What a stitch-up! If harassment is “a persistent and deliberate course of unreasonable and oppressive conduct" then where is the evidence of that having happened? As far as I can tell RDH did nothing of the sort. Crikey, I have had far more persistent and deliberate unreasonable conduct from my neighbours' dog! Am I bleating to the High Court?
We live in a country full of disputes, but to see this case result in a conviction surely shows how easy it is for the establishment to manipulate the law to suppress truth and protect its own.
That's one of the impressions I got when I read Dave McGowan's Programmed to Kill - the sheer breadth of Establishment control, over police investigations, media, judges and juries and so on, even carrying it out in plain sight, can really appear quite scary at times.
All one can perhaps say is that they must have a seriously extensive sociopath vetting programme going on, if we are to explain where they get that sheer number of willingly complicit people from.
Well, yeah - that is also a method of getting people to capitulate, for sure. I agree. I think it really depends on which kind of cog they want a person to be. Each different cog would presumably have to be associated with a different kind of psych profile, and thus different method of coercion.
I think there are, however, a lot more sociopaths around these days - in my view it's one of the most sinister aspects of what the cabal have been doing the last 2,000 years - using the human brain's natural adaptation ability against humanity. By this I mean they create a social environment and conditions in which the optimum survival adaptation becomes a sociopathic individualism. For many, at least. For others, it's permanent psychological stress, which (aside from complex PTSD) leads to people becoming insular out of pure self-defence, and thus thinking more of themselves rather than others. In other words, the normal/natural social cohesion inherent in a human community is deliberately attacked and broken apart so that humans forget the principles of solidarity, compassion, and looking after each other (safety in numbers etc.). Solidarity, after all, along with unity of purpose, combined with sheer overwhelming weight of numbers, would soon see the end of the cabal.
Of course they can't completely destroy the social instinct, so they 1/ create an 'other' to fear or blame, then 2/ create a 'group' which people can join/adhere to in order to combat that 'other'. Xenophobia in other words. Thus they successfully divide people.
You're correct in that we saw this very clearly during Covid, in which, for the most obvious example, the 'unvaccinated' became the 'other'. The scary thing being how easy it was to get so many people riled up into a murderous rage zombie frenzy.
As a social experiment for them, it was immensely successful and now they know they can do this again any time they like. And they will.
Your thoughts are never less than thought-provoking.
I broadly agree with your analysis. However, I would say the degree to which the cabal is fully conscious of what it is doing is open to debate. Many cabal members are themselves deeply damaged and traumatised individuals who will be reacting to their trauma in ways they barely comprehend, let alone have control over.
In Britain, we have the privatised education system (most notably, boarding schools) to thank, for such people. As these damaged individuals go on to become the leaders they were groomed to be from childhood, the result will inevitably be the creation of institutions and social policies that are based in fear, selfishness and the need to control as much as possible.
My point is, the carnage being wrought originates outside of awareness, right across the social spectrum. That, to me, is perhaps the scariest thing to observe. It's like a runaway train that nobody can see is heading for the cliff edge.
Spot on. I've thought this very thing for quite a while myself. That essentially the British private school system isn't anything to do with 'education', they are more like 'conditioning centres', which use trauma-based methods to produce sociopaths and psychopaths with an 'us and them' attitude towards the general population (and complex PTSD with programmed pathologies - in the males especially they would favour the fight response, rather than flight, in order to create bullies essentially; although the fawning response is equally useful to them). Because a lot of the pathological response to trauma is about seeking safety, the cabal create the 'social group' to which these traumatised children can belong in order to feel safe. It also commands 'loyalty to the group' above other loyalties, because pathologically the survival of the group continues to guarantee the victim's safety, and thus becomes all important, and certainly more important than the individual. Plus of course the 'individual' has been attacked and virtually destroyed with all the abuse, so only the 'social identity' part of personal identity remains, or is at least the most prominent/dominant.
Perhaps I should write some kind of monograph on all this and distribute it through every letterbox in the country!
In other words the private 'schools' are the Establishment's recruitment section. Thus, one of the obvious and primary strategies to defeat any enemy is to destroy their access to resources, in this case new members. So if the private school system were to be disbanded then you would destroy their recruitment section at a stroke.
This would definitely be part of my education policy. No prep schools and no boarding until the age of 14 (and even then it would be mixed boarding in general schools or 'centres of excellence', state-funded rather than private I mean - where entrance is based on ability, not parents' ability to pay - this can easily be monitored of course). Until the age of 14 every child goes to a local day-school, without exception (except for special needs I suppose) - so you have children from all across the social spectrum mixing with each other - you would never get the 'us and them' thing. I would also advocate a Steiner-based approach to education up to age 14. At age 14 they take their general curriculum exams (which includes subjects like philosophy, psychology, cultural studies, and so on - which all helps towards emotional and psychological maturity), then from 14 onwards the student gets to choose which subjects they study.
This kind of thing would totally neutralise the Establishment in Britain. That's the essence of liberal socialist education right there, and it is absolutely conscious and mindful of removing the abusive recruitment grounds for the cabal (at least in Britain - although there would be a domino effect before too long). After a good generation of this kind of counter-subversion there wouldn't be an Establishment any more (since subversion takes a generation, so too does counter-subversion).
But that, unfortunately, is for a parallel world - it's not going to happen in this world anytime soon, more's the pity. I shall continue to write about that parallel world though and show everyone what the better world looks like and what they are missing. Well, everyone who is interested in reading it, anyhow. My current 81 subscribers are not a sufficiently large group for changing worlds. Mind you, there were only ever 12 Cambridge Apostles lol.
I think you're comment is without merit, not sure what agenda you're following but it doesn't seem at all authentic, particularly if you bother to study all the evidence and nothing but the evidence!
This statement is not going to go down well with the ‘Idol Worshippers’ :)
It is a BOLD statement, yet one that needs to be investigated and analysed.
The FACTS are that RDH has either missed obvious evidence (such as “The Bill” drama…) never mind the Kenney/Bickerstaff footage, the timestamps of the station footage, the audio manipulation etc etc (which I find impossible seeing the in-depth CCTV analysis he submitted) or he did in fact “Roll Over”.
This takes us into even deeper waters of this murky swamp, the imbeciles who attack like rabid dogs whoever even mentions the fact that RDH may not be what he projects to the “truth mob” seem incapable of any detailed analysis of the facts.
I shall continue to post some ‘bombs’ on here that should get the Hornets nest into a manic state.
As you are a friend of RDH - I have a few questions.
Why did RDH use the TV footage in the foyer (which clearly COULD NOT be seen as broadcasting the Ariana concert) as proof that Bickerstaff was lying and that Bickerstaff recorded his footage before the blast?
It was easily debunked.
He mentions Jordan Kenney reaching into his wallet - yet does not mention he is WITH the girl (who was separated from him AFTER the blast) , he does not mention Kenney's testimony which blows apart the Bickerstaff narrative and PROVES that Bickerstaff is lying.
How did he miss 'Andy Wholey' on the BBC interview stating "some of them were already disabled people" when he was looking around the city room after the blast?
In the Zach Bruce and Chris Pawley footage the audio was doctored (the Pawley station footage audio has been ripped from the Bruce footage), yet Hall never mentions the fact!
Watch the Zach Bruce footage (steps) and Pawley footage (outside) - download and examine the audio.
Nor does he mention that both videos were uploaded an hour after the event giving plenty of time for the editing.
More importantly he does not mention the fact that Pawley filmed his footage at 22:24 - that is why the station was almost empty.
Instead he gives us repetitive CCTV footage and the rambling "Statement Analyst" Genevieve Lewis throwing the doors open wide for ridicule!
Now either RDH is a novice researcher missing the obvious or he's missed it on purpose and used repetitive CCTV / easy to debunk bullshit such as bringing on Genevieve 'expert my arse' Lewis ro muddy the waters and throw people off the scent.
Something doesn't smell right, no matter how much perfume you try and mask it with.
Incredibly well summarised, Iain. You must have spent many hours poring over the relevant documents, in order to make the case more readily accessible to those of us who've come to trust both your diligence and your forensic brain.
Having followed your dissection of this case since the beginning, it is with a heavy heart that I feel compelled to say I find it hard to imagine a more egregious desecration of the British judicial system than what we've witnessed in Richard's trial and conviction.
Courts are now, it seems, officially, evidence-free zones.
I honestly don't know what to expect from hereon. How much worse can it get?
Surely, there has to come a tipping point, where a significant enough proportion of people realise that the very foundations of civilised society are at risk, unless we manage to prise our state institutions back onto a sound and rational footing, while at the same time resanctifying the principle of justice under the law.
I do hope he appeals the decision. I feel there would be a lot of people who would help fund it. Just an unbelievable travesty of justice. It would be funny if it wasn’t so disturbing and dangerous.
Do journalist ever secretly film or photograph people. Yes all the time if it is Fergie sucking a toe or prince Andrew taking a walk with Mr Epstein. Do Journalist ever write articles describing people in the most negative terms even calling them murderers when they have not been convicted or tried. Why Is this not harassment. But if you do not know this has happened then how can it be harassment.
If some one tells you about it after the fact does it then become harassment. If you seek out and read the articles or view the photos or films does it then become harassment. If you then imagine that others that have seen this information may seek you out even if this has not happened and become scared to even go to your car on your own. Does it then become harassment. Or does it only become harassment when a judge decides that it is harassment despite it not having any of the normal actions that constitute harassment.
Iain again clearly proves his case succinctly, excellent reporting and analysis. Sadly RDH was denied a defence or justice and it's now plain to see. It's apparent to me this has been deliberately engineered by those who are against the truth and are now part of a bigger conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. The Establishment and it's judiciary has no defence!
Do you not see anything strange above the dressing?
Although I do not hold any hope in you giving me a sensible reply (bridged nose etc) albeit replying with "creases of trousers" or similar?
"EDIT: If you mean the photo doesn't look quite right that it's a real injury - I would think that's possible, just due to the complete lack of blood anywhere BELOW the dressing, and the dressing looks kind of odd too"
That is obvious, correct. I take it you do know who this character is?
It is above the dressing, if you cannot see it then fair enough, it's been a long day :)
Thank you for your work and your bravery Iain. I'm sure most of those interested in the Richard D Hall case will have seen the video I link below. But maybe one or two of you haven't. The video is said to be a training event. It took place in Manchester a year before the Arena, as Richard and yourself would say, hoax. I myself, already knowing he would lose his case can't see the difference between the training event and the event at the Arena. Bar the terrorist in the training event being a suicide bomber of course. And I flabbergasted how many people making comments on the training event thought it was a real event.
At least with the shopping centre drill we had some injuries that looked genuinely pretty nasty, however fake they were.
We certainly can't say that of the Arena hoax - please step (painlessly) forward, Ruth Morrell. (Murrell? The lamestream media can't even agree on the spelling.)
I lifted this from the Crown Prosecution Service website:
"The four key offences concerning stalking and harassment are contained in the PHA 1997:
the summary-only offences of stalking (section 2A) and harassment (section 2), which carry the maximum general sentence a magistrates’ court can impose. As summary offences, an information must be laid within 6 months of the commission of the offence. The 6 months' limitation runs from the date of the last incident comprising the course of conduct: Director of Public Prosecutions v Baker [2004] EWHC 2782 (Admin)
the either-way offences of stalking causing fear of violence or serious alarm/distress which has a substantial adverse impact on the victim’s usual day-to-day activities (4A) and harassment causing fear of violence (section 4), which carry a maximum of ten years’ imprisonment and/or a fine on indictment."
There's plenty more on the subject, if you visit the website.
"Harassment and stalking are classed as offences under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and (where the offending is racially or religiously aggravated) the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Both offences relate to behaviour that is repeated and unwanted.
Harassment is behaviour intended to cause a person alarm or distress. The behaviour must occur on more than one occasion but it does not have the be the same kind of behaviour on each occasion. Common harassment incidents include:
texts, voicemails, letters or emails
comments or threats
standing outside someone’s house or driving past it
Harassment involving putting people in fear of violence is a more serious offence. It involves two or more harassment incidents that leave the victim fearing that violence will be used against them.
Stalking involves persistently following someone. It does not necessarily mean following them in person and can include watching, spying or forcing contact with the victim through any means, including through social media.
Stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress is a more serious offence. It involves two or more occasions that have caused the victim to fear violence will be used against them or had a substantial adverse effect on their day-to-day activities, even where the fear is not explicitly of violence. Evidence that the stalking has caused this level of fear could include the victim:
changing their route to work, work patterns or employment to avoid contact with the stalker
putting additional home security measures in place
moving home
suffering physical or mental ill-health
For both harassment and stalking, the offence is more serious if it is racially or religiously motivated, that is carried out because of someone’s racial or ethnic origin or their religion or lack of religion.
Sentencing
Parliament sets the maximum (and sometimes minimum) penalty for any offence. When deciding the appropriate sentence, the court must follow any relevant sentencing guidelines, unless it is not in the interests of justice to do so.
What is the maximum sentence for harassment or stalking?
If the offence is harassment or stalking:
the maximum sentence is six months’ custody
if racially or religiously aggravated, the maximum sentence is two years’ custody
If the offence is harassment (putting people in fear of violence) or stalking (involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress):
the maximum sentence is 10 years’ custody
if racially or religiously aggravated, the maximum sentence is 14 years’ custody"
In Richard's case, I think it's pretty clear that a custodial sentence would be secondary to the intention of shutting down his particular line of journalism. Richard is being used as a scapegoat to prevent/deter any genuinely truth-motivated journalist from conducting the exact same activities the legacy media use every day of the week.
For me, the most crucial element of the trial centres around whether Richard "intended" to cause harm or distress to the Hibberts.
How can such an appraisal be made?
In truth, it can't, because the subjective state of mind of any individual is a black box that only he or she knows about.
I suppose it's arguable that someone may wish to cause harm or distress without being fully conscious of it.
But is that true intentionality?
This is the greyest of grey areas.
Ultimately, we can only look at the manifest activities of the individual concerned and then try to infer what their subjective state of mind was at any given time, something which is clearly fraught with the utmost difficulty.
From what I've seen, heard and read about this case, the last thing Richard intended was to cause harm or distress to the claimants, except to the degree necessary in exposing the truth of what really happened in the Manchester Arena on the night in question, which, as a journalist, he was fully entitled to do.
You point out how careful IMBD are with identities and suddenly 'Prolies' is a QSL expert on databases.
You point out the bad video compression and her futile attempts to dismiss Hibbert in the footage by artifacts and suddenly 'Prolies' is an expert on Video Analysis.
You try and point out anomalies with the 'Shakespearean" character acting as an injured victim and suddenly 'Prolies' has years of experience in First AId.
Good job this never happened in the space station as 'prolies' would probably claim being a fucking former astronaut.
Prolies is certainly a squirmy little character for example in this thread she states:
"This also makes me think your idea that we are living in a simulation.."
She has no source where I have ever proposed that theory as a belief of mine, audio overlay I used on the Bickerstaff footage mentions simulation, but she is too thick to even realise it's context to the footage, instead she will grab onto anything her tentacles can grasp and twist it to use against anyone posting evidence that she opposes.
Nasty little squirm, she has no video analysis of anything to offer, I have hundreds, I have exposed 'agents' who RDH and Iain Davis had no idea of, I have clearly shown that RDH has used false information and handed on a plate low hanging rotten fruit for the likes of Spring and her cronies to feast over.
All 'Prolies' has done is try and disrupt any fresh alternative evidence (not the same drawn-out tripe that RDH and Davis are bleating over) on this Substack, especially regarding miracle EVE, with lies and obvious shillery.
She is now "friends with RDH" and they analysed footage together.
LMFAO
Prolies is nothing but a fraud, and a poor useless shill.
What a stitch-up! If harassment is “a persistent and deliberate course of unreasonable and oppressive conduct" then where is the evidence of that having happened? As far as I can tell RDH did nothing of the sort. Crikey, I have had far more persistent and deliberate unreasonable conduct from my neighbours' dog! Am I bleating to the High Court?
We live in a country full of disputes, but to see this case result in a conviction surely shows how easy it is for the establishment to manipulate the law to suppress truth and protect its own.
That's one of the impressions I got when I read Dave McGowan's Programmed to Kill - the sheer breadth of Establishment control, over police investigations, media, judges and juries and so on, even carrying it out in plain sight, can really appear quite scary at times.
All one can perhaps say is that they must have a seriously extensive sociopath vetting programme going on, if we are to explain where they get that sheer number of willingly complicit people from.
Do they need actual sociopaths, Evelyn?
The Covid years showed us there's no shortage of people who are entirely open to manipulation, either through fear or greed.
Well, yeah - that is also a method of getting people to capitulate, for sure. I agree. I think it really depends on which kind of cog they want a person to be. Each different cog would presumably have to be associated with a different kind of psych profile, and thus different method of coercion.
I think there are, however, a lot more sociopaths around these days - in my view it's one of the most sinister aspects of what the cabal have been doing the last 2,000 years - using the human brain's natural adaptation ability against humanity. By this I mean they create a social environment and conditions in which the optimum survival adaptation becomes a sociopathic individualism. For many, at least. For others, it's permanent psychological stress, which (aside from complex PTSD) leads to people becoming insular out of pure self-defence, and thus thinking more of themselves rather than others. In other words, the normal/natural social cohesion inherent in a human community is deliberately attacked and broken apart so that humans forget the principles of solidarity, compassion, and looking after each other (safety in numbers etc.). Solidarity, after all, along with unity of purpose, combined with sheer overwhelming weight of numbers, would soon see the end of the cabal.
Of course they can't completely destroy the social instinct, so they 1/ create an 'other' to fear or blame, then 2/ create a 'group' which people can join/adhere to in order to combat that 'other'. Xenophobia in other words. Thus they successfully divide people.
You're correct in that we saw this very clearly during Covid, in which, for the most obvious example, the 'unvaccinated' became the 'other'. The scary thing being how easy it was to get so many people riled up into a murderous rage zombie frenzy.
As a social experiment for them, it was immensely successful and now they know they can do this again any time they like. And they will.
Brace, brace.
Your thoughts are never less than thought-provoking.
I broadly agree with your analysis. However, I would say the degree to which the cabal is fully conscious of what it is doing is open to debate. Many cabal members are themselves deeply damaged and traumatised individuals who will be reacting to their trauma in ways they barely comprehend, let alone have control over.
In Britain, we have the privatised education system (most notably, boarding schools) to thank, for such people. As these damaged individuals go on to become the leaders they were groomed to be from childhood, the result will inevitably be the creation of institutions and social policies that are based in fear, selfishness and the need to control as much as possible.
My point is, the carnage being wrought originates outside of awareness, right across the social spectrum. That, to me, is perhaps the scariest thing to observe. It's like a runaway train that nobody can see is heading for the cliff edge.
Spot on. I've thought this very thing for quite a while myself. That essentially the British private school system isn't anything to do with 'education', they are more like 'conditioning centres', which use trauma-based methods to produce sociopaths and psychopaths with an 'us and them' attitude towards the general population (and complex PTSD with programmed pathologies - in the males especially they would favour the fight response, rather than flight, in order to create bullies essentially; although the fawning response is equally useful to them). Because a lot of the pathological response to trauma is about seeking safety, the cabal create the 'social group' to which these traumatised children can belong in order to feel safe. It also commands 'loyalty to the group' above other loyalties, because pathologically the survival of the group continues to guarantee the victim's safety, and thus becomes all important, and certainly more important than the individual. Plus of course the 'individual' has been attacked and virtually destroyed with all the abuse, so only the 'social identity' part of personal identity remains, or is at least the most prominent/dominant.
Perhaps I should write some kind of monograph on all this and distribute it through every letterbox in the country!
In other words the private 'schools' are the Establishment's recruitment section. Thus, one of the obvious and primary strategies to defeat any enemy is to destroy their access to resources, in this case new members. So if the private school system were to be disbanded then you would destroy their recruitment section at a stroke.
This would definitely be part of my education policy. No prep schools and no boarding until the age of 14 (and even then it would be mixed boarding in general schools or 'centres of excellence', state-funded rather than private I mean - where entrance is based on ability, not parents' ability to pay - this can easily be monitored of course). Until the age of 14 every child goes to a local day-school, without exception (except for special needs I suppose) - so you have children from all across the social spectrum mixing with each other - you would never get the 'us and them' thing. I would also advocate a Steiner-based approach to education up to age 14. At age 14 they take their general curriculum exams (which includes subjects like philosophy, psychology, cultural studies, and so on - which all helps towards emotional and psychological maturity), then from 14 onwards the student gets to choose which subjects they study.
This kind of thing would totally neutralise the Establishment in Britain. That's the essence of liberal socialist education right there, and it is absolutely conscious and mindful of removing the abusive recruitment grounds for the cabal (at least in Britain - although there would be a domino effect before too long). After a good generation of this kind of counter-subversion there wouldn't be an Establishment any more (since subversion takes a generation, so too does counter-subversion).
But that, unfortunately, is for a parallel world - it's not going to happen in this world anytime soon, more's the pity. I shall continue to write about that parallel world though and show everyone what the better world looks like and what they are missing. Well, everyone who is interested in reading it, anyhow. My current 81 subscribers are not a sufficiently large group for changing worlds. Mind you, there were only ever 12 Cambridge Apostles lol.
Great insights here, once again.
Charles Eisenstein wrote about "the more beautiful world our hearts know is possible". Those words were reverberating in my head as I read your reply.
You should definitely write that monograph. Maybe posterity will thank you. Prophets are never recognised in their own day. ;)
Stitched up from the start by the summary judgment. They couldn’t risk another John Hill. https://inoneplace.com/death-taxes-a-new-short-film-by-tony-rooke/
I think you're comment is without merit, not sure what agenda you're following but it doesn't seem at all authentic, particularly if you bother to study all the evidence and nothing but the evidence!
“Hall rolled over & submitted for them”
This statement is not going to go down well with the ‘Idol Worshippers’ :)
It is a BOLD statement, yet one that needs to be investigated and analysed.
The FACTS are that RDH has either missed obvious evidence (such as “The Bill” drama…) never mind the Kenney/Bickerstaff footage, the timestamps of the station footage, the audio manipulation etc etc (which I find impossible seeing the in-depth CCTV analysis he submitted) or he did in fact “Roll Over”.
This takes us into even deeper waters of this murky swamp, the imbeciles who attack like rabid dogs whoever even mentions the fact that RDH may not be what he projects to the “truth mob” seem incapable of any detailed analysis of the facts.
I shall continue to post some ‘bombs’ on here that should get the Hornets nest into a manic state.
As you are a friend of RDH - I have a few questions.
Why did RDH use the TV footage in the foyer (which clearly COULD NOT be seen as broadcasting the Ariana concert) as proof that Bickerstaff was lying and that Bickerstaff recorded his footage before the blast?
It was easily debunked.
He mentions Jordan Kenney reaching into his wallet - yet does not mention he is WITH the girl (who was separated from him AFTER the blast) , he does not mention Kenney's testimony which blows apart the Bickerstaff narrative and PROVES that Bickerstaff is lying.
https://x.com/Richard63240134/status/1801041610664239577
Now how could such an obvious event like this be missed by RDH?
How did he miss 'Jonathan Culpeper' in the daily mail?
The Shakespeare connection.
https://x.com/Richard63240134/status/1803129648165122166
How did he miss 'Andy Wholey' on the BBC interview stating "some of them were already disabled people" when he was looking around the city room after the blast?
https://x.com/Richard63240134/status/1801898564450123932
In the Zach Bruce and Chris Pawley footage the audio was doctored (the Pawley station footage audio has been ripped from the Bruce footage), yet Hall never mentions the fact!
Watch the Zach Bruce footage (steps) and Pawley footage (outside) - download and examine the audio.
Nor does he mention that both videos were uploaded an hour after the event giving plenty of time for the editing.
More importantly he does not mention the fact that Pawley filmed his footage at 22:24 - that is why the station was almost empty.
https://x.com/Richard63240134/status/1799485308070752531
Instead he gives us repetitive CCTV footage and the rambling "Statement Analyst" Genevieve Lewis throwing the doors open wide for ridicule!
Now either RDH is a novice researcher missing the obvious or he's missed it on purpose and used repetitive CCTV / easy to debunk bullshit such as bringing on Genevieve 'expert my arse' Lewis ro muddy the waters and throw people off the scent.
Something doesn't smell right, no matter how much perfume you try and mask it with.
Absolutely brilliant Iain. Thank you.
Incredibly well summarised, Iain. You must have spent many hours poring over the relevant documents, in order to make the case more readily accessible to those of us who've come to trust both your diligence and your forensic brain.
Having followed your dissection of this case since the beginning, it is with a heavy heart that I feel compelled to say I find it hard to imagine a more egregious desecration of the British judicial system than what we've witnessed in Richard's trial and conviction.
Courts are now, it seems, officially, evidence-free zones.
I honestly don't know what to expect from hereon. How much worse can it get?
Surely, there has to come a tipping point, where a significant enough proportion of people realise that the very foundations of civilised society are at risk, unless we manage to prise our state institutions back onto a sound and rational footing, while at the same time resanctifying the principle of justice under the law.
I do hope he appeals the decision. I feel there would be a lot of people who would help fund it. Just an unbelievable travesty of justice. It would be funny if it wasn’t so disturbing and dangerous.
Smoke and mirrors…
Abso-precis-zactly.
Do journalist ever secretly film or photograph people. Yes all the time if it is Fergie sucking a toe or prince Andrew taking a walk with Mr Epstein. Do Journalist ever write articles describing people in the most negative terms even calling them murderers when they have not been convicted or tried. Why Is this not harassment. But if you do not know this has happened then how can it be harassment.
If some one tells you about it after the fact does it then become harassment. If you seek out and read the articles or view the photos or films does it then become harassment. If you then imagine that others that have seen this information may seek you out even if this has not happened and become scared to even go to your car on your own. Does it then become harassment. Or does it only become harassment when a judge decides that it is harassment despite it not having any of the normal actions that constitute harassment.
Iain again clearly proves his case succinctly, excellent reporting and analysis. Sadly RDH was denied a defence or justice and it's now plain to see. It's apparent to me this has been deliberately engineered by those who are against the truth and are now part of a bigger conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. The Establishment and it's judiciary has no defence!
Has he analysed this yet? :)
https://ibb.co/gyBgghB
Tell me Iain, what do you see above the 'dressing'?
"I see a kneecap & torn trousers"
Fucking imbecile.
Do you not see anything strange above the dressing?
Although I do not hold any hope in you giving me a sensible reply (bridged nose etc) albeit replying with "creases of trousers" or similar?
"EDIT: If you mean the photo doesn't look quite right that it's a real injury - I would think that's possible, just due to the complete lack of blood anywhere BELOW the dressing, and the dressing looks kind of odd too"
That is obvious, correct. I take it you do know who this character is?
It is above the dressing, if you cannot see it then fair enough, it's been a long day :)
Thank you for your work and your bravery Iain. I'm sure most of those interested in the Richard D Hall case will have seen the video I link below. But maybe one or two of you haven't. The video is said to be a training event. It took place in Manchester a year before the Arena, as Richard and yourself would say, hoax. I myself, already knowing he would lose his case can't see the difference between the training event and the event at the Arena. Bar the terrorist in the training event being a suicide bomber of course. And I flabbergasted how many people making comments on the training event thought it was a real event.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MB9jHOJ_Vg . If links are blocked on this site please search 'Dramatic pictures of mock terror attack in Manchester' on youtube.
At least with the shopping centre drill we had some injuries that looked genuinely pretty nasty, however fake they were.
We certainly can't say that of the Arena hoax - please step (painlessly) forward, Ruth Morrell. (Murrell? The lamestream media can't even agree on the spelling.)
What kind of a sentence or penalty would a guilty verdict of "harassment" imply?
I lifted this from the Crown Prosecution Service website:
"The four key offences concerning stalking and harassment are contained in the PHA 1997:
the summary-only offences of stalking (section 2A) and harassment (section 2), which carry the maximum general sentence a magistrates’ court can impose. As summary offences, an information must be laid within 6 months of the commission of the offence. The 6 months' limitation runs from the date of the last incident comprising the course of conduct: Director of Public Prosecutions v Baker [2004] EWHC 2782 (Admin)
the either-way offences of stalking causing fear of violence or serious alarm/distress which has a substantial adverse impact on the victim’s usual day-to-day activities (4A) and harassment causing fear of violence (section 4), which carry a maximum of ten years’ imprisonment and/or a fine on indictment."
There's plenty more on the subject, if you visit the website.
"Harassment and stalking are classed as offences under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and (where the offending is racially or religiously aggravated) the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Both offences relate to behaviour that is repeated and unwanted.
Harassment is behaviour intended to cause a person alarm or distress. The behaviour must occur on more than one occasion but it does not have the be the same kind of behaviour on each occasion. Common harassment incidents include:
texts, voicemails, letters or emails
comments or threats
standing outside someone’s house or driving past it
Harassment involving putting people in fear of violence is a more serious offence. It involves two or more harassment incidents that leave the victim fearing that violence will be used against them.
Stalking involves persistently following someone. It does not necessarily mean following them in person and can include watching, spying or forcing contact with the victim through any means, including through social media.
Stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress is a more serious offence. It involves two or more occasions that have caused the victim to fear violence will be used against them or had a substantial adverse effect on their day-to-day activities, even where the fear is not explicitly of violence. Evidence that the stalking has caused this level of fear could include the victim:
changing their route to work, work patterns or employment to avoid contact with the stalker
putting additional home security measures in place
moving home
suffering physical or mental ill-health
For both harassment and stalking, the offence is more serious if it is racially or religiously motivated, that is carried out because of someone’s racial or ethnic origin or their religion or lack of religion.
Sentencing
Parliament sets the maximum (and sometimes minimum) penalty for any offence. When deciding the appropriate sentence, the court must follow any relevant sentencing guidelines, unless it is not in the interests of justice to do so.
What is the maximum sentence for harassment or stalking?
If the offence is harassment or stalking:
the maximum sentence is six months’ custody
if racially or religiously aggravated, the maximum sentence is two years’ custody
If the offence is harassment (putting people in fear of violence) or stalking (involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress):
the maximum sentence is 10 years’ custody
if racially or religiously aggravated, the maximum sentence is 14 years’ custody"
Hope this helps, too.
In Richard's case, I think it's pretty clear that a custodial sentence would be secondary to the intention of shutting down his particular line of journalism. Richard is being used as a scapegoat to prevent/deter any genuinely truth-motivated journalist from conducting the exact same activities the legacy media use every day of the week.
For me, the most crucial element of the trial centres around whether Richard "intended" to cause harm or distress to the Hibberts.
How can such an appraisal be made?
In truth, it can't, because the subjective state of mind of any individual is a black box that only he or she knows about.
I suppose it's arguable that someone may wish to cause harm or distress without being fully conscious of it.
But is that true intentionality?
This is the greyest of grey areas.
Ultimately, we can only look at the manifest activities of the individual concerned and then try to infer what their subjective state of mind was at any given time, something which is clearly fraught with the utmost difficulty.
From what I've seen, heard and read about this case, the last thing Richard intended was to cause harm or distress to the claimants, except to the degree necessary in exposing the truth of what really happened in the Manchester Arena on the night in question, which, as a journalist, he was fully entitled to do.
Yes, it's incredible, isn't it?
Even Kafka would've dismissed it as all too implausible!
Ten years would seem rather excessive.:).
Iain, I have just one question for you at present.
Did ‘Martin Hibbert’ appear in “The Bill”?
https://substack.com/@dav59/note/c-75588188
No. Not that I can see from the clip shared.
You point out how careful IMBD are with identities and suddenly 'Prolies' is a QSL expert on databases.
You point out the bad video compression and her futile attempts to dismiss Hibbert in the footage by artifacts and suddenly 'Prolies' is an expert on Video Analysis.
You try and point out anomalies with the 'Shakespearean" character acting as an injured victim and suddenly 'Prolies' has years of experience in First AId.
Good job this never happened in the space station as 'prolies' would probably claim being a fucking former astronaut.
Prolies is certainly a squirmy little character for example in this thread she states:
"This also makes me think your idea that we are living in a simulation.."
She has no source where I have ever proposed that theory as a belief of mine, audio overlay I used on the Bickerstaff footage mentions simulation, but she is too thick to even realise it's context to the footage, instead she will grab onto anything her tentacles can grasp and twist it to use against anyone posting evidence that she opposes.
Nasty little squirm, she has no video analysis of anything to offer, I have hundreds, I have exposed 'agents' who RDH and Iain Davis had no idea of, I have clearly shown that RDH has used false information and handed on a plate low hanging rotten fruit for the likes of Spring and her cronies to feast over.
All 'Prolies' has done is try and disrupt any fresh alternative evidence (not the same drawn-out tripe that RDH and Davis are bleating over) on this Substack, especially regarding miracle EVE, with lies and obvious shillery.
She is now "friends with RDH" and they analysed footage together.
LMFAO
Prolies is nothing but a fraud, and a poor useless shill.
Appalling trial!
Appalling researchers..
Or purposely missing the evidence?
https://x.com/Richard63240134/status/1799485308070752531
Respond to my Hibbert redress appearing in "The Bill"
No 'Cryptic' there for you :)
Oh the soundtrack is unconnected is it? Let's disregard the soundtrack for now, who do you see in the footage?
You fail to answer questions, you have no analysis to offer.
Go fuck yourself.
Can you imagine this probullshit character in a debate with Donald Hoffman...
"There is a lump on the bridge of the actor's nose in The Bill"
You have zero knowledge about video compression artifacts.
https://ibb.co/rd68ykR
I've just made a comment along similar lines. Kudos to you for getting there first.
"I bet the broomstick groans under your bulk these nights? :-)"
This made me spit out my cornflakes!