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.
Therein is the very core of this farcical court case, which should be the key to overturning it if an appeal is launched...
According to Steyn's ruling (my capitalisation of the word 'AND');
"Harassment is “a persistent and deliberate course of unreasonable and oppressive conduct, targeted at another person, which is calculated to AND does cause that person alarm, fear or distress.”"
The prosecution glaringly failed to evidence that RDH 'calculated' his 'course of conduct' to 'cause... alarm, fear or distress', no matter how much they claim 'alarm, fear or distress' was caused.
She foundationally undermined her own ruling on the allegation and has clearly shown it is absolutely without justification - also proving beyond doubt that the court's decision was made entirely without reference to the evidence presented.
How uncanny & ironic,that YOU Protrue (Sarah who is just a bald bloke really ) indulged in a psychotic spree of harassment in Iains comments pages, while the claimed harassment by Hall court case was occurring.
You proved yourself to be a STALKER & disingenuous liar multiple times, even making threats & promises of public abuse!
All that was followed by a minor nervous breakdown for you... & suddenly Sarah Plumley's work ceased for a few months.
Meanwhile janus faced turds like EverLyin' Bumsick & FannyCist Loser were also busy shouting from their soapboxes, just like an orchestra of harpies busy distracting from the hypocrisy of it all.
The whole of Hibberts case (& statements regarding his daughter) was undermined by a double image in the restaurant, but all of you are too dim & consolidated to face that fact when it was handed to you on a plate.
Recently you have all been given a lot of evidence that Eve does not exist as depicted (if ever) that even Nic Kollerstrom concurred with, yet you responded by being so paranoid, unreasonable & moronic you didnt believe it was Nic, nor appreciated the content of the claim.
Last week you were given DAME Karen FrankenStiens family connections & husbands vocation & you're still too thick to fathom what it means.
Your above comment merely states the bloody obvious, while the bigger question is how Dick 'stag ring' Hall could have been so stupid to mount his initial defence as he did, or how easily he played along with what is so obviously THEATRE, just like the screened court fiascos in the USA.
Of course there are many legal elements Hall can now employ, declaring the judgement VOID being one of the more pertinent. After all 'any reasonable' judge would consider Dame Karen's actions an act of bad faith & done beyond logical remit.
How the heck are the two photographs of ANY possible use in undermining Hibbert's claim?
You are clearly and consistently utterly insane.
What possible USE are Steyn's family connections in all this? (whether they are of interest or not).
She's a corrupt judge - that's really the only thing that's of pertinence here.
But yes, I did make a threat - I threatened to laugh at your idiot brother (who thinks the Earth is donut shaped) in person, but he didn't turn up as HE promised he would, with a whole crew of his thug security guard mates.
Yes, a defendant can claim a ruling void under certain circumstances. If a court order or judgment was made without proper jurisdiction, if there was a violation of due process, or if the judge or any party acted outside the law, the ruling can be considered void. In such cases, the defendant can apply to have the void order nullified.
To claim a ruling void, you generally need to follow these steps:
Identify Grounds for Voiding: Determine if the ruling was made without proper jurisdiction, violated due process, or involved any other legal errors.
Prepare an Application: Fill out the necessary court forms, such as the application notice (N244) in the UK, to request the court to set aside the judgment.
Submit the Application: Submit the application to the court that issued the ruling, along with any required fees.
Attend a Hearing: You may need to attend a private hearing to explain why the ruling should be voided.
Possible Outcomes: The court will review your application and decide whether to set aside the ruling.
Would you like more detailed information on any of these steps?
You write just like Norman of 911 ReVisionTwister, how many of you morons were trained by the same useless tool?
You are a hysterical idiot Sarahahaha,
I believe NOTHING , Everything Permutes- you seem keen to believe all sorts of shit though...maybe as a result of feltching all day long...is that how you make those greasy lips of yours look so puckered up as well?🙄😂🤣😂
The VOID declaration is not my idea it is from here-
Hall cannot be fined more than he could pay. As he was tried for his 'profession' then it is a business concern is it not ?
Tell us then what 'fine'/costs he is eligible for?
If not tried under his profession but as his 'legal fiction'.... or representative of such.....then bankruptcy is easily mitigated, the rich do it all the time.
Can he not appeal the ruling, can it not go before a jury, can Dame
Frankienstien not be reviewed & found to have to have transgressed reason - something you do all the time? Is she not in fact in contempt of her legal jurisdiction or some such & the like?
Please apply your as yet hidden talents to such constructive thoughts , rather than mire yourself in the twisted bitterness that has handicap you for most of your balding, weight gaining existence- of a terminally bad attitude, & foul personal hygiene habits.
btw - the TORUS is intrinsic fact only you seem unaware of. My Brother never said the Earth was a donut shape either, he wrote that it influenced by Toroidal processes, again a fact beyond scientific doubt.
You kept claiming strawmen & gaslighting like a sewer about that for 4 months Sarahahaha. You also admitted being a child molester & pet feltcher when you worked on the 'From Another World' troll account that was banned by substack...the proof of which still exists, & will be shared here whenever you start morally bleating as you do, high on your well worn podium of neurosis & hysteria.
Now answer the above questions.... or shut the fuck up & piss off,
As far as I can see, there is no such mechanism available in the UK injustice system to declare THIS ruling 'void' - this can only apply when there is a procedural irregularity.
And there wasn't.
What has been done is Steyn is corrupt and has handed down the judgment she has been paid & ordered to.
It's bullshit, of course, but the actual court procedures appeared to be followed as they should have been.
That's possibly the first pertinent and interesting thing you've ever posted - not surprised then that it's not actually your idea.
I'm not discussing such particulars of the case - that's not my place to do that here.
Beyond that, as far as I'm aware, there may be opportunity to appeal the decision. However, knowing the bentness & tricksyness of the UK injustice system, I suspect there are obstacles which could be thrown in the way - we shall see in due course.
As I say though, it is NOT for me to disclose such information, even if I knew all the details you are asking about.
I've got quite a good head of hair still actually, thanks., and my personal hygiene is alright too. Who of us wouldn't want to drop a few pounds?
I bet the broomstick groans under your bulk these nights? :-)
Blubby absolutely DID NOT say that about the Earth - his actual words were that 'the Earth functions as a torus' - whatever the hell that means!
And he has been called 'donut-brain' ever since.
He still never directly answered the question what shape he thinks the world actually is (because he is totally clueless), but his illogical position appeared to be that we are told by all authorities it's an oblate spheroid, so that is logically the one shape it cannot possibly be.
It's a very similar non sequitur to how he (and you) seem to regard the Eve Hibbert question - they assert she exists, so she doesn't, despite there being evidence that she does.
I've even been tempted to say I could entertain the idea that the photos ARE digital constructions - not for any particular visual or technical reason, but as one of the possible realities of the Fibberts' timeline is that they were injured in the weeks to a few months before the 22nd May, and so the photo(s) were constructed to give the impression that they were both fit & healthy just before the bang - but this STILL wouldn't prove or even evidence that she DOESN'T exist, it STILL doesn't make any sense why they would produce TWO versions of the photo, unless possibly to give their alleged restaurant visit a touch of realism with the impression there were two photos taken at the time (and given the slight differences between their hand positions & expressions, that's quite a stretch that so much work was put into a relatively minor element of the overall narrative) and, knowing how you, Blubby & other associated accounts have little capacity for logical thinking, chances would be that you'd just then leap to 'Ahah! then that's proof Richard's court case isn't real', as this seems to be the one thing you are desparate to push here, when it indicates nothing of the sort.
But go on - lets say the photos aren't genuine - then what does that mean?
How does that alter the probability tree for you?
(I know already what you'll say)
I've admitted no such activities - again, this is just you asserting something without evidence, as you generally do. And me laughing at your utter bullshit.
And round & round we go!
And no, I will do neither of those things, but you are welcome to do so yourself if they are the sort of thing you are into.
Hall rolled over & submitted for them, it must have always been a career highlight planned from the start of his public appearances.
Of course if the court action were 'real' then for the past few years he would have been working like mad doing all he could to expose corrupt mechanisms & compromised pundits..... Instead he's done almost nothing...except beg for money that he can throw away on being stitched up.
His recent silence is a sign of complicity enough, as is his pathetic lack of effort with 'updates' about this matter on his web-site. He is a man with little of importance & almost nothing to say these days..... Just look at what a rut his best mate Andjew Johnson is in as well.
If this were a 'genuine' event Hall would have been interviewed on every 'conspiracy' platform there is , instead 99.9% of them didnt even mention this.. that should say a lot to an experienced soul.
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!
I know more about it than you Boris, it only seems without merit to you because you lack substance regarding it.
You seem full of the evidence, so please prove to me that Eve Hibbert even exists, & exists in any way remotely like the images of her on social media profiles...
& also what happened to her ears in her social media posts,🙄😂
& whats the deal with the two images (alleged photos) of her & Martin in the restaurant?
You can apologies anytime you realise your error, or conceited presumption on this.. I am very forgiving 😊
Fuck off Sarahaha (who thinks she is just a bald overweight bloke!) , no one cares what you think, or write- you are a proven compulsive liar & on-line stalker .... & very likely a child molesting dog feltcher..
ALL your little troll team have done in well over 6 months now is ATTACK anyone & everyone, unless they agree with your direct attacks on Richard, or any part of the narrative you are trying to build that Richard's trial was not 'real'.
One could be forgiven for thinking that you represent the very forces that Richard, and many others of us have been trying to expose & defend against.
EDIT: It's possibly worth reminding people reading here that the thrust of Grotbags'& Blubby's initial attacks on Iain's pages was repeatedly to try to persuade people to NOT donate to Richard's legal fund.
They were initially claiming that he was collecting money and was going to retire on the proceeds, but I suspect they realised that this was just a bit TOO blatant an attack.
They have continued to nudge in that direction ever since though, but coming at it more from the angle of just throwing doubt on the court case's genuineness.
I suspect THIS is the entire reason they have been posting here - simply to ensure that Richard doesn't have the funds available to be able to mount a strong defence.
If an appeal is launched, donations to the cost of legal representation will likely make a huge difference to the strength of what is able to be done.
This whole saga has been a team effort against the dark powers that shouldn't be.
Without people's support the fight would not have been anywhere near as fierce as it has been.
I know Richard is immensely grateful for all the support people have given - I don't think he would mind me saying this.
Did Richard mind you 'saying' all the psychotic arse dribble you emitted for several months here Sarahahaha (or just a flabby, Hirsutely challenge bloke) ? As one of his followers you presented a brilliant illustration of what his 'fans' are capable of... I'm surprised Hibbert didn't use you as an example of over zealous, anti social behaviour in his case against Hall.
With friends like you Richard 'Stag Ring' Hall doesn't need any enemies.
In your comment above about me you lie as usual, its a compulsion of yours...possibly due to your Hyksos blood ?
I can speculate about what ever I like Sarahhaha, so stick it up your pouting backside & wriggle about on the fact.
I notice you are still infantile & inherently racist, writing of DARK POWERS, as if darkness is an embodiment of EVIL. What sort of feeble mind still thinks like that in this day & age, sheltered bigots, religious fanatics & social parrots..... you're a lost soul & your bleating here keeps confirming that fact, often in a hilarious way such as your mental breakdown & hysteria on Iains previous comments posts.
Firstly, I'm not a 'follower' or 'fan' of Richard - I'm a friend - big difference.
I would think though that the concept of 'friends' is something entirely alien to you, given that you are clearly a sociopath.
I don't think he would mind me laughing at your constant vile attacks here for all that time.
Are you SERIOUSLY saying that the phrase 'dark powers' is racis?
You are sooo funny!
Is that a french fry on your scapula, or do you always scream racis at any mention of the words dark or black?
If either of us is 'infantile' that particular criticism would indicate it's YOU!
Of course, let's remind ourselves that your troll team spent about a month doing pretty much nothing but what you called 'anally cursing' me. :-)
And yet again now you are fantacising about my backside - bottoms are never far from your mind & fingers are they?
Have you ever considered getting some serious psychiatric help, cos that's a really unhealthy obsession you have there!
You keep on about Richard's ring with a stag motif - you've claimed many times that's some sort of masonic symbol - do you have any sources for that claim? because I'm fairly knowledgeable about the Brotherhood, & I'm not aware of that being among their stuff. Or is this just more crap that you made up from your warped (and very limited) imaginarium? Or just inferred from the photos of that pseudo-pagan masked ball the Rothschilds put on about 50 years ago.
It's a bit tenuous if so.
I don't know what it symbolises for Richard, and I won't ask, as it may have personal meaning for him.
But a cursory search brings up the kinds of things I would expect to find;
Especially compared to the deeply dark & disturbing crap you come out with - I'm picturing little dolls made of hair & toenail clippings with pins stuck in them! Haha!
Or screaming mandrake roots & spirit cooking with pigs blood and toad's innards.
Am I close? :-)
Come on - you've nothing to fear from us here - you can bare the evil shrivelled husk where your soul may once have been - and I promise I'll try not to laugh (too much :-) )
Oh yeah, the thought occurs now that since you've decided I'm actually Sarah Plumley, does that mean I'm NOT actually a team of 8 people any more?
Or did they all have nervous breakdowns and Sarah took over running this account?
It's so difficult to keep track of the crazed maelstrom that swirls in the cauldron of your tiny mind! :-)
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.
You are asking a whole load of questions of a friend of his, not somebody who knows every aspect of 'why' Richard did or didn't do every little thing.
I'll look through your points properly tomorrow, but on a quick skim, the answers to all of them will probably be 'I don't know, but the analysis of this event has been an ongoing thing for 7 years, as new (and old) pieces of evidence have emerged and attempts are made to make sense of them'.
This was an extremely complex event with a lot of participants and many different possibilities - also deep rabbit holes like Chris Parker's involvement, a huge number of lies mixed in with some occasional truths, and tangle of contradictory evidence & changing stories between different media interviews & statements, especially after the Public Inquiry.
I'd also defend Genevieve Lewis' involvement as she gave some important insights into some of the lies which were told.
I'd have been surprised if ANY statement analysis would get everything spot on, but it appears to be a useful tool.
It seems fairly unneccesarily biting to bring every incongruity one notices to the conclusion that either Richard is dishonest & deliberately trying to mislead people for some reason or is just useless.
I'd state the example of Hibbert's IMDB page listing him as having played a bit part in 'The Bill' back in the early 2000s - that one totally got me, and I think it got Richard and quite a few others too.
I mention this one as it was cited in the court as evidence of Richard's 'less than rigorous journalism'. And, sure, it could've been fact checked by watching that episode of the programme to make sure it really was him in it. And it turned out it wasn't Hibbert, but somebody else playing that part. However, I've found IMDB to generally be a fairly accurate record of TV & movie information and, despite it even having been brought to light in the court case, Fibbert (who is quite a media personality) still evidently hasn't contacted IMDB to notify them of this error in their records - now is this all a deliberate error to 'throw people off the scent', or just some sort of cock up, which has led to people (including myself) concluding early on that Hibbert was an actor?
At least you appear to boil these questions above down to basically that old question - 'cockup or conspiracy?'
Sometimes it just isn't helpful to get bogged down in how a wrong turn was made though - what's most important is identifying definite facts or errors in order to hammer pegs in, that the whole picture can become clearer.
It's an overused PR statement maybe, but I think it's pertinent at this point in this saga, to say that 'mistakes were made, & lessons were learned'.
What I'm hoping we can do is continue to eliminate errors made & hopefully still make breakthroughs in working out exactly what DID happen. I'm sure there are still big bits of evidence hiding in plain sight, if we can just identify them.
The golden ticket in my mind, that nobody seems to ever be really into discussing is 'where are the possibly relocated people?'
If they were put into witness protection type schemes, even abroad, most of them are likely to still be alive & might have social media profiles (under new names of course) which could possibly be found.
Even just finding ONE of the supposedly dead people would blow this whole gig to pieces (if that's not a pun in poor taste).
Anyway, I'll have a look at the things you posted tomorrow, but I doubt I'll have the answers you're hoping for - sorry.
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.
You're trying to paint in two directions at the same time here.
RDH initially thought that Hibbert WAS an actor who played a bit part in The Bill.
So he didn't 'missed {that} obvious evidence' at all.
But it later turned out that is ISN'T Hibbert in The Bill, and this error was identified before the trial.
(and it isn't)
So either way - if it IS Hibbert in The Bill (as you are still claiming) then RDH didn't 'miss the obvious evidence'.
And if it ISN'T Hibbert in The Bill, he made an initial, fairly easily understandable error, which many of us, including still yourself made.
Whichever way you are trying to have this one, is self-defeating here.
The way you appear to misapply your twisted version of thinking reminds me exactly of the way BlubSturgeon's donut-brain malfunctions.
And that Ramona McDee regards everything you post as a work of genius adds to my suspicion that you are BlubSturgeon, using yet another sockpuppet account here, as I thought after your second post, when you were calling yourself 'Dav'.
If it is you Blubby, you are hopeless as a researcher & are doing nothing useful here.
Your post above, where you say 'I shall continue to post some ‘bombs’ on here that should get the Hornets nest into a manic state.', indicates you have no intention of being constructive & helpful, but intend to just disrupt, distract and irritate.
More hysteria & a whole heap of protesting too much again-
you really do appear entirely off your rocker, especially when you keep resorting to overt lies & disingenuous tirades.
''You're trying to paint in two directions at the same time here.''
must rank as one of your funniest inanities!
So, when you paint you only go in one direction!?
🙄😂🤣😂🤣😂
What a pathetic troll you keep proving to be.
btw- I can tell you as a 100% fact that Hew is not DubSurgeOn, Troll Hunter or any other friends & family of mine, nor is it me. Also I do not consider his comments ;'genius' (!) but intelligent, insightful; intuitive; logical & reasonable-
all states of mind so foreign to you that they may as well be alien sensibilities.
You are back to the insanely egotistical idea that you control me, Grotbags?
Let's not forget that I summoned you.
And that 'Nushi' then disappeared in a puff of blue smoke, to be replaced by Madam Greenface.
I pointed out specifically the illogicality of 'Huge Raper's comment, and also that his eyes & ears patently don't work if he thinks that is Hibbert in the Bill.
That has always been an issue in this- Hall is obviously never going to be as risible as Martin Hibbert...& any thinking/observant person will have realised the Mankey Event is a staged perception management game/agenda... so Hall must be a hero ?!
My (& my brothers) view is that Hall is a bit crap...peddling secret space junk, animal mutilations & missing children from child abuse rings as tedious obsessions. Serge (dubsergeon) contacted Hall about the twin restaurant images as they raised a lot of interesting issues (such as were either genuine photos or 'constructs', why is make up in the one publicised most,but not the other, etc), in effect a perfect lever to dismiss Hibberts claims as 'from a proven liar & MANIPULATOR'.
Hall ignored the messages from Serge. His 'fans' on FB etc ignored the images, Proturd Prolapse spent 3 months on a stalking campaign with strawmen & gaslighting to distract & insult us. That is some over reaction to someone trying to aid Hall... so we realised quick that Hall is probably complicit in this Theatre, just like Alex Jones was in the Theatre trial re Sandy Hook- Proturd thought the two events have nothing in common & kept saying as much ...while even BING saw the connection between cases! .. eventually after much provoking Iain Davis briefly mentioned the double image, but its nuances were beyond his truncated scope at the time!
Obviously we both wished Hall to win his case considering the bigger picture (new censorship laws etc), but found him acting in a peculiar way if he was serious about winning the case. The lack of support for his 'SITUATION' was very suspicious... you dont have to like him to support the position he is in , which is basically trying to be a researcher/journalist & free-thinking person speculating, something under threat from this inhumane court fiasco.
It is great to see another keen mind look at this from a more realistic perspective without the bigotry & bias that has crippled so such thinking about this topic/event.
Good Luck &All the Best with it! .. it won't help your popularity status tho!
I never said 'the two events have nothing in common' - I've said the State is using the two cases in exactly the same way.
I don't know if the Jones case was real or theatre - they are two separate cases though and the specifics of one are not neccessarily the same as the other.
I don't personally know Alex Jones, so I have very little way to judge for myself what he may or may not be.
But I do know Richard Hall (something you spent a long time saying wasn't true - you appear to now have moved on that position, although now I'm Sarah Plumley, apparently, rather than being James Delingpole, a team of 8 operatives, or any number or other people), and I think (with a very high degree of certainty) that his case was real.
That you refer to 'Bing' as some sort of authority speaks volumes about just how ridiculous your process of discerning reality really is.
You had the opportunity to view proceedings & meet the gang for yourself at the High Court in July, but you didn't - preferring instead to just hurl shit from behind your keyboard like the coward you are.
'The lack of support for his 'SITUATION' was very suspicious' - yes, Grotbags, it is - the mainstream alt media were also COWARDS in how most of them have steered clear of associating themselves with his case.
My guess is that they knew that the outcome was likely to be against him and, given the obvious opportunity for them to be smeared by association if they attempted to defend 'Britain's sickest man', they just allowed him to be thrown under the bus.
You & your idiot brother yourselves have done NOTHING but attack his 'position' since you started posting here, and continue to do so, apparently in any way you can think of.
This is, by your own illogic, highly suspicious, don't you think?
He's fought tooth & nail right from the start, while fuckwits like you have done everything you can to throw obstacles in his way.
You, Donut-brain, your sockpuppet accounts & acolytes have been here for months telling people to NOT donate to his legal fund, and you apparently still are.
Very helpful if he mounts an appeal - thanks a lot for that!
How the hell do you expect him to have decent legal representation without the funds to do it?
Yet on the one occasion, between barristers, when he decided to read out his own statement in court you attacked him for that too.
You're a fucking idiot, Grotbags!
There is NOTHING anyone can do (apart from agree with your idiotic, self-contradicting positions) that elicits ANYTHING except abuse from you.
If Richard had been 'interviewed on every 'conspiracy' platform' you would have concluded (as you did with his Delingpole interview) that this is then evidence of complicity and they're ALL in on the theatre.
But he didn't, and so you conclude THIS is evidence they are all in on the theatre.
You ever heard the term 'double bind'? ('damned if you do, damned if you don't')
It's a technique commonly used by abusers & torturers, which has already long since become clear is EXACTLY what YOU are.
Given Blubby is your younger brother, there are times I've actually felt pity for him as probably your first ever victim.
You also don't seem to take into account that, given this is an ongoing harassment case, your comment about 'his pathetic lack of effort with 'updates' about this matter on his web-site' is, again, ridiculous.
That he has posted the updates & further films at all was kind of courageous, in my opinion, as this could possibly have been used against him in the July trial as further evidence of a 'course of conduct, etc'.
But, again, you assert a 'double bind' - if he hadn't posted anything at all, it would have been damning. But if he HAD been posting constant 'updates' you would've then questioned how he was able to do that without the court using it against him.
That he just basically (as I see it) matched Hibbert's mainstream media appearances at every step of the process, is probably what allowed him to not have what he did post further used against him (although his later 3 films were cited) - it would've been difficult for the claimants to accuse him of talking about the case online, when they went a lot further than he did down that path, and they always did it first.
Richard was walking a bit of a tightrope on that one, and I think it's why he's stayed well off social media, and places like here. And it's partly why I am here to try to defend him against ignorant, abusive trash like you.
But you just see this now as 'pathetic lack of effort'.
Frankly, Grotbags, you're a fucking nasty piece of work - unintentionally funny sometimes, but fundamentally EVIL - rotten out with hate (& probably envy that people respect Richard's work), I suspect.
It just oozes out of every one of your posts.
But you ARE certainly 'genuine' - at least nobody can say you hide your shadow!
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!
Rather than answer with abuse, why not answer the question I asked?
Again, why are you being cryptic?
Why are you being so abusive when I have wasted my time already engaging with your crap?
What is your intent here, because constructive, sensible analysis & supportive comment appears to not be it?
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.
But you asked a very specific question and I answered THAT question.
Your style of posting is caustic & cryptic - if you want to be constructive, why are you being so combative?
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 :)
There's a triangular shape in the crease of the trousers?
Yeah, you're right - you have made it an extremely long day with your cryptic shit.
If you have something to say, why don't you just say it?
Blow my mind - who is it? What do YOU think it is? Why is this important?
EDIT: Also, as a fairly highly trained first aider, I would NEVER apply a dressing in that way OVER somebody's clothing - either the trouser leg would be rolled up, the dressing applied, and the trousers put back over it, or the trouser leg would just be cut off with scissors & the dressing applied then.
It's a blatantly obvious nonsense injury - beyond this, what 'analysis' is of benefit?
Unless there is something absolutely mindblowing you are percieving?
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.
What's even more frustrating about all this is that Fibbert went on ITV after the summary trial, very clearly stating that HE intended to make Richard suffer - HE is the one in all this who has the INTENTION of causing harm & distress.
And when you view the second or two of moving video, it's even more clearly NOT him.
The voice is also wrong for him (although technically that could've been dub[bedsturge]on afterwards.
That your eyes are SO poor at face recognition really makes me think I should just ignore your posts now, as you are wasting mine & everyone else's time here.
EDIT: This also makes me think your idea that we are living in a simulation is likely because you DO appear to be living in a different reality.
You have now been warned about this psychotic Time Vampire 'strategy' involving Sarahaha PlumLay, James Mark Court Dingleberry & other Janus faced controlled ops.
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.
It's SQL, and I didn't say 'expert', I said I've worked with databases (for the NHS & several banks in the 90s).
The bump in the actor in The Bill's nose was NOT video compression, as it was even more pronounced in the second still you posted, demonstrating even better that it was NOT Fibbert in the show.
I have a First Aid at Work qualification & learned army 'battle first aid' - I even gave you an example of WHY that dressing on Culpeper's knee was bullshit, in my opinion - you agreed.
The 'simulation' reference came from YOUR video you linked to (on presumably your 'SYME' twitter account) where you overlaid some rambling audio about 'living in a simulation' over a piece of video from Manchester - it was totally irrelevant & distracted from whatever point you were trying to make - your cryptic style is just irritating. If you don't hold with simulation theory, why overlay it onto a video you post?
Much like the Bladerunner audio & 'skinjob' reference on your Culpeper tweet - it distracts & misleads the viewer in a way that confuses the point you are trying to make.
If you want to be taken seriously, perhaps 'Huge Raper' isn't the best name to be using - it makes you seem like an idiot or a piss-taker before you've even started.
Your inability to interpret the The Bill footage is another reason to not take you seriously - ANYONE who looks carefully at that clip next to footage of Fibbert talking, without a beard & from a similar angle will see that it's not him.
You've had the opportunity here to post information, yet you prefer to play hide & seek - showing off in an 'I know something you don't know' way - are you a child?
People might take you seriously if you just posted straight, rather than playing games.
I've contributed to research on the Manchester event in many ways - I just don't crow about it like some people do!
I've also made mistakes - as have you (The Bill), as has Richard - in fact I would guess that EVERYONE who attempts to interpret events like this will make mistakes. It's the GROUP EFFORT which tends to move things forward, but you want to play the big man and have everyone playing your games.
You lost me last night (you were losing me all day anyway), for being a prick about Culpeper.
Yes, I am a friend of Richard's. I was at the court in London in July & anyone could've met me there (and him) on the Wednesday.
I don't hang out with him often, but we put our heads together occasionally to try to make sense of evidence & the still ongoing court case, which I have had some input in.
That you use pretty much ALL the same stuff against me ('Prolies', 'she', the 'Eve doesn't exist theory', & that Iain, Richard & myself are not genuine in our efforts to expose what really happened in Manchester that night) that Grotbags, Blubby & their cohort hurl around here reinforces my suspicion that you are either BlubSturgeon (although you appear slightly different in style, but that could be a smokescreen) or someone who communicates with them elsewhere. You may, however, just be another independent troll who has come to similar erroneous conclusions.
That Grotbags gives you respect & that you turned up here (initially as 'Dav', before you changed your handle to a more trolly one) just after I started posting again, also leads me to think you are part of their troll group.
You have proven nothing about me, and you are WRONG about me being either a fraud or a shill!
A 'shill' is somebody who pretends to NOT be connected to the person they are in league with - I have openly and repeatedly stated that I'm a friend of Richard's and I will defend him against the bullshit allegations that people like you throw at him here.
Again, you have defeated your own assertion - if I'm a shill who am I shilling for?
That I've stated I am here to defend my friend from bullshit like yours about him using false information & deliberately setting himself up to be attacked by Spring & Fibbert means I'm clearly NOT a 'shill'.
(Funny, because that's an error in the meaning of that word that, as I recall, BlubSturgeon also makes.)
If you're going to post 'evidence' here about anything - be better!
Your bullshit about Richard, Iain & myself is just that - unevidenced conjecture & BULLSHIT.
And I would say fairly confidently that NOBODY wants to play your guessing games - if you have something pertinent to say about Manchester, just say it!
Your little observation about Culpeper was MILDLY interesting, but adds basically nothing to the big picture, and not enough for me to want to play your idiotic guessing games.
That Manchester was a fake event & that crisis actors were a part of that has long since been proven beyond doubt - so arguing endlessly about the minutae of small details around it makes no sense, unless one is going to use that (as you are) to just attack Richard & Iain, which then very much brings YOUR intentions into stark question!
There is a lump on the bridge of the actor's nose in The Bill.
There is no similar lump on Fibbert's nose when looked at from an even closer to 90 degree angle.
That is one of the strongest reasons (apart from when he's talking it's blatantly obvious it isn't him) that the stills you posted next to each other lead me to say that you are WRONG!
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. ;)
Therein is the very core of this farcical court case, which should be the key to overturning it if an appeal is launched...
According to Steyn's ruling (my capitalisation of the word 'AND');
"Harassment is “a persistent and deliberate course of unreasonable and oppressive conduct, targeted at another person, which is calculated to AND does cause that person alarm, fear or distress.”"
The prosecution glaringly failed to evidence that RDH 'calculated' his 'course of conduct' to 'cause... alarm, fear or distress', no matter how much they claim 'alarm, fear or distress' was caused.
She foundationally undermined her own ruling on the allegation and has clearly shown it is absolutely without justification - also proving beyond doubt that the court's decision was made entirely without reference to the evidence presented.
I've just made a comment along similar lines. Kudos to you for getting there first.
How uncanny & ironic,that YOU Protrue (Sarah who is just a bald bloke really ) indulged in a psychotic spree of harassment in Iains comments pages, while the claimed harassment by Hall court case was occurring.
You proved yourself to be a STALKER & disingenuous liar multiple times, even making threats & promises of public abuse!
All that was followed by a minor nervous breakdown for you... & suddenly Sarah Plumley's work ceased for a few months.
Meanwhile janus faced turds like EverLyin' Bumsick & FannyCist Loser were also busy shouting from their soapboxes, just like an orchestra of harpies busy distracting from the hypocrisy of it all.
The whole of Hibberts case (& statements regarding his daughter) was undermined by a double image in the restaurant, but all of you are too dim & consolidated to face that fact when it was handed to you on a plate.
Recently you have all been given a lot of evidence that Eve does not exist as depicted (if ever) that even Nic Kollerstrom concurred with, yet you responded by being so paranoid, unreasonable & moronic you didnt believe it was Nic, nor appreciated the content of the claim.
Last week you were given DAME Karen FrankenStiens family connections & husbands vocation & you're still too thick to fathom what it means.
Your above comment merely states the bloody obvious, while the bigger question is how Dick 'stag ring' Hall could have been so stupid to mount his initial defence as he did, or how easily he played along with what is so obviously THEATRE, just like the screened court fiascos in the USA.
Of course there are many legal elements Hall can now employ, declaring the judgement VOID being one of the more pertinent. After all 'any reasonable' judge would consider Dame Karen's actions an act of bad faith & done beyond logical remit.
Who Judges the Judges
Who watches the watchmen?
Lol!
'declaring the judgment VOID' :-)
You actually believe your own shit, don't you?
How the heck are the two photographs of ANY possible use in undermining Hibbert's claim?
You are clearly and consistently utterly insane.
What possible USE are Steyn's family connections in all this? (whether they are of interest or not).
She's a corrupt judge - that's really the only thing that's of pertinence here.
But yes, I did make a threat - I threatened to laugh at your idiot brother (who thinks the Earth is donut shaped) in person, but he didn't turn up as HE promised he would, with a whole crew of his thug security guard mates.
What a shambles you Stooges are!
But HIGHLY entertaining! :-)
🙂😂🙄
ask the oracle....
''can a defendant claim a ruling void?'''
Yes, a defendant can claim a ruling void under certain circumstances. If a court order or judgment was made without proper jurisdiction, if there was a violation of due process, or if the judge or any party acted outside the law, the ruling can be considered void. In such cases, the defendant can apply to have the void order nullified.
To claim a ruling void, you generally need to follow these steps:
Identify Grounds for Voiding: Determine if the ruling was made without proper jurisdiction, violated due process, or involved any other legal errors.
Prepare an Application: Fill out the necessary court forms, such as the application notice (N244) in the UK, to request the court to set aside the judgment.
Submit the Application: Submit the application to the court that issued the ruling, along with any required fees.
Attend a Hearing: You may need to attend a private hearing to explain why the ruling should be voided.
Possible Outcomes: The court will review your application and decide whether to set aside the ruling.
Would you like more detailed information on any of these steps?
You write just like Norman of 911 ReVisionTwister, how many of you morons were trained by the same useless tool?
You are a hysterical idiot Sarahahaha,
I believe NOTHING , Everything Permutes- you seem keen to believe all sorts of shit though...maybe as a result of feltching all day long...is that how you make those greasy lips of yours look so puckered up as well?🙄😂🤣😂
The VOID declaration is not my idea it is from here-
so tell him what an insane idea it is.
https://mod800.substack.com/p/episode-65-a-perverted-pantomime
Hall cannot be fined more than he could pay. As he was tried for his 'profession' then it is a business concern is it not ?
Tell us then what 'fine'/costs he is eligible for?
If not tried under his profession but as his 'legal fiction'.... or representative of such.....then bankruptcy is easily mitigated, the rich do it all the time.
Can he not appeal the ruling, can it not go before a jury, can Dame
Frankienstien not be reviewed & found to have to have transgressed reason - something you do all the time? Is she not in fact in contempt of her legal jurisdiction or some such & the like?
Please apply your as yet hidden talents to such constructive thoughts , rather than mire yourself in the twisted bitterness that has handicap you for most of your balding, weight gaining existence- of a terminally bad attitude, & foul personal hygiene habits.
btw - the TORUS is intrinsic fact only you seem unaware of. My Brother never said the Earth was a donut shape either, he wrote that it influenced by Toroidal processes, again a fact beyond scientific doubt.
You kept claiming strawmen & gaslighting like a sewer about that for 4 months Sarahahaha. You also admitted being a child molester & pet feltcher when you worked on the 'From Another World' troll account that was banned by substack...the proof of which still exists, & will be shared here whenever you start morally bleating as you do, high on your well worn podium of neurosis & hysteria.
Now answer the above questions.... or shut the fuck up & piss off,
🙄😂
Your man is talking absolute bollocks.
As far as I can see, there is no such mechanism available in the UK injustice system to declare THIS ruling 'void' - this can only apply when there is a procedural irregularity.
And there wasn't.
What has been done is Steyn is corrupt and has handed down the judgment she has been paid & ordered to.
It's bullshit, of course, but the actual court procedures appeared to be followed as they should have been.
Sorry, but no - this ain't gonna wash!
That's possibly the first pertinent and interesting thing you've ever posted - not surprised then that it's not actually your idea.
I'm not discussing such particulars of the case - that's not my place to do that here.
Beyond that, as far as I'm aware, there may be opportunity to appeal the decision. However, knowing the bentness & tricksyness of the UK injustice system, I suspect there are obstacles which could be thrown in the way - we shall see in due course.
As I say though, it is NOT for me to disclose such information, even if I knew all the details you are asking about.
I've got quite a good head of hair still actually, thanks., and my personal hygiene is alright too. Who of us wouldn't want to drop a few pounds?
I bet the broomstick groans under your bulk these nights? :-)
Blubby absolutely DID NOT say that about the Earth - his actual words were that 'the Earth functions as a torus' - whatever the hell that means!
And he has been called 'donut-brain' ever since.
He still never directly answered the question what shape he thinks the world actually is (because he is totally clueless), but his illogical position appeared to be that we are told by all authorities it's an oblate spheroid, so that is logically the one shape it cannot possibly be.
It's a very similar non sequitur to how he (and you) seem to regard the Eve Hibbert question - they assert she exists, so she doesn't, despite there being evidence that she does.
I've even been tempted to say I could entertain the idea that the photos ARE digital constructions - not for any particular visual or technical reason, but as one of the possible realities of the Fibberts' timeline is that they were injured in the weeks to a few months before the 22nd May, and so the photo(s) were constructed to give the impression that they were both fit & healthy just before the bang - but this STILL wouldn't prove or even evidence that she DOESN'T exist, it STILL doesn't make any sense why they would produce TWO versions of the photo, unless possibly to give their alleged restaurant visit a touch of realism with the impression there were two photos taken at the time (and given the slight differences between their hand positions & expressions, that's quite a stretch that so much work was put into a relatively minor element of the overall narrative) and, knowing how you, Blubby & other associated accounts have little capacity for logical thinking, chances would be that you'd just then leap to 'Ahah! then that's proof Richard's court case isn't real', as this seems to be the one thing you are desparate to push here, when it indicates nothing of the sort.
But go on - lets say the photos aren't genuine - then what does that mean?
How does that alter the probability tree for you?
(I know already what you'll say)
I've admitted no such activities - again, this is just you asserting something without evidence, as you generally do. And me laughing at your utter bullshit.
And round & round we go!
And no, I will do neither of those things, but you are welcome to do so yourself if they are the sort of thing you are into.
"I bet the broomstick groans under your bulk these nights? :-)"
This made me spit out my cornflakes!
You write 'spit out' but did you not actually mean 'fart out' ?
Maybe Proturd has a thing for arse wanking itself with a broomstick, like you have one for feltching pigs & stuffing chickens?
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/
Hall rolled over & submitted for them, it must have always been a career highlight planned from the start of his public appearances.
Of course if the court action were 'real' then for the past few years he would have been working like mad doing all he could to expose corrupt mechanisms & compromised pundits..... Instead he's done almost nothing...except beg for money that he can throw away on being stitched up.
His recent silence is a sign of complicity enough, as is his pathetic lack of effort with 'updates' about this matter on his web-site. He is a man with little of importance & almost nothing to say these days..... Just look at what a rut his best mate Andjew Johnson is in as well.
If this were a 'genuine' event Hall would have been interviewed on every 'conspiracy' platform there is , instead 99.9% of them didnt even mention this.. that should say a lot to an experienced soul.
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!
I know more about it than you Boris, it only seems without merit to you because you lack substance regarding it.
You seem full of the evidence, so please prove to me that Eve Hibbert even exists, & exists in any way remotely like the images of her on social media profiles...
& also what happened to her ears in her social media posts,🙄😂
& whats the deal with the two images (alleged photos) of her & Martin in the restaurant?
You can apologies anytime you realise your error, or conceited presumption on this.. I am very forgiving 😊
'I am very forgiving'
No you aren't - yet more lies!
Fuck off Sarahaha (who thinks she is just a bald overweight bloke!) , no one cares what you think, or write- you are a proven compulsive liar & on-line stalker .... & very likely a child molesting dog feltcher..
🙄🥱
Hubble, bubble, Grotbags!
It's a good question Boris puts.
What exactly ARE your intentions here, Grotbags?
ALL your little troll team have done in well over 6 months now is ATTACK anyone & everyone, unless they agree with your direct attacks on Richard, or any part of the narrative you are trying to build that Richard's trial was not 'real'.
One could be forgiven for thinking that you represent the very forces that Richard, and many others of us have been trying to expose & defend against.
EDIT: It's possibly worth reminding people reading here that the thrust of Grotbags'& Blubby's initial attacks on Iain's pages was repeatedly to try to persuade people to NOT donate to Richard's legal fund.
They were initially claiming that he was collecting money and was going to retire on the proceeds, but I suspect they realised that this was just a bit TOO blatant an attack.
They have continued to nudge in that direction ever since though, but coming at it more from the angle of just throwing doubt on the court case's genuineness.
I suspect THIS is the entire reason they have been posting here - simply to ensure that Richard doesn't have the funds available to be able to mount a strong defence.
If an appeal is launched, donations to the cost of legal representation will likely make a huge difference to the strength of what is able to be done.
This whole saga has been a team effort against the dark powers that shouldn't be.
Without people's support the fight would not have been anywhere near as fierce as it has been.
I know Richard is immensely grateful for all the support people have given - I don't think he would mind me saying this.
Did Richard mind you 'saying' all the psychotic arse dribble you emitted for several months here Sarahahaha (or just a flabby, Hirsutely challenge bloke) ? As one of his followers you presented a brilliant illustration of what his 'fans' are capable of... I'm surprised Hibbert didn't use you as an example of over zealous, anti social behaviour in his case against Hall.
With friends like you Richard 'Stag Ring' Hall doesn't need any enemies.
In your comment above about me you lie as usual, its a compulsion of yours...possibly due to your Hyksos blood ?
I can speculate about what ever I like Sarahhaha, so stick it up your pouting backside & wriggle about on the fact.
I notice you are still infantile & inherently racist, writing of DARK POWERS, as if darkness is an embodiment of EVIL. What sort of feeble mind still thinks like that in this day & age, sheltered bigots, religious fanatics & social parrots..... you're a lost soul & your bleating here keeps confirming that fact, often in a hilarious way such as your mental breakdown & hysteria on Iains previous comments posts.
tROT ON!
as you do with such fanatisim.
Firstly, I'm not a 'follower' or 'fan' of Richard - I'm a friend - big difference.
I would think though that the concept of 'friends' is something entirely alien to you, given that you are clearly a sociopath.
I don't think he would mind me laughing at your constant vile attacks here for all that time.
Are you SERIOUSLY saying that the phrase 'dark powers' is racis?
You are sooo funny!
Is that a french fry on your scapula, or do you always scream racis at any mention of the words dark or black?
If either of us is 'infantile' that particular criticism would indicate it's YOU!
Of course, let's remind ourselves that your troll team spent about a month doing pretty much nothing but what you called 'anally cursing' me. :-)
And yet again now you are fantacising about my backside - bottoms are never far from your mind & fingers are they?
Have you ever considered getting some serious psychiatric help, cos that's a really unhealthy obsession you have there!
You keep on about Richard's ring with a stag motif - you've claimed many times that's some sort of masonic symbol - do you have any sources for that claim? because I'm fairly knowledgeable about the Brotherhood, & I'm not aware of that being among their stuff. Or is this just more crap that you made up from your warped (and very limited) imaginarium? Or just inferred from the photos of that pseudo-pagan masked ball the Rothschilds put on about 50 years ago.
It's a bit tenuous if so.
I don't know what it symbolises for Richard, and I won't ask, as it may have personal meaning for him.
But a cursory search brings up the kinds of things I would expect to find;
https://www.uniguide.com/stag-meaning-symbolism-spirit-animal-guide
All pretty positive stuff, wouldn't you agree.
Especially compared to the deeply dark & disturbing crap you come out with - I'm picturing little dolls made of hair & toenail clippings with pins stuck in them! Haha!
Or screaming mandrake roots & spirit cooking with pigs blood and toad's innards.
Am I close? :-)
Come on - you've nothing to fear from us here - you can bare the evil shrivelled husk where your soul may once have been - and I promise I'll try not to laugh (too much :-) )
Oh yeah, the thought occurs now that since you've decided I'm actually Sarah Plumley, does that mean I'm NOT actually a team of 8 people any more?
Or did they all have nervous breakdowns and Sarah took over running this account?
It's so difficult to keep track of the crazed maelstrom that swirls in the cauldron of your tiny mind! :-)
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.
You are asking a whole load of questions of a friend of his, not somebody who knows every aspect of 'why' Richard did or didn't do every little thing.
I'll look through your points properly tomorrow, but on a quick skim, the answers to all of them will probably be 'I don't know, but the analysis of this event has been an ongoing thing for 7 years, as new (and old) pieces of evidence have emerged and attempts are made to make sense of them'.
This was an extremely complex event with a lot of participants and many different possibilities - also deep rabbit holes like Chris Parker's involvement, a huge number of lies mixed in with some occasional truths, and tangle of contradictory evidence & changing stories between different media interviews & statements, especially after the Public Inquiry.
I'd also defend Genevieve Lewis' involvement as she gave some important insights into some of the lies which were told.
I'd have been surprised if ANY statement analysis would get everything spot on, but it appears to be a useful tool.
It seems fairly unneccesarily biting to bring every incongruity one notices to the conclusion that either Richard is dishonest & deliberately trying to mislead people for some reason or is just useless.
I'd state the example of Hibbert's IMDB page listing him as having played a bit part in 'The Bill' back in the early 2000s - that one totally got me, and I think it got Richard and quite a few others too.
I mention this one as it was cited in the court as evidence of Richard's 'less than rigorous journalism'. And, sure, it could've been fact checked by watching that episode of the programme to make sure it really was him in it. And it turned out it wasn't Hibbert, but somebody else playing that part. However, I've found IMDB to generally be a fairly accurate record of TV & movie information and, despite it even having been brought to light in the court case, Fibbert (who is quite a media personality) still evidently hasn't contacted IMDB to notify them of this error in their records - now is this all a deliberate error to 'throw people off the scent', or just some sort of cock up, which has led to people (including myself) concluding early on that Hibbert was an actor?
At least you appear to boil these questions above down to basically that old question - 'cockup or conspiracy?'
Sometimes it just isn't helpful to get bogged down in how a wrong turn was made though - what's most important is identifying definite facts or errors in order to hammer pegs in, that the whole picture can become clearer.
It's an overused PR statement maybe, but I think it's pertinent at this point in this saga, to say that 'mistakes were made, & lessons were learned'.
What I'm hoping we can do is continue to eliminate errors made & hopefully still make breakthroughs in working out exactly what DID happen. I'm sure there are still big bits of evidence hiding in plain sight, if we can just identify them.
The golden ticket in my mind, that nobody seems to ever be really into discussing is 'where are the possibly relocated people?'
If they were put into witness protection type schemes, even abroad, most of them are likely to still be alive & might have social media profiles (under new names of course) which could possibly be found.
Even just finding ONE of the supposedly dead people would blow this whole gig to pieces (if that's not a pun in poor taste).
Anyway, I'll have a look at the things you posted tomorrow, but I doubt I'll have the answers you're hoping for - sorry.
“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.
Hang on, Huge Raper (probably BlubbySturgeon).
You're trying to paint in two directions at the same time here.
RDH initially thought that Hibbert WAS an actor who played a bit part in The Bill.
So he didn't 'missed {that} obvious evidence' at all.
But it later turned out that is ISN'T Hibbert in The Bill, and this error was identified before the trial.
(and it isn't)
So either way - if it IS Hibbert in The Bill (as you are still claiming) then RDH didn't 'miss the obvious evidence'.
And if it ISN'T Hibbert in The Bill, he made an initial, fairly easily understandable error, which many of us, including still yourself made.
Whichever way you are trying to have this one, is self-defeating here.
The way you appear to misapply your twisted version of thinking reminds me exactly of the way BlubSturgeon's donut-brain malfunctions.
And that Ramona McDee regards everything you post as a work of genius adds to my suspicion that you are BlubSturgeon, using yet another sockpuppet account here, as I thought after your second post, when you were calling yourself 'Dav'.
If it is you Blubby, you are hopeless as a researcher & are doing nothing useful here.
Your post above, where you say 'I shall continue to post some ‘bombs’ on here that should get the Hornets nest into a manic state.', indicates you have no intention of being constructive & helpful, but intend to just disrupt, distract and irritate.
More hysteria & a whole heap of protesting too much again-
you really do appear entirely off your rocker, especially when you keep resorting to overt lies & disingenuous tirades.
''You're trying to paint in two directions at the same time here.''
must rank as one of your funniest inanities!
So, when you paint you only go in one direction!?
🙄😂🤣😂🤣😂
What a pathetic troll you keep proving to be.
btw- I can tell you as a 100% fact that Hew is not DubSurgeOn, Troll Hunter or any other friends & family of mine, nor is it me. Also I do not consider his comments ;'genius' (!) but intelligent, insightful; intuitive; logical & reasonable-
all states of mind so foreign to you that they may as well be alien sensibilities.
Now tROT ON as you do so eagerly for me here.
You know-Thanatos guides, while Kali rides you.
You are back to the insanely egotistical idea that you control me, Grotbags?
Let's not forget that I summoned you.
And that 'Nushi' then disappeared in a puff of blue smoke, to be replaced by Madam Greenface.
I pointed out specifically the illogicality of 'Huge Raper's comment, and also that his eyes & ears patently don't work if he thinks that is Hibbert in the Bill.
Have you viewed his post on it;
https://substack.com/@dav59/note/c-75588188
Do your eyes work?
What do your familiars think?
Brilliant stuff Hew, cheers.
That has always been an issue in this- Hall is obviously never going to be as risible as Martin Hibbert...& any thinking/observant person will have realised the Mankey Event is a staged perception management game/agenda... so Hall must be a hero ?!
My (& my brothers) view is that Hall is a bit crap...peddling secret space junk, animal mutilations & missing children from child abuse rings as tedious obsessions. Serge (dubsergeon) contacted Hall about the twin restaurant images as they raised a lot of interesting issues (such as were either genuine photos or 'constructs', why is make up in the one publicised most,but not the other, etc), in effect a perfect lever to dismiss Hibberts claims as 'from a proven liar & MANIPULATOR'.
Hall ignored the messages from Serge. His 'fans' on FB etc ignored the images, Proturd Prolapse spent 3 months on a stalking campaign with strawmen & gaslighting to distract & insult us. That is some over reaction to someone trying to aid Hall... so we realised quick that Hall is probably complicit in this Theatre, just like Alex Jones was in the Theatre trial re Sandy Hook- Proturd thought the two events have nothing in common & kept saying as much ...while even BING saw the connection between cases! .. eventually after much provoking Iain Davis briefly mentioned the double image, but its nuances were beyond his truncated scope at the time!
Obviously we both wished Hall to win his case considering the bigger picture (new censorship laws etc), but found him acting in a peculiar way if he was serious about winning the case. The lack of support for his 'SITUATION' was very suspicious... you dont have to like him to support the position he is in , which is basically trying to be a researcher/journalist & free-thinking person speculating, something under threat from this inhumane court fiasco.
It is great to see another keen mind look at this from a more realistic perspective without the bigotry & bias that has crippled so such thinking about this topic/event.
Good Luck &All the Best with it! .. it won't help your popularity status tho!
I never said 'the two events have nothing in common' - I've said the State is using the two cases in exactly the same way.
I don't know if the Jones case was real or theatre - they are two separate cases though and the specifics of one are not neccessarily the same as the other.
I don't personally know Alex Jones, so I have very little way to judge for myself what he may or may not be.
But I do know Richard Hall (something you spent a long time saying wasn't true - you appear to now have moved on that position, although now I'm Sarah Plumley, apparently, rather than being James Delingpole, a team of 8 operatives, or any number or other people), and I think (with a very high degree of certainty) that his case was real.
That you refer to 'Bing' as some sort of authority speaks volumes about just how ridiculous your process of discerning reality really is.
You had the opportunity to view proceedings & meet the gang for yourself at the High Court in July, but you didn't - preferring instead to just hurl shit from behind your keyboard like the coward you are.
'The lack of support for his 'SITUATION' was very suspicious' - yes, Grotbags, it is - the mainstream alt media were also COWARDS in how most of them have steered clear of associating themselves with his case.
My guess is that they knew that the outcome was likely to be against him and, given the obvious opportunity for them to be smeared by association if they attempted to defend 'Britain's sickest man', they just allowed him to be thrown under the bus.
You & your idiot brother yourselves have done NOTHING but attack his 'position' since you started posting here, and continue to do so, apparently in any way you can think of.
This is, by your own illogic, highly suspicious, don't you think?
(oh, I forgot, you can't think!)
He's fought tooth & nail right from the start, while fuckwits like you have done everything you can to throw obstacles in his way.
You, Donut-brain, your sockpuppet accounts & acolytes have been here for months telling people to NOT donate to his legal fund, and you apparently still are.
Very helpful if he mounts an appeal - thanks a lot for that!
How the hell do you expect him to have decent legal representation without the funds to do it?
Yet on the one occasion, between barristers, when he decided to read out his own statement in court you attacked him for that too.
You're a fucking idiot, Grotbags!
There is NOTHING anyone can do (apart from agree with your idiotic, self-contradicting positions) that elicits ANYTHING except abuse from you.
If Richard had been 'interviewed on every 'conspiracy' platform' you would have concluded (as you did with his Delingpole interview) that this is then evidence of complicity and they're ALL in on the theatre.
But he didn't, and so you conclude THIS is evidence they are all in on the theatre.
You ever heard the term 'double bind'? ('damned if you do, damned if you don't')
It's a technique commonly used by abusers & torturers, which has already long since become clear is EXACTLY what YOU are.
Given Blubby is your younger brother, there are times I've actually felt pity for him as probably your first ever victim.
You also don't seem to take into account that, given this is an ongoing harassment case, your comment about 'his pathetic lack of effort with 'updates' about this matter on his web-site' is, again, ridiculous.
That he has posted the updates & further films at all was kind of courageous, in my opinion, as this could possibly have been used against him in the July trial as further evidence of a 'course of conduct, etc'.
But, again, you assert a 'double bind' - if he hadn't posted anything at all, it would have been damning. But if he HAD been posting constant 'updates' you would've then questioned how he was able to do that without the court using it against him.
That he just basically (as I see it) matched Hibbert's mainstream media appearances at every step of the process, is probably what allowed him to not have what he did post further used against him (although his later 3 films were cited) - it would've been difficult for the claimants to accuse him of talking about the case online, when they went a lot further than he did down that path, and they always did it first.
Richard was walking a bit of a tightrope on that one, and I think it's why he's stayed well off social media, and places like here. And it's partly why I am here to try to defend him against ignorant, abusive trash like you.
But you just see this now as 'pathetic lack of effort'.
Frankly, Grotbags, you're a fucking nasty piece of work - unintentionally funny sometimes, but fundamentally EVIL - rotten out with hate (& probably envy that people respect Richard's work), I suspect.
It just oozes out of every one of your posts.
But you ARE certainly 'genuine' - at least nobody can say you hide your shadow!
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.
What do YOU see?
Why are you wasting people's time?
"I see a kneecap & torn trousers"
Fucking imbecile.
I notice you STILL haven't answered MY question about what THAT photo was supposed to tell us.
You keep doing this 'Huge Raper' - you past cryptic shit, then don't explain what you are driving at.
Do you think this behaviour is helpful?
Or are you, as I've thought from the start of you posting that you are here to disrupt, attack & time waste?
I answered the question you asked.
You still haven't answered mine.
What did I miss?
Rather than answer with abuse, why not answer the question I asked?
Again, why are you being cryptic?
Why are you being so abusive when I have wasted my time already engaging with your crap?
What is your intent here, because constructive, sensible analysis & supportive comment appears to not be it?
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.
But you asked a very specific question and I answered THAT question.
Your style of posting is caustic & cryptic - if you want to be constructive, why are you being so combative?
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 :)
There's a triangular shape in the crease of the trousers?
Yeah, you're right - you have made it an extremely long day with your cryptic shit.
If you have something to say, why don't you just say it?
Blow my mind - who is it? What do YOU think it is? Why is this important?
EDIT: Also, as a fairly highly trained first aider, I would NEVER apply a dressing in that way OVER somebody's clothing - either the trouser leg would be rolled up, the dressing applied, and the trousers put back over it, or the trouser leg would just be cut off with scissors & the dressing applied then.
It's a blatantly obvious nonsense injury - beyond this, what 'analysis' is of benefit?
Unless there is something absolutely mindblowing you are percieving?
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.
What's even more frustrating about all this is that Fibbert went on ITV after the summary trial, very clearly stating that HE intended to make Richard suffer - HE is the one in all this who has the INTENTION of causing harm & distress.
Yes, it's incredible, isn't it?
Even Kafka would've dismissed it as all too implausible!
You are now repeating what I wrote several months ago!
Maybe you should have actually read our replies to you instead of having endless anal spasm about them?
tROT ON!
in another year or two you'll realise how constructed all the images of EVE are & will recognise that most media is now MAYA.
Or hopefully you will have expired from prolapsing yourself in terminal hubris?
How does it feel to be an even bigger malicious stalker than Hall or Hibbert Sarahahah (just a balding, fat bloke really) ?
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.
No he did not.
That still from the show is plainly NOT him.
And when you view the second or two of moving video, it's even more clearly NOT him.
The voice is also wrong for him (although technically that could've been dub[bedsturge]on afterwards.
That your eyes are SO poor at face recognition really makes me think I should just ignore your posts now, as you are wasting mine & everyone else's time here.
EDIT: This also makes me think your idea that we are living in a simulation is likely because you DO appear to be living in a different reality.
Proturd Prolapse does it again!
The Hypocrisy, the hysteria, the bare faced bullshit!
Here's a great overview of the Chronic Moronics/ProTurd team by my brother.
-https://substack.com/@dub1/note/c-58093257
You have now been warned about this psychotic Time Vampire 'strategy' involving Sarahaha PlumLay, James Mark Court Dingleberry & other Janus faced controlled ops.
Act accordingly!
Glad you posted that again - it shows very clearly how insane you two are.
Thanks.
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.
It's SQL, and I didn't say 'expert', I said I've worked with databases (for the NHS & several banks in the 90s).
The bump in the actor in The Bill's nose was NOT video compression, as it was even more pronounced in the second still you posted, demonstrating even better that it was NOT Fibbert in the show.
I have a First Aid at Work qualification & learned army 'battle first aid' - I even gave you an example of WHY that dressing on Culpeper's knee was bullshit, in my opinion - you agreed.
The 'simulation' reference came from YOUR video you linked to (on presumably your 'SYME' twitter account) where you overlaid some rambling audio about 'living in a simulation' over a piece of video from Manchester - it was totally irrelevant & distracted from whatever point you were trying to make - your cryptic style is just irritating. If you don't hold with simulation theory, why overlay it onto a video you post?
Much like the Bladerunner audio & 'skinjob' reference on your Culpeper tweet - it distracts & misleads the viewer in a way that confuses the point you are trying to make.
If you want to be taken seriously, perhaps 'Huge Raper' isn't the best name to be using - it makes you seem like an idiot or a piss-taker before you've even started.
Your inability to interpret the The Bill footage is another reason to not take you seriously - ANYONE who looks carefully at that clip next to footage of Fibbert talking, without a beard & from a similar angle will see that it's not him.
You've had the opportunity here to post information, yet you prefer to play hide & seek - showing off in an 'I know something you don't know' way - are you a child?
People might take you seriously if you just posted straight, rather than playing games.
I've contributed to research on the Manchester event in many ways - I just don't crow about it like some people do!
I've also made mistakes - as have you (The Bill), as has Richard - in fact I would guess that EVERYONE who attempts to interpret events like this will make mistakes. It's the GROUP EFFORT which tends to move things forward, but you want to play the big man and have everyone playing your games.
You lost me last night (you were losing me all day anyway), for being a prick about Culpeper.
Yes, I am a friend of Richard's. I was at the court in London in July & anyone could've met me there (and him) on the Wednesday.
I don't hang out with him often, but we put our heads together occasionally to try to make sense of evidence & the still ongoing court case, which I have had some input in.
That you use pretty much ALL the same stuff against me ('Prolies', 'she', the 'Eve doesn't exist theory', & that Iain, Richard & myself are not genuine in our efforts to expose what really happened in Manchester that night) that Grotbags, Blubby & their cohort hurl around here reinforces my suspicion that you are either BlubSturgeon (although you appear slightly different in style, but that could be a smokescreen) or someone who communicates with them elsewhere. You may, however, just be another independent troll who has come to similar erroneous conclusions.
That Grotbags gives you respect & that you turned up here (initially as 'Dav', before you changed your handle to a more trolly one) just after I started posting again, also leads me to think you are part of their troll group.
You have proven nothing about me, and you are WRONG about me being either a fraud or a shill!
A 'shill' is somebody who pretends to NOT be connected to the person they are in league with - I have openly and repeatedly stated that I'm a friend of Richard's and I will defend him against the bullshit allegations that people like you throw at him here.
Again, you have defeated your own assertion - if I'm a shill who am I shilling for?
That I've stated I am here to defend my friend from bullshit like yours about him using false information & deliberately setting himself up to be attacked by Spring & Fibbert means I'm clearly NOT a 'shill'.
(Funny, because that's an error in the meaning of that word that, as I recall, BlubSturgeon also makes.)
If you're going to post 'evidence' here about anything - be better!
Your bullshit about Richard, Iain & myself is just that - unevidenced conjecture & BULLSHIT.
And I would say fairly confidently that NOBODY wants to play your guessing games - if you have something pertinent to say about Manchester, just say it!
Your little observation about Culpeper was MILDLY interesting, but adds basically nothing to the big picture, and not enough for me to want to play your idiotic guessing games.
That Manchester was a fake event & that crisis actors were a part of that has long since been proven beyond doubt - so arguing endlessly about the minutae of small details around it makes no sense, unless one is going to use that (as you are) to just attack Richard & Iain, which then very much brings YOUR intentions into stark question!
Have you found any of the 'dead' victims?
Now THAT would be a scoop!
Appalling trial!
Appalling researchers..
Or purposely missing the evidence?
https://x.com/Richard63240134/status/1799485308070752531
Why do you put completely unconnected soundtacks on the videos you're posting?
Why are you being cryptic?
Why don't you just come out with it & post sensibly if you have something of importance to add?
Appalling researcher!
Purposely wasting our time?
You see how this game doesn't work?
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?
I'm not wasting any more time on your idiocy.
You clearly live in a different reality,
You fail to answer questions, you have no analysis to offer.
Go fuck yourself.
I've answered your rudely put questions.
I've analysed your post claiming that the guy in The Bill was Fibbert.
I can't help that your eyes & ears don't work, and you appear to not think there is such a thing as objective reality, can I?
I won't bother engaging with your demands to answer the other questions you asked last night - it would just be more waste of my time.
Only your cryptic about us 'living in a simulation'.
And your error that you think it IS Hibbert in The Bill - it plainly ISN'T!
you have already proven to be blind as a eyeless sloth Proturd,
why would anyone take any serious notice of what you claim... oh, look , no-one does!
Why do you even bother? All you do is waste time & energy for serious researchers with your lies & distraction... oh, THAT must be why! 🙄😂
'serious researchers'
Who are obviously blind & deaf.
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.
There is no similar lump on Fibbert's nose when looked at from an even closer to 90 degree angle.
That is one of the strongest reasons (apart from when he's talking it's blatantly obvious it isn't him) that the stills you posted next to each other lead me to say that you are WRONG!
"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
Tedious & repetitive. Flogging an almost dead horse...
Disappointing work missing far too much that is now known.
However the shallow & sycophantic will pucker up & kiss your spotty arse for you as usual.
🙄😉😁
When YOU have achieved anything of note, do let us know, Grotbags.
Oh, I forgot - you wrote a long, almost unreadable 'poem' about 'time vampires' months ago.
Well done!
🙄🥱
Still fisting yourself for solace while sucking pigs dicks for supper Sarahahah?
Is 'It was so long & unbearable' the words that have haunted you most of your frigid life so far ?
tROT ON!
it's all you can do.
I only skimmed it, and it was totally unmemorable! :-)
You have such a delightful way with words, Grotbags!