibbert’s daughter lives with her mother, rings their doorbell, no reply. He speaks to a few neighbours, waits a while in his car, legally parked on the street. His dashcam records them arriving home and he sees the daughter is in a wheelchair. RDH decides not to bother them and leaves.
2020 RDH publishes the book and film about the Manchester Arena explosion.
Hibbert said he was only made aware of RDH’s visit in 2021.
Hibbert said he only became concerned about Hall’s work in the summer of 2021—more than year after it was first published and broadcast.
Hibbert conceded he was made aware of Hall’s work by third parties via social media but he had no evidence to sustain this. He stated that he had known Marianna Spring since 2021 and that Spring was among the people who had mentioned Hall and Hall’s work to him.
And there we have it.
The claim that should never have come to court at all , Is right here in the Central High Court (at massive expense).
Hibbert claimed to be in fear of his family’s and his safety after the BBC Panorama episode Disaster Deniers—first broadcast in October 2022. ‘Based on the alleged journalism of the BBC’s first social media and disinformation correspondent, Marianna Spring, Disaster Deniers featured Hall and levelled many of the same allegations, later made by Mr Hibbert, against him.’
In court Hibbert agrees that RDH did not contact any of them after that one visit in 2019. (Presumably until he, Hibbert, started the claim and RDH needed to reply, - about which this case has another incredible anomaly making us wonder why the hell it wasn't thrown out...)
In 2021 Hibbert says he met Mariana Spring who invited him to be part of her BBC program.
Hibbert said he was only made aware of RDH’s visit in 2021 and contacted the Police.
The Police ‘subsequently conducted door-to-door inquiries in the street where Miss Gillbard and Eve lived. As Part of their inquiries GMP investigated Hall’s book and his documentary.
In July 2021, the GMP concluded their investigation stating they found no evidence of any wrongdoing by Mr Hall. The GMP ceased their inquiries, and no further action was taken.’
Am I the only person in the country (or to borrow Hibbert’s preferred exclusivity, in the world,) to wonder why the GMP, regarding Hibbert's complaint about Richard, ' ‘saw no evidence of wrongdoing' BUT Mariana Spring of the BBC, can whip the nation to a fury of hatred against the proven innocent RDH, by her allegations of what she wants people to believe are his serial stalking and continual hounding of people recovering from what we must believe is the nation’s most terrible terror attack?
The Police spoke to people living in the road where Hibbert’s ex and daughter live, read his book and watched his film, and said they ‘saw no evidence of wrongdoing’. Yet Mariana Spring of the BBC, who is known for her fictitious CV and for inventing people online so she may falsify data, is believed! Despite the Police doing a proper investigation, M Spring finds the opposite of their result?
For have no doubts about it, if you feel tempted to pick your way through anything odd-looking, and start wandering up the avenues of conspiracy theories, you are absolutely placing yourself on the funny farm for bonkers idiots with mental disorders who are utterly unable to see the truth as it is placed plainly before them by reliable sound minded organisations such as the BBC. Just look at the programs the Beeb have bothered to make to prove this is so.*
We’ve seen Ms Spring, performing the very evils of which she accused Richard. She doesn’t like him filming people. She thinks it’s bad that he went to see people (he went once and didn’t see them to speak to and the Police were perfectly happy). But she persistently pestered Richard to be on her disgusting BBC show. Then, even after he had written to her telling her that he did not want to talk to her, and asking her in writing to stop bothering him, she turns up with a camera crew where he’s working, upsetting decent people, and films him and won’t go away until she has been asked many times to leave.
That is appalling conduct in a journalist. But far worse is the whipping up of hatred towards him which she has deliberately achieved by creating an entirely false impression of a very honest and decent man.
Of course she saw a fellow con artist in Hibbert. I’m not talking about his wheelchair use or any of that. She saw a man who adored the limelight, he was gasping for publicity. A man who could not suck up enough of the country’s delight in expressing righteous disgust. He just loved encouraging people to say they were, ‘Oh So Horrified and Disgusted!’ at the villainous deeds of the bad man for doubting their heroic survivor of that terrible attack! He even was dropping self pitying and 'would you believe it - if I hadn't saved her they'd have left her for dead, twice!' stories. Mariana is not just Mistress Man-ipulator, she recognises which ones to throw out there and be the biggest bait to ensure nobody ever doubts the Official Line, endorsed, of course, by the BBC! She saw in Hibbert the one who would play the part in the drama to the nth degree.
This trial would not have happened had not Mariana Spring set her predatory eyes on the attention-seeking Martin Hibbert, and had he not been so keen to grasp the opportunity to be on the BBC unethical ‘Disaster Trolls’ rubbish.
Once Mariana Spring set her eyes on Martin Hibbert poor Richard's life was inexorably and ruthlessly knocked out of his control.
But Richard has shown he is not beaten. I think no matter what the result - for the times are not right and we all know justice isn't prevalent, Richard has shown his integrity is so strong nothing will break him.
He is decent and honest and none of us will let him or his family suffer for the likes of people who do not know the meaning of 'truth'.
Just apologising for rather long rambling sentences above, I hope the gist is understandable. I had to take some morphine (flair up of pain) but I wanted very much to thank you today Iain.
Everyone - Iain wrote a lot of life-saving sense (because she was driving me out of my head) on Mariana Spring in case you missed it. Also a great piece about the rubbish work of Experimental Psychologists on 'Conspiracy Theorists' Listen to what he says on that;
(I'll copy in my note I wrote when I copied it into my notebook)
Why I love Iain Davis – an example
'It is difficult to express the monumental scale of the idiocy entailed in the experimental psychologists’ definition of “conspiracy theory.” It is exactly the same as asserting that any evidence offered to indicate that a crime has been committed is completely irrelevant unless the police have already caught the perpetrators and their guilt proven in court.'
later...
'It seems that Professor Gorman, at least, is convinced by this pabulum and was willing to present it to the BBC as scientific fact. Alas—rather as with Kaplan’s paper—these scientists’ conclusions, seemingly referenced by Gorman, were not supported by their own experimental results.'
Appreciated Leserly. Excellent comment above--not too long at all--and thank you for the praise in this comment. Sorry to hear about your pain. All the very best. Take care.
You're very kind Iain. Thank you it means a lot. I so wish I were able to do more - that I could move about and get to London and be with you all. But I don't lose faith - I do believe God moves in a mysterious way. I am certain that we are in the end times and the part where the devil, forces of evil, or whatever people personally name it - this extreme wickedness is totally prevalent at this time. I believe it is strongly working through the UN and all its 'bits' (e,g. the WHO). May I make a punt for a short but V helpful book? It isn't about religion! It's 'Agenda 21 – Your Life In Their Hands' by Martin Edwards £10.00, from https://shop.ukcolumn.org/product/agenda-21-your-life-in-their-hands-by-martin-edwards/
I hope people aren't put off by my belief in God and the prophecies in the Bible. I know it's extremely difficult to have this belief especially if you've had a bad religious education. I was incredibly lucky to have an experience that showed me that God is real. Most of all though, please may I urge people not to fall into the trap (used by satanists to fool you) that God can't be good because of all the evil and bad things in the world. All those horrible things, from illness to parasites to war, suffering and poverty etc are the work of the devil.
Please forgive this bit of a 'sermon' - I genuinely mean it lovingly and to help people, and I rarely speak of it. I know it isn't for everyone, and it's hard to explain unless we are in the same room..
My message is, ride the storm and hang in there. Support each other. The devil does not win in the end.
And God bless you Iain, for supporting Richard, for your excellent work and for bringing us together here.
With Love from Leserly xx
(don't panic! I'm no stalker! I'm old enough to be your mum and in my 'granny-age'! My love is genuinely similar to that of a granny for a grandchild.)
The events prophesied in the Revelation to John have all occurred some centuries ago and it is in fact possible to date the exact time that book was written based on the most quoted parts from within it. So I can honestly say there will be no second coming, it's already been and gone, the "end times" also. I can perhaps write a piece about it if you would like to learn more.
You are correct about the UN connection which is a Theosophist organisation at heart, one of their aims is to redefine the heavenly hierarchy into their disingenuous image. They aim to dethrone the Christ in heaven. The reasons behind this become obvious once you learn the real story of the secular life of the man known as the Christ and what he achieved which defeated the status quo of his time and which would topple the same today if the truth about him were widely known.
Practically all of the Bible is heavily distorted, all secular references have been removed, times, places and names have all been changed and obscured but for anyone seeking salvation and with a desire to know the Christ the gospels of Matthew, Mark, John and Luke despite the meddling still convey the core teachings and are of value. The rest is debatable.
As for the cause of all the suffering I have to disagree with you, the scripture teaches us that God is the creator of all good and all evil, one to reward the other to chastise. There is no omnipotent evil deity called the devil or satan. These are caricatures of a mortal man who can be identified in secular history. The imagery we have is the result of medieval superstition designed to manipulate the masses.
This entire comment is wrong
A few assumptive errors there-
the most important being-'His dashcam records them arriving home and he sees the daughter is in a wheelchair.'
He could not confirm it was EVE, & to assume it was is naive considering the SPECTACLE constructed around this fiasco.
In fact I challenge anyone to find a CONVINCING image of EVE anywhere, as it seems most likely she never existed as PORTRAYED & imagined by the media/Hibbert.
Hearsay is not proof & assumptions are the key to much deceit.
All the images of EVE on-line involve image manipulations & that is why the DOUBLE images from the Restaurant were so important, yet evaded & ridiculed when ever they were mentioned- including among Davis & his sycophantic cronies here.
Well said Leserly!
Many thanks for your efforts, Iain and much respect to Richard D Hall who now waits for a verdict. I hope the stress can be forgotten, if never forgiven.
The pressure had visibly taken a toll on Richard. Of course he was extremely stressed. Under cross examination the real Richard suddenly re-emerged. He was fluid and self-assured. He ran Price ragged. It was quite an amazing physical transformation. Afterwards it was as if a massive weight had been lifted from him. It was great to see, no matter what the ruling.
That is so good to hear Iain and evident from your writings, well done Richard, we salute you and your bravery 🙏💪
I hope Richard receives the justice he deserves. An excellent reporter💎
Excellent summary Ian 👏 Oh but what a a total scam & sham this case is. I was hoping the clearly excellent Mr Price would mention Richard's genuine 'harassment' by the poisonous bbc shill that is Marianna Spring! If only truth would prevail, but I fear the fascists in charge are hellbent on making an example here - and the rights of all investigative journalists to publish an alternative opinion are effectively ended if indeed this goes against Richard, as I fear will happen.
Yep. I suspect that is what it is really about. Shame so many so-called independent media voiced haven't covered the case or Hall's work. In fact, it has been a real eye opener for me.
Yes Iain, although there are 2 who have i.e. Sarah Plumley (of 'The Plumley Pod') & Nick Kollerstrom (who knows Richard), but ofcourse the masses would not ever know or care to listen anyway bc they're in the MSM bubble which demonised him long ago 😴 💤 It's a sorry state of affairs.
I'm assuming from the final paragraph that there is no jury?
No jury; that might bias the outcome!
Nope.
Why no Jury?
It's a civil suit, jury only appointed in criminal matters.
Presumably Ricahrd could have demanded a jury trial? Or is that no longer permitted in the UK?
Every sane person-'questioned how such a case could ever have come to the High Court of Justice in the first place.'
Halls defence expert was proper thinker.
Hibberts representative was idiot who thinks like BBC agent Marianna sewer Spring, handed case to Hall on plate.
What Theater with Hall 'all square' in suite , tie & soapy smelling hair !
BomBomBomBa!
Good Lord: hats off to Hall and Oakley! And thank you, Iain, for these wonderful write-ups.
If Hall is not completely cleared, it would be a travesty. I mean, we all know he should not have been prosecuted at all; but the content of the trial itself cannot possibly lead to a justifiable or understandable "guilty".
Just thinking out loud here, and primarily directed towards Agent Slazenger and/or her CO, I am seriously wondering why your Mr. Price, and the Judge, didn't keep interrupting Mr. Hall and preventing him from talking about 'evidence', seeing as you barred this evidence from being presented to court. How come when Hall asked to show the photo of the merch stall there was no objection? Why did Price ask these leading questions?
Are you fucking with us here?! I mean, seriously, I perfectly understand your love of inflicting cognitive dissonance on people but even so...
Of course, one thing to consider is whether the MSM report on these details (the photo/evidence). If they don't, then clearly that stuff is only intended for the kind of types who read Iain's reportage. And people who read Iain's work already know all this stuff and it won't make a blind bit of difference.
At the same time, it's a classic subversive trick you're pulling here - shoving even more shit into the 'conspiracy theory' movement, then getting your judge to issue a negative judgement precisely in order to rile people up. I'm sure you find that great fun and a good source of amusement you can all laugh about in Gringo's Grill over chilli & enchiladas & sangria. I'd find it amusing too, tbh. I'm a big fan of chilli and cook a seriously good version of it myself. Except my version uses freshly minced Limousin beef, ample cumin seeds, and a generous handful of dried chilli seeds.
One thing I did enjoy about this article was that I read it with little plate of comte and sun-dried toms washed down with a fair few glasses of cote de groan. It worked.
The bizarreness of this trial stems from the undeniable fact that it should never have even come to trial. Like Iain said, Iain's book is out there in the public domain so it can't be the public availability of the material that's the issue. Very convenient, that. Therefore, the reason for the trial must be something else entirely. We may have covered that, in fact. For the likes of us who read Iain's work the reasons are obvious. For the general public, mindset governed as it is by Slazenger and the Aunties, the reasons are equally obvious if completely different.
One thing I would say, in conclusion, as a kind of direct question to Slazenger and her CO, is a genuine question, out of psychological curiosity, about how it feels to be a liar? A liar in the sense of deliberately manipulating masses of human beings for a purpose which is obviously not beneficial to humanity. This suggests you really are aware that you are a different species, because it defies logic to think of a member of a species knowingly acting against the interests of their species. So you must think of humans as a different species. Unless you think of them as epsilons and deltas and the world would be better off without them. I wouldn't disagree at all there, btw, especially given these recent riots and the voting habits of the British population. I just wish you'd get the fuck on with it.
So my conclusion is that you, Marianna, must genuinely believe that you are doing what you do for what you perceive to be a morally good reason. You genuinely believe you are doing good. Same for your CO. Because it's not possible for a normal person to knowingly do something bad. And I just want to know what your reason is. That's all.
I would just seriously love to have a deep psychological/philosophical conversation with you about all this.
The excellent cote de groan in question, btw, only cost us 3.60 euros a bottle. And the weather here is beautiful right now. We have one of the clearest skies of the year in which the milky way, devoid of artificial light, stretches out above us and makes me feel, I don't know, at home...
Nail on the head time again Evelyn. Cheers! What a beautiful day.
I'm sure Mis disinfo MurkyAnus Spring is hanging on your every word Everlyn' .... & quaking in her pops socks at the enticing offer of you stating you would ' just seriously love to have a deep psychological/philosophical conversation with you about all this.'... except you are incapable of such modes of conversation & thought.🙄😂
Also reading your incessant BS it amazes me you claim to be unfamiliar with LIES, yet everything you have done involves them , typically while doing the 'classic subversive trick you're pulling here - shoving even more shit into the 'conspiracy theory' movement''.
The fact that you can convince busy gnome Davis you have hit a nail in your head (like in Hellraiser?) after the meat of your comment was mentioned (by me & others) several months ago, & ridiculed here, just adds to the surreal sycophantism & hypocrisy's on display today.
Please post an English version of the above.