I don't get it, though. What has the Daily Mail got to fear from an adverse ruling? When were they ever concerned about serious investigative journalism and reporting the truth?
I wonder if Marianna Spring is also preparing to adjust her position. After all, she's only the Beeb's disinformation 'reporter' now, not an "expert".
The Daily Mail is the only main sewer newspaper that ever does report on 'important issues & occasional truth' : among much else middle class conservative conceit. & everyday reactionary fodder.
Also the on-line comments by Mail READERS is very informed & insightful : more so than The Arse-suck Guardian for example. The readers nearly always criticise the Mails awful journalists. It is one of life's many funny & joyous peculiarities.
Of course the government narrative is the truth and beyond question.
Next you'll be telling me that the British State, the NHS and numerous independent Doctors covered up an HIV/hep C contaminated blood scandal for decades or that the British State knowingly put innocent people in prison in order to cover up its shit Post office IT.
I had many Protection from Harassment (PHA) orders against me, part of a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) - South Africa derives much of its law from the Brits. I exposed political corruption. Politicians and cronies cyberstalked me with fake profiles (and others openly). I was falsely associated with child abuse and other things. I gathered evidence and showed that the attack involved the same people involved in the corruption I'd reported... and they were given orders against me for cyberstalking them! Regarding the corruption, Parliament ruled in my favour but 'bizarrely' excluded mentioning their severe harassment of me. Investigations has been stalled for years, and several of the crooks promoted. And I sit with a prison sentence, seemingly in limbo so long as I remain silent about the corruption. The PHA was meant to protect people such as survivors of domestic violence but, from my experience, it's become an effective tool of oppression.
How an ordinary schoolyard scuffle became a huge national and even international story
How Tommy Robinson found that the story being told was mostly the reverse of the truth.
Tommy was sued for libel. Tommy gathered all the documented evidence including witnesses that were prepared to appear in the court to testify to the truth. But ignoring all this documented evidence and direct testimony and against all logic the Judge found against Tommy.
To do otherwise would involve reversing a narrative that had been supported by politicians and main stream media. The Judge was not going to do that.
This does not bod well for Richard. We think that Judges have to obey the law and logic but this is not the case. For who judges the Judges.
In The very long Diana Trial also in the High Court at the end of it the Judge Gave a long summary. He started by saying it was his opinion and may not include all of the evidence and the jury were free to come to there own conclusion. Before going on a long ramble where he ignored and contradicted much of the evidence that had been given during the trial. He blamed the paparazzi ignoring that they had been cleared in a previous French trial and the evidence of the current trial
The reverse of Richards case where a previous trial is used as confirmation.
But the Judge was also able to frame the wording of the possible decisions the jury could come to. Rather than letting them use there own wording. The judge ruled out as a verdict the possibility of murder. That had been a central point of the trial. He cleverly used wording of following vehicles. When the evidence was the vehicles were positioned ahead and surrounding. The Jury came to a verdict of unlawful killing through grossly negligent driving by Paul and the following unidentified vehicles .
This was and continues to be misreported as unlawful killing through grossly negligent driving by Paul and the following paparazzi vehicles . inserting the word paparazzi that was not part of the verdict and contradicting the French verdict and evidence in the Diana Trial. Even though the verdict was unlawful killing there was never an attempt to discover the unidentified vehicles that had now been changed to paparazzi .
What the law actually says is irrelevant, it only matters what the people involved in enforcing it do.
Anyone can see that the government is not interested in prosecuting its allies and helpers.
From this we can see that the real method to wield law enforcement against threat actors is to accumulate wealth and influence with the people who matter.
Why did I get the impression that they're running a similar playbook in Southport? Especially after hearing some of the reporting yesterday? The red flag for was the inclusion of Taylor Swift a speculated product of the CIA. Why not just call it a children's dance class? Cue her already making a social media post about it and mark my words she'll be over here meeting the victims in no time. Great photo opportunity just like that child see abusers protector who calls himself the PM laying a wreath yesterday aa part of a photo op when he's responsible. I wish the mob had broke through and given him the 1945 Mussolini treatment to be honest.
Fantastic work Iain. Well done + thank you.
Many thanks again, Iain.
I don't get it, though. What has the Daily Mail got to fear from an adverse ruling? When were they ever concerned about serious investigative journalism and reporting the truth?
I wonder if Marianna Spring is also preparing to adjust her position. After all, she's only the Beeb's disinformation 'reporter' now, not an "expert".
What planet is Grot of Groot on ?
The Daily Mail is the only main sewer newspaper that ever does report on 'important issues & occasional truth' : among much else middle class conservative conceit. & everyday reactionary fodder.
Also the on-line comments by Mail READERS is very informed & insightful : more so than The Arse-suck Guardian for example. The readers nearly always criticise the Mails awful journalists. It is one of life's many funny & joyous peculiarities.
Excellent Iain, Men of courage and integrity rare qualities in this inverted reality.
Gene.
Of course the government narrative is the truth and beyond question.
Next you'll be telling me that the British State, the NHS and numerous independent Doctors covered up an HIV/hep C contaminated blood scandal for decades or that the British State knowingly put innocent people in prison in order to cover up its shit Post office IT.
I had many Protection from Harassment (PHA) orders against me, part of a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) - South Africa derives much of its law from the Brits. I exposed political corruption. Politicians and cronies cyberstalked me with fake profiles (and others openly). I was falsely associated with child abuse and other things. I gathered evidence and showed that the attack involved the same people involved in the corruption I'd reported... and they were given orders against me for cyberstalking them! Regarding the corruption, Parliament ruled in my favour but 'bizarrely' excluded mentioning their severe harassment of me. Investigations has been stalled for years, and several of the crooks promoted. And I sit with a prison sentence, seemingly in limbo so long as I remain silent about the corruption. The PHA was meant to protect people such as survivors of domestic violence but, from my experience, it's become an effective tool of oppression.
The questions I think should e asked of Martin Hibbert is
1. Has he read the book the night of the bang . The answer on oath would likely be know
2. Has he watched the film The night of the bang . The answer on oath would likely be know
3. Has he watched any of the material on the Manchester bombing on Richards site
The answer on oath would likely be know
Therefore any harm or harassment from the book or film or site would be negated
4. How did Martin Hibbert learn of the allegations of Richard The answer on oath would likely be from
third parties. This is hearsay and would be removed from direct Harassment.
Not that I expect the trial to follow on a justice a logical basis.
In this video Tommy Robinson details the perversion of justice
https://x.com/calvinrobinson/status/1817527443013390591
How an ordinary schoolyard scuffle became a huge national and even international story
How Tommy Robinson found that the story being told was mostly the reverse of the truth.
Tommy was sued for libel. Tommy gathered all the documented evidence including witnesses that were prepared to appear in the court to testify to the truth. But ignoring all this documented evidence and direct testimony and against all logic the Judge found against Tommy.
To do otherwise would involve reversing a narrative that had been supported by politicians and main stream media. The Judge was not going to do that.
This does not bod well for Richard. We think that Judges have to obey the law and logic but this is not the case. For who judges the Judges.
There are few people left who still think judges follow logic.
In The very long Diana Trial also in the High Court at the end of it the Judge Gave a long summary. He started by saying it was his opinion and may not include all of the evidence and the jury were free to come to there own conclusion. Before going on a long ramble where he ignored and contradicted much of the evidence that had been given during the trial. He blamed the paparazzi ignoring that they had been cleared in a previous French trial and the evidence of the current trial
The reverse of Richards case where a previous trial is used as confirmation.
But the Judge was also able to frame the wording of the possible decisions the jury could come to. Rather than letting them use there own wording. The judge ruled out as a verdict the possibility of murder. That had been a central point of the trial. He cleverly used wording of following vehicles. When the evidence was the vehicles were positioned ahead and surrounding. The Jury came to a verdict of unlawful killing through grossly negligent driving by Paul and the following unidentified vehicles .
This was and continues to be misreported as unlawful killing through grossly negligent driving by Paul and the following paparazzi vehicles . inserting the word paparazzi that was not part of the verdict and contradicting the French verdict and evidence in the Diana Trial. Even though the verdict was unlawful killing there was never an attempt to discover the unidentified vehicles that had now been changed to paparazzi .
What the law actually says is irrelevant, it only matters what the people involved in enforcing it do.
Anyone can see that the government is not interested in prosecuting its allies and helpers.
From this we can see that the real method to wield law enforcement against threat actors is to accumulate wealth and influence with the people who matter.
Because judges follow wealth and power not logic.
Wasim Kempson MAGIC SCREEN!
Why did I get the impression that they're running a similar playbook in Southport? Especially after hearing some of the reporting yesterday? The red flag for was the inclusion of Taylor Swift a speculated product of the CIA. Why not just call it a children's dance class? Cue her already making a social media post about it and mark my words she'll be over here meeting the victims in no time. Great photo opportunity just like that child see abusers protector who calls himself the PM laying a wreath yesterday aa part of a photo op when he's responsible. I wish the mob had broke through and given him the 1945 Mussolini treatment to be honest.
Thanks very much for the write up!
thank you Iain. without your correspondence, we should still be in the dark
Proper reporting. Thank you.
(With regards to false flags that involve only ketchup can I coin the word "faktality", as in "there were 22 alleged faktalities".)