There are a couple of possible upsides to this otherwise appalling judgement. The first is that any publicity the case received in the mainstream media might have drawn people into their own investigation of what up to now they have accepted as a particularly egregious terrorist atrocity. If that leads to even a few people 'waking up' some good has been achieved.
But in my view there is a second and more important benefit from this verdict. It must surely remove any lingering belief that 'fairness' or 'justice' are to be found in our courts of law. Courts and judges who participated in this farce are acting on behalf of the same state that oversaw this hoax. So why would they expose the very plot their superiors had conceived and put into operation?
If more people can see and accept that the purpose of the legal system is to uphold the state, and not to get at the truth, then perhaps real change has drawn a little nearer. But this is not an abstract philosophical matter for Richard D. Hall himself. The last couple of years must have been the most hellish of his life. He is a good and decent man who has been doggedly trying to reveal these villains for what they are. I can only hope that he takes some comfort from the knowledge that his own verdict on Manchester is correct.
Well said. One of the main reasons I wrote my book was to try to forward the argument and present the evidence while Richard couldn't. I did not want him to feel like he was a lone voice and the only person sticking his neck out. If I could add further evidence I felt that was extremely important. As you suggest, Richard was bogged down with these legal matters, which I suspect was very much part of the reason for bringing the case, and didn't have the opportunity to press the importance of the evidence. I hope, in a small way, I was at least able to alleviate some of that burden from him during a hellish time.
Iain said: "One of the main reasons I wrote my book was to try to forward the argument and present the evidence while Richard couldn't."
Your book achieves and exceeds this goal, it is an inspiring piece of work, as well as a real page-turner. More importantly, it is a public show of support for Richard which gives courage to others such as me to speak up and stand their ground.
That's great to hear Pighooey. Before this dissolves into the mutual appreciation society, I thank you for your excellent work which has also inspired and encouraged me.
Iain, you are also a good man. I don't want Richard to feel like he is the only one sticking his neck out. Knowing you can publicly support him brings me great comfort, what pains me is that I am very much of the system that stifles free speech.
For any open-minded person outside the legal profession who read the transcript of the trial, it's difficult to see how the finding logically follows from what was said in court. Hibbert's claim seemed weak and continually undermined. Hall's defence seemed reasonable. I think this was an eccentric judgement and a different judge could easily have decided to harrassment had taken place. I recently re-watched Hibbert's appearance on TV, when he claimed a piece of shrapnel had severed "the two main arteries in his neck" and another had severed his spinal cord. One might have imagined he would have bled out within two minutes. But no, he spent an hour "making peace with himself". I had to laugh out loud. He's a classic example of a narcissistic self-publicising fantasist., and not someone who you'd care to take his word about anything.
At paras 58 of the judgment, an extract of Mr Hibbert's evidence is set out, which includes that his friend (Lee Freeman) had told him (early May 2018) that Lee (not MH) had come across a YouTuber "who stated that the arena bombing had never happened". He also said that Lee had told him that the YouTuber's name was Richard D Hall and "According to the videos" (note plural not singular) "all of the 'survivors – including Eve and me – ... had been actors".
At para 59, more of MH's evidence is quoted. MH expressly states that he remembered well when this was (early May 2018 coming up to the 1 year anniversary) and "the one bit I remember of it was Richard seemed to have an issue with me talking about the number 22 … in that it, the bomb, happened on 22 May, there were 22 deceased victims, I had 22 shrapnel wounds, 22 staples..."
This is patently false for 4 reasons, namely:
1. As set out at para 50, RDH's 1st video mentioning Manchester (apart from an August 2017 video with guest Nick Kollerstrom, commented upon below) was published on 15 June 2018, which is after when MH says be became of Richard and what was said about Manchester and him.
2. Notwithstanding 1, MH expressly refers to videos (plural) but RDH only published a single video in June 2018.
3. RDH does not mention MH or his 22 shrapnel wounds in his (single) 2018 video.
4. What MH is actually referring to are videos (plural) by a completely different YouTuber (UK Critical Thinker) who produced a series of circa 40 videos about Manchester (including one focusing on all the "22" coincidences and another that focused solely upon MH and his coincidental 22 wounds).
The judge clearly realised that MH's evidence was impossible as what MH claimed he'd been told and seen (in May 2018) was prior to RDH's June 2018 Video. However, despite this, the Judge said (para 62) "Although Mr Hibbert was undoubtedly an honest witness, it seems probable that his recollection of when he first heard of Mr Hall and the content of the first video that he saw is, understandably, in some respects disordered."
The evidence that MH gave in this regard was indisputably 100% false. There is no "seems probable" about it. It is certain that not only was his recollection "disordered" but, simply, not true. The Judge makes her own excuses for a witness (under oath) telling falsehoods by saying it was disordered, which expressly contradicts MH saying "I remember it well". Getting fundamental facts so wrong brings into doubt a witness' reliability & credibility; and their ability to tell the truth. It is therefore impossible to reconcile how the Judge found him to be "undoubtedly an honest witness".
Unbelievably, the Judge goes on to re-order the "disorder" of MH by making a case for MH. A Judge should not be making a case for either party as the burden is 100% on the shoulders of the respective parties to make their own case.
To compound matters, the case that the Judge makes by re-ordering MH's disorder not only contradicts the conduct complained of (para 11) but it also blatantly contradicts the actual facts!
The Judge refers to the, prior, August 2017 video (which is not part of the conduct complained of at para 11) and states that "It is possible that that is the video that was drawn to Mr Hibbert's attention in May 2018". But despite saying that this is possible, she immediately contradicts this by saying "but there is no reference in that video to the claimants, or to Mr Hibbert's 22 shrapnel wounds, and the thrust of it does not match Mr Hibbert's recollection of the video he saw."
How on earth can she, with any credibility, say it is possible that the 2017 video is the video MH said he saw? Also, the Judge is contradicting the fact that MH expressly referred to "videos" (plural).
Worse still, if it can get any worse, the Judge expressly states that it was RDH's guest (Dr Nick Kollerstrom), not RDH, that was referring to ""funny numbers" (such as "a 22 year old killing 22 people on the 22nd")" and she had expressly stated (when mentioning that video at para 47) that within that video RDH clearly stated the following:
"I would state that at this point in time, I have no opinion on Westminster or Manchester other than I don't trust the mainstream media and I wouldn't trust an inquest. That's my only opinion at this point in time because I haven't done a personal investigation."
Whilst this is what RDH states near the start of that video, the quote is somewhat disingenuous as it omits what RDH goes on to say, namely:
"I'm not pre-judging Manchester, NICK'S GOT HIS OWN OPINIONS. I NEED EVIDENCE".
He adds more by stating that he is looking for first hand witnesses (not second hand witnesses) and emphasises that he wants to hear from any first hand witness at the Manchester incident.
So it is patently clear that the 2017 video is prior to RDH doing any investigations and he was not prejudging anything however Dr Kollestrom had his own opinions, which he (not RDH) expressed in that video. So, contrary to what the Judge stated, it was not (even remotely) possible that the 2017 video was what MH stated (in evidence at paras 58 & 59) that he was referring to that he watched (or told about by Lee) in May 2018.
Even though the Judge says it was possible that MH had seen the 2017 video (but effectively dismisses that it actually could be) the Judge has a further attempt at making MH's case by referring to RDH's June 2018 video. However in this video, RDH expressly states that he has not yet done a detailed investigation and is still gathering information. He does not say any of the things that MH states were in the videos looked at in May 2018, which the Judge has to conclude by saying:
"However, the 2018 Video does not refer to the claimants by name or show any images of them. Nor does it address the number of shrapnel wounds Mr Hibbert received."
So it was clearly neither RDH's 2017 video nor his 2018 video that MH claims to have seen in May 2018. But instead of concluding that MH has not made out his case (and his evidence was false), the Judge makes his case for him by referring to RDH's 2020 video (more than 2 years after MH claimed what he'd seen in 2018), noting a number of references that RDH made in this video that included "22" (one of which was the number of pieces of shrapnel that hit MH). On the basis of this, the Judge says:
"I accept Mr Hibbert's evidence that it was in 2018 that he first heard of Mr Hall and saw one of his videos, but the content of the video he recalls seeing in December 2018 more closely matches those which were published in 2020, and it is probable that he has misremembered the content of the first video he saw, confusing it with content that he saw later."
Words almost fail me trying to describe this paragraph! MH said he saw videos (plural) in May 2018 and the judge "accepts" his evidence that in December 2018 (7 month later than MH claimed) that he watched just a single RDH video. It is anything but probable that he confused the earlier video (August 2017, where only Dr Kollerstrom, not RDH, was expressing an opinion) and had "misremembered" (even though he said he remembered well) that the content was actually from RDH's 2020 video!
As I sated above, the videos (plural) that MH would have been alerted to, by his friend Lee (in May 2018), could only have been those videos produced by another YouTuber (by the name of UK Critical Thinker) and not RDH.
It is impossible that a course of conduct by RDH, harassing MH, commenced in 2018 because RDH did not (even remotely) mention MH in his 2018 video; and (according to the Judge) MH only became aware of any reference by RDH to MH following the 2020 video (which MH "misremembered" as being in 2018).
Furthermore regarding the 2019 Video, the Judge says the following (para 79):
"The 2019 Video does not refer to the claimants by name or show any images of them. Mr Hall's evidence, which I accept on this point, was that both the 2018 and 2019 Videos were published before he became aware of the existence or identity of either claimant."
So, again, it seems impossible that there was a course of conduct of harassment of MH, by RDH, from 2018 when she accepts that RDH was not aware of MH when he published his 2019 video and that video (and all videos prior) did not mention MH or even show his image.
Thank you so much for this excellent comment. It is little....er..... hiccups like this that I will hopefully expose in in Part 2. These become even more outrageous when we contrast the ruling with the trial transcript. As you say, it is not for the judge to make the case for the prosecution but that is very clearly what she has done.
Templar educated DAME Karen Maggot of Franken'stein is South African twat from old spunk of TEMPLAR, SIR Johan van Zyl Steyn, Baron Steyn, PC who was a South African-British judge sleeping in house of lords among other places of even less repute. He was another Rhodes Scholar at University College, Oxford. SO same mercenary Hixoss scum as always. However he seem very reasonable & considered liberal (must be a plant /shill tactic).
Karens most famous mess is Coleen Rooney & Vardy theatre until now.
This is interesting about slimy janus faced father=
''On 11 January 1995 he was elevated to a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary and was created a life peer as Baron Steyn, of Swafield in the County of Norfolk.[6] As a Law Lord he achieved prominence for his liberal views and espousal of human rights. He was a fierce critic of Augusto Pinochet's claim to stand immune from prosecution. His record of open criticism of Camp X-Ray at Guantanamo Bay led to pressure from the UK government that he make himself unavailable for the hearing on the indefinite detention of suspects under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 that began on 4 October 2004. The decision in the latter case caused the government to review its policy of indefinite detention of terror suspects and led to the equally controversial Terrorism Bill 2005. His judicial work in the House of Lords has been instrumental in weaving the Human Rights Act 1998 into the fabric of English law. He also drew upon his background as a commercial lawyer.''
Really gutted about this. Couldn't even read through the court ruling balls Richard posted on his site and which you've helpfully included here.
Of course all this is a farce and incredibly stressful for Richard, but it's clear an alternative - the truth of the matter, i.e., exposure of a false flag event (reminds me of the more elaborate Sandy Hook hoax which I only came to learn about this year) must not come to light... publicly, officially.
So much seemingly rests on maintaining this Govt created lie the outcome in some way seems entirely logical, predictable. But it was such a ridiculous case I naively half hoped truth, common sense, justice, would prevail. Yet, the Govt/agencies' spectacle secured a win (for now anyway).
There was no legal or factual basis for the proceedings brought against Mr Richard D Hall in the first place, even taking into account the terms of the tyrannical, nonsensical, arbitrary and capricious, wholly-novel particular statutory offence of harrassment upon which the legal action was based (itself a radical departure from true law (offences) based on fundamental truths knowable by natural reason, and tested over timein it's application by the proper, rigorous system of common law (judicial analysis and reasoning) involving actual cases, thus creating eitjher reliable precedent or showing logical distinction and necessary non-application.
The case, the novel statutory offence(s) it was based on, and its prosecution, together is yet another example (now commonplace across all government, wrested as it is from objective eternal truth, God's law, the natural law) of the judicial system being flagrantly, unlawfully and unconstitutionally abused to wage actual objectively-clear-and-egregious unlawful harrassment and persecution on a person for lawfully conducting a fair and open investigation into matters of grave public interest, which raise, inter alia, issues of critical importance for fundamental rights, freedoms of people, constitutional duties and power-limits of government and its agencies. One can see why a tyrannical government (not a true, lawful government but simply a part of a newly- powerful worldwide tyrannical system) will not permit such natural, normal enquiry which in uncovering factual truth exposes the operation of systematic corruption and the war against true law and justice (which obeys God and protects and upholds man in his true nature).
It is no wonder this inherently irrational and unjudicial "judgment" should not have been properly handed down in open court.
I'm appalled at the persecution of Mr Hall, as I am that of countless other persons who want to bring the truth to light in these dark times.
Yes. That is certainly something worth discussing. Especially seeing the BBC managed to get a whole article written and published after the ruling was "officially" issued in 11 minutes.
Well spotted, but how would an investigation of this fit with Iain's article entitled "the occult deception" ? That article seemed to suggest that a discussion of numerology was a red-herring and it was all a matter of who did what and when.
Personally, I see it as a "yah-boo-sucks" to us. They can (and do) keep releasing those two little ducks safe in the knowledge that if we call attention to it, they win. It gives their target audience (the spellbound masses) a giggle at the "bonkers conspiratards", and serves to extinguish any glimmer of curiosity they may otherwise have had.
Iain has noted the 22 stuff multiple times - it has blatantly been a running theme of the Manchester Arena operation.
How does investigation of numerology (beyond noting that it was involved)
help anything or anyone in ANY practical way?
I personally think matters of who did what and when is of much greater importance & potential use, than extensively speculating about the occult level of these events.
I read your numerology stuff around this event - I felt I knew nothing more of use after that.
Perhaps you can tell us how it can help?
Do you think it is useful in persuading Joe Normie that State agencies lie to them?
Because throughout history that numerology (#4, not specifically #22, #4) - as well as other forms (9s, 6s, 33s etc.) - is pushed out on nearly any news-reported event that could be faked, exaggerated, or serving an agenda. Different forms of Gematria are also usually present.
I suggest not to solely look at the event under discussion here, but many other UK and overseas events that have been used to push for changes in legislation and/or culture and/or behaviour. Simply read the standard narritive (Wikipedia is a good tool for that) and see what numbers you spot.
Westminster Bridge event; recent incident in a school in Llanelli; significant events from the 1990s; dates, ages, times and places during the Chartist uprising. Could it be open source coding signalling that the event is serving another purpose? And, "no", I am not doing it for you, or responding to any questions that you ask about them, you need to want to do the work yourself.
Both sides - legacy media and so-called 'alt media' - are using this numerology, gematria and the usual hand signs.
It is interesting that nearly everytime that I raise different points concerning gematria, my comments are usually buried with long essays from the usual frequent commentators on these boards: a comment bomardment strategy to push them out of sight of a casual reader. They may have also promted Iain's "the occult deception" article, I don't know.
Also, someone tweeted a BBC journo politely asking them about both the hand symbols they were throwing up and Gematria - blocked instantly - but not for bad internet behaviour or abuse clearly.
Your analysis of other commentators' discoveries regaring the photographs is also not accurate: As I remember it, two had been found and pointed out: one was quite hard to source, the other easy. Both versions appeared in RDH's documentary. The question was: how did this happen and could it be explained? Why didn't RDH just use the easy one which was the one on MH's twitter - if you are going to root source that would be the one that you would use. As it happened, I then sourced a third version of the photo with the two people teleported in their seats, which was perhaps even harder to find: why was that one created/published?
With all of these internet images, we don't know for sure whether they are edited, entirely faked, or accurate, on first glance - we might adduce further evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, later on. We MIGHT be able to state when they were TWEETED to the public - *if* we can trust twitter/x to accurately report the time and date of the tweet, and trust it not to be subject to doctoring thereafter.
Nobody is denying that numerology occurs & is almost certainly deliberately used in these events.
My question was 'how does it help us by focussing on it, beyond just noting when it is present?'
The handsigns stuff is also interesting, and pertinent but, again, how does it help us to FOCUS on that?
Joe Normie generally just rejects this stuff without further thought, and trying to talk about these events from the occult perspective generally just creates the opposite effect from what is desired, when I've tried & seen others trying on social media & offline.
In what way specifically was my analysis of the two photos of the Hibberts' restaurant scene not accurate?
Claims that they were digitally created have not been evidenced, that I'm aware of.
The second photo wasn't difficult to source - I found it just with a simple search engine image search.
I've spoken with Richard about the two different images having been used and he appeared to not realise he had used two different versions.
I personally think it was an honest oversight, but I'm still not quite sure how he managed to do that.
It's something I intend to discuss with him further at some point - at the time we spoke, there were more pressing issues (like the court case) ongoing, which dominated our conversation.
That you say there is a THIRD photo of the restaurant scene is actually news to me.
Are you saying that version has Martin & Eve in opposite seats?
Are you sure it hasn't just been mirrored?
Where can this be found, please?
I have a reason to not trust that Twitter/X does not alter the content of posts on very rare occasions, but I'm not prepared to discuss this further here at the moment - so I agree with you about viewing anything on that platform cautiously.
I totally agree that ANYTHING on the internet CAN be altered and, in this age of deepfakes, people are right to suspect ANY video, still image or audio could be fake.
However, tools are freely available which can expose fakery in content, & a skilled, careful, analytical eye can often confirm content to be fake or genuine with reasonable confidence.
I put the two photos of the Hibberts in the restaurant into two different photoforensics sites, and neither of them showed ANY evidence of having been edited - you are welcome to repeat this exercise, and/or post what exactly it is about the images you feel proves they are digital constructs.
As I recall you & Blubby did some extremely sketchy analysis of the photos some months ago, and failed to prove anything at all. (you blocked me from your page though, as you appeared to just not like what I said).
You also seemed to obsess about the woman behind Eve 'doing the claw hand sign' - this was exactly the sort of speculation I'm referring to as being unhelpful when people spend too long trying to interpret the occult layers in these events.
The movement of the people in the scene are consistent (to my eyes) with two photos having been taken with a second or two between them - possibly one with a flash, & the other without (there are what appear to be flash reflections in objects on the Hibberts' table in one, if you look closely).
The Hibberts themselves are almost in exactly the same positions, but not quite - if you examine the two photos very carefully there are slight differences.
My logic was that if these pictures were indeed digital constructs, the images of Martin & Eve would have likely been EXACTLY the same.
If there is a THIRD photo, I would appreciate you pointing us to the source.
The third photo showed up on the Bing search engine, which was saying that it came from another site, which it harvested (amongst others) in a keyword search. When I went to that site, the photo was not there. However, the Bing cache itself still had it.
Further details are buried in a substack post thread (not article) and I doubt that I'll find that anytime soon.
I cannot post attachments here. I'll try a link. It appears that some sort of mirroring function has been applied to one of the more regularly cited photos. I do not work with that software, so I don't know.
That appears to be the version of the photo that Martin originally tweeted, just mirrored. People do this sometimes to avoid possible copyright issues, or to prevent their posting of it to not come up on a tineye.com search.
I'll have a closer look in a bit to confirm, and will post again if I can find any more differences - with a quick look I think it's just mirrored though.
She seems to believe Hall is controlled in some manner, perhaps even controlled op, especially regarding the Madeleine McCann case.
I personally don't think Hall is anything but genuine, but I was wondering if you had any opinions regarding the Hall accusation.
I personally think it's almost irrelevant because instead of talking about people and characters we should just be talking about the evidence of the matter, but that's just me.
What do you think? Do you have any close connection to Hall?
I am not a paid subscriber to Miri so I can't comment on her post presently but perhaps she will read this. Miri lists the characteristics of a person who she considers not to be controlled opposition:
1. Never accepted any money or other favours to endorse certain people or theories
2. Every article (or video or book) represents my own original and organic thoughts, shared for no other reason than I believe them to be true
3. [Never] refraining from writing critically about certain people or theories [due to fear] of the response of my audience.
4. [Never succumbing to] threats - regardless of whether that person is a billionaire cabal member, or a random ranter on the internet.
I would ask Miri to explain how Richard D. Hall is not an exemplar of these, let's call them, principles. I have a lot of time for Miri's expressed concern that this case has been heavily manipulated and I agree with her that Hall has been used by the establishment. But I disagree with her about why and how he has been used.
Miri's interpretation of the ruling is wrong in my view. As I stated in the article the "course of conduct," deemed to constitute harassment by Steyn, was Hall's published and broadcast work that exposed the Manchester Hoax. Steyn explicitly stated this.
Miri is right to point out that Steyn vilified Hall for all manner of alleged travesties but this was vitriolic window dressing heaped upon him and not the salient issue in the case. His course of conduct was his journalism. Unfortunately, Miri has been dazzled by the BS in Steyn's ruling and overlooked that key fact imho.
Miri is also wrong about the reasons why I have not been prosecuted. I only just managed to get my book out in time for the trial. By then the prosecution of Richard was more than a year old. Had my book come out when Richard's did, and I very much regret that I didn't speak out sooner, I suspect that I may have had a claim launched against me too and I may yet.
Richard has been very well known in the independent media for more than a decade. The BBC and the Mail, for example, criticised him before he even published his Manchester book. As far as UK independent journalists go, they don't come much more high profile than Richard. He has been on the legacy media's radar for a long time and their pursuit of him is explicable for that reason.
I am relatively unknown. One of the criticism made against me is that I am capitalising on Richard's media presence. It's an invalid criticism and I see no reason to address it.
As yet we do not know what the injunction or the cost will be for Richard. But sadly, I strongly suspect that it will be severe. The idea suggested by Miri that Richard somehow profits personally from all this is, I have to say, quite absurd. Anyone who has witnessed how this case has effected him would know that. In typical Richard style he has shielded his family, as far as he can, from it. Unlike Martin Hibbert who did the opposite with respect to Eve--for whom I have a great deal of sympathy but not for the reasons suggested by Miri.
Certainly Steyn made a great deal out of Hall's "furtive" filming of Eve and visit to her home. Which, as I will explore in part 2, was completely incongruous with the evidence presented in the trial.
What Steyn did not highlight out is that Richard never broadcast any of that footage and only mentioned his visit very briefly in his book and video. By virtue of ignoring the fact that Richard is an investigative journalist and was perfectly entitled and reasonably justified in conducting that investigation, including gaining information by "other means" where necessary, Steyn was able to characterise his visit as she did. Miri has completely missed this point.
As for his book still being available on Amazon, I am absolutely certain that won't continue, given Steyn's ruling.
Having said all of that I do think Miri is right about the attention the case has drawn. I'm sure their were calculations made to what extent the Streisand effect could be tolerated. While, inevitably, it has drawn attention to Richards "hoaxed attack hypothesis" I think Miri has missed the point of the case. Something I'll explore in Part 2.
Clearly the intent was to stop Richard talking about it. This is another reason I wrote my book and published it before the trial. Now they will have to stop me talking about it too.
Like Richard, I make my book freely available for download. There is nothing to stop anyone downloading it, reviewing it, sharing it, quoting it or talking about it themselves. Then their voices will have to be silenced by people like Karen Steyn too.
Hall can only be fined what he can afford to pay in UK court system I think, in USA maybe different with megabuck figures.
Bankruptcy is easily mitigated & used all time by wealthy.
OUAT there was a legal element that could over-rule judgement made in bad faith or against the public good, as is how the case here flowered with poison fruits, but I do not know if applicable to Halls situation.
Some other commenter mentioned how Miri is also off the mark wrt to Hall's expose of the Madeleine McCann case. I haven't seen Hall's work regarding that, so I can't comment personally, but if she's off regarding that, there's no reason to trust her in her other opinions towards Hall
Her whole thesis of 'if it's in the news then it's fake/controlled' is a terribly flawed imho. Any person that might be getting annoying for the powers that be can just be presented as a loony and anyone who believes 'if it's in the news then it's fake/controlled' will just toss it away without considering any of the evidence.
Evidence in all of these things is key, and I think Miri misses the mark there
Thanks for the input Iain, and hopefully we'll never see you in the news being harrassed by the bbc or other (possible) crisis actors.
I think it's important to be mindful and wary of not falling into the trap of assuming that when accusations start flying around it means one of them is innocent. The classic trap/play is when they use multiple agents and play against each other. So Agent#1 accuses Agent#2 of being an agent, which obviously provokes discord, suspicion and even sympathy (for the victim of the accusations). Then Agent#3 comes along and exposes Agent#1 as an agent and that reinforces Agent#2's credentials. And - added bonus - it discredits any theory that Agent#1 had been promoting. This works especially well when Agent#1 had actually been telling truths.
Rinse and repeat. Whenever they carry out something successful then that success gets reinforced in their brains so they do it again. If it works, after all.
In the same vein they would get an agent to promote some perceived-to-be-wacky or emotive or whatever 'conspiracy theory', along with maybe some of the usual tropes like far-right, anti-semitic, trolls etc. etc. and then they get Agent Slazenger to do a documentary about how awful conspiracy theorists are. Maybe a book deal too perhaps. I'm sure the royalties from Marianna's book would cover the costs of the operation. Not that the likes of the Circus ever really want for money, of course. There's big dollars to be made from trapeze artistry and clowning around these days. Just ask Boris.
I suggest you make your own mind up about RDH (as you seem to have being doing up until now) and don't be influenced by others' opinions (unless supported by facts and reliable/ credible evidence). What is important is the content of what's being said (and if it is supported by the relevant facts and credible/ reliable evidence) and not who (or what organisation) is saying it.
I've read the article that you linked and I lost count of the number of unsubstantiated claims/ pure speculation and lack of reasoning by the author. She clearly has a fertile imagination, with the following being an example:
"I personally am increasingly swayed by the theory Madeleine never existed at all (the child we saw being a combination of CGI images and a child actor), and that this has been an elaborate, acted-out hoax from the start."
She then provides further speculative details of this theory and concludes that an actress playing Madelaine will be "found" in the near future, with the purpose of such being to completely and utterly demonise conspiracy theorists. She links her crystal ball/ future telling skills to RDH by claiming that he is one of the most renowned proponents of the theory that "The parents did it and covered it up".
This alone shows that the author does not have the first clue about RDH's research of the Madelaine case and/or his conclusions and she has clearly never watched his circa 15 hours of documentary films (in dozens of parts). If she had then she would have known that RDH does not give any definitive conclusion about what happened to Madelaine but merely sets out 3 main categories within which (overall) he identifies many different possibilities.
In terms of a cover up, RDH does not accuse the parents of such but identifies many different people (including the UK police and people high up in UK organisations) that were instrumental in a cover up and blocking/ hampering proper investigations.
Given that she can't even get basis facts correct then I suggest that any opinions she has, particularly when such are not even remotely substantiated, are completely worthless and do not merit any consideration, let alone any serious consideration.
This is further reinforced by her conclusion, in which she boldly claims that the MSM's "high-profile "exposés"" of RDH (including him losing this civil case) means that he will end up " vastly more wealthy as a result". The fact that RDH will be held liable for all the legal costs plus the damages that he will be due (which are yet to be determined and likely to be significant) demonstrates how much the author is out of touch with reality.
The above is only my opinion and I am not telling you (or suggesting) that you should have the same or similar opinion. It is clearly up to you to make your own mind up.
I haven't seen RDH's videos about the Madeleine McCann case, so this helps a lot. Yes, I can see RDH being fairly objective about the evidence as he sees it and not being conclusive about it. I'll have to watch it on my own to form my own opinion, but this falls in line with what I know of RDH. If this is true, which I'm leaning to believe it is, then Miri is way off.
Miri does make it clear that her theory regarding MM is just that; a theory. Personally I find it a compelling theory and would not be at all surprised if it plays out. I don't think it is simply the product of a fertile imagination, I think it comes from an understanding of the methods of the parasite class and what they are capable of. I am increasingly of the opinion that many false flags are entirely staged and there are a lot of people who are either willing to go along with the agenda or are being forced to in ways I can hardly bear to imagine.
You close by saying that you are "increasingly of the opinion that many false flags are entirely staged...", which mirrors RDH's position. Have you studied his work/ watched his in-depth documentaries?
Regarding the MM case and RDH, Miri says the following:
""The parents did it and covered it up" theory is one of the most famous and enduring conspiracy theories in the world, with Richard D. Hall one of its most renowned proponents."
This is completely untrue about RDH. If it is not due to a fertile imagination I'd be extremely interested in your explanation for how and why she got this so far wrong.
Again, if not due to a fertile imagination, I'd also be interested in your explanation for how she thinks RDH is going to end up up "vastly more wealthy as a result" of this court case and it being reported in the mainstream media?
Finally, you say that you find Miri's theory about Madelaine (that she never existed and an actress playing her will be 'found' soon "to fulfil a number of key agenda items, not least, completely and utterly demonising conspiracy theorists") compelling. Can you explain why you find that theory so compelling please?
Yes, I have watched RDHs videos on Jill Dando, Madeline McCann and the Manchester (non)bombing. I think he is an excellent investigative reporter and I have no reason to doubt his sincerity at this stage. I am not inclined to agree with Miri that there is sufficient evidence to assume he is 'in the game’, as she says. But I can consider the possibility that he may be being used as an unwitting pawn in a larger nefarious agenda.
I don’t think Miri has ever quoted RDH as explicitly stating that he believes Madeline’s ‘parents’ killed her. I think she is saying that the ‘parents killed her and covered it up’ has been a much publicised conspiracy theory. By virtue of the fact RDH has done considerable research which challenges the official narrative, he will inevitably get associated with that theory regardless of whether that is something he himself believes.
By claiming that RDH will end up “vastly more wealthy” I think that Miri is affirming she believes him to be a conscious agent of disinformation in the same way that Russell Brand increased his reach and popularity considerably after his ‘negative’ mainstream media exposure. This is not an opinion I agree with as I stated above.
I honestly do not know if Madeline McCann truly existed as an actual person or whether the whole event was a staged managed psyop involving several crisis actors, but based on what I have come to believe regarding several false flag events, I now think the latter scenario is at least plausible.
Thanks for replying and and addressing most of my points and questions.
Given that you say you've watched RDH's videos on MM then you will know (as a fact) that the theory that "the parents killed her and covered it up" is not RDH's theory nor is he a proponent of such theory, let alone "one of its most renowned proponents".
Therefore Miri's claims in these regards are patently false. That is one of the reasons supporting why I said she had a fertile imagination.
There is nothing wrong with speculating about different possibilities (on any topic) when there is uncertainty and/or a lack of facts. I suggest that this is just human nature and people do it all the time. However that is completely different to categorically making a claim (as Miri did) that is completely contradicted by the actual facts of the matter.
I find it very surprising that you set out what you "think Miri is saying", when your interpretation is not only different to what Miri expressly said but also because what Miri actually said is unambiguous, namely:
""The parents did it and covered it up" theory is one of the most famous and enduring conspiracy theories in the world, with Richard D. Hall one of its most renowned proponents."
You say that RDH's research "challenges the official narrative" but you seem to be conflating the MSM narrative with the official narrative. It was the Portuguese police that were the officials in charge of the investigation and their records were put in the public domain. Such records showed that the stories of the McCann's (and their friends) were incredible, contradictory and undermined by actual facts. These records also show that the McCanns were suspects and KMcC refused to answer questions that would assist the police with their enquiries.
So RDH was not challenging the official narrative (and documents) but actually building upon such in his investigations. I therefore cannot follow how you reach the view that his research (which does not conclude with any definitive theory but a wide range of possibilities) would result in him to "inevitably get associated with that theory regardless of whether that is something he himself believes". That, simply, does not not make any sense let alone there being any inevitability about it.
I note that you do not agree with Miri that RDH will become vastly more wealthy and his reach & popularity will increase. Her claim in this regard is another reason why I said she had a fertile imagination because what she claimed makes no sense.
Finally, you say you do not know if MM truly existed but I asked you to explain why you found Miri's theory (which culminates in her being found and "used to fulfil a number of key agenda items") so compelling. The only agenda item that Miri identified is in order to completely and utterly demonise conspiracy theorists. So, I'll repeat my question, Can you explain why you find that theory so compelling please?
I agree that Miri may be mistaken for implying that RDH is one of the leading proponents of the ‘parents did it and covered it up’ narrative. However, I think it is irrelevant whether or not this is what RDH actually believes. Most people will never look at his work by virtue of the fact that for some time he has been portrayed in the MSM as a ‘conspiracy theorist’. At the same time the conspiracy theory that the parents are part of a cover up and know that MM is dead, has also been widely spread as the ‘official conspiracy theory’. Should this conspiracy theory be disproved by ‘MM’ being ‘found’ alive and well thus ‘proving’ that the official story of the kidnapping was right all along, it will further cement in many people’s minds that ‘conspiracy theorists’ (i.e. independent investigative journalism) cannot be trusted.
You might want to look at Miri’s piece on what she actually thinks is the main reason for the MM psyop. She does not think it is simply to discredit investigative journalism.
We have got to know Richard well as a result of this case and being targeted ourselves by the dreadful Spring MI5 asset. He is a completely genuine man. His work on Manchester is impeccable. Miri is an operative involved with a few other shady types.
Stalin would blush at the state of the English clown courts. Hibbert is an outrageous liar. He was planning his own suicide prior to the Manchester hoax and probably did something stupid which MI5 could then use against him. None of the stories add up. Richard is vindicated. I hope he doesn’t give them a penny. Ignore the courts. Ignore the State. The staging of ‘terror’ events to justify wars and curtail our freedom is being revealed to the world thanks in no small part to RDH. Well done Iain for defending him. Excellent piece. We gave our thoughts on the sham last night here: https://gemmaodoherty.com/friday-night-psyop-special-on-manchester-hoax-and-richard-d-hall-fake-harassment-charge/
That was what I thought from the outset - that it didn't matter to the court's verdict what defence RDH mounted.
What mattered, in my opinion, was mounting a solid defence, which Richard did, to expose the corruption of the court & it's complicity in trying to cover up the evidence which Richard's investigation into the event brought to light.
This worked very well, and I see people on social media being drawn to comment about the 'outrage' of Richard daring to investigate the lies that were put out by Martin Hibbert in the msm after the event (such as him claiming a bolt went right through his daughter's head & that the bang occurred in the main arena space), & then discovering that the story & the court case were not quite as they thought.
The BBC & Spring, the rest of the msm, some alt media channels, Fibbert, the court & others promoted RDH's (& others') work on Manchester Arena to a FAR wider audience than would EVER otherwise have been possible, & the bad actors scored a massive own goal in pursuing that case against him.
What will really 'move the dial' now is folk, perhaps such as yourself, being brave enough to continue capitalising on that mistake & the huge amount of work that's been put in over 7.5 years so far by many people, and spreading RDH's work on this event & also Iain's book & essays written about & around the event.
Iain's extremely well-written & referenced work (free PDF available to subscribers to his website) on this has moved the battleline forward a considerable distance, and sceptical people can be educated with it's content about historic State involvement in 'terror' narratives (such as 'Operation Gladio'), and crucial details about the lack of evidence for a large TATP bomb blast at Manchester Arena in 2017, exploration of other aspects of the event, & the kangaroo court case against Richard D Hall.
Why blame Satan who is just TIME , when 'god is author of all good & evil'.
History shows evil christian hypocrites have committed more horror than any satanists, maybe you should be more wary of them Lynda, there are far too many of those scum sucking monsters about these days!
A recent study commissioned by the BBC and conducted by the Policy Institute at King’s College London found:[13]
"Notable minorities of the UK public say they believe conspiracy theories about terror attacks including the Manchester Arena bombing. [. . .] A third (35%) say they don't think the official story [about a number of different terrorist attacks] has told us the whole truth, and one in five (19%) goes as far as saying they think the victims of terror attacks inthe UK are not being truthful about what happened to them.[. . .] One in seven (14%) say it’s definitely or probably true that the Manchester Arena bombing involved “crisis actors” who pretended to be injured or killed – but that people weren’t really injured or killed. [. . .] A quarter (26%) of the public say it’s definitely or probably true that the mainstream media and government officials are involved in a conspiracy to cover up important information about the attack at Manchester Arena."
Presently, the size of the UK voting population is about 48 million.[14] The Kings College researchers reported that these "conspiracist" beliefs were more widely held by younger people and tended to diminish with age. That said, if we take the entire UK adult population, the Kings College results suggest that approximately 6.7 million British adults think “crisis actors” were involved in the reported Manchester Arena bombing and nearly 12.5 million people in the UK question the official Manchester account.
The number that know the moon landings were staged is even higher. My question is why stage this shit so poorly. And then promote that it's staged using assets like Richard D Hall etc.
There was only one outcome to this case the court would never rule that the state sponsored a elaborate bomb hoax against its own citizens but we all know that's exactly what happened hall is Britain's a Jones but a genuine journalist and person who deserves all our support. We have now entered a new future for Britain that's Orwellean and communist.
He has my full support and I will find a way to give it beyond the words of this thread. A real decent guy who values the truth. I hope he reads this comment at some point.
Language matters and how you can claim this is communism is beyond me when the prevailing system we live under is Capitalism! So it maybe totalitarianism or fascism but it’s certainly not communism!
How is the system we are in is capitalism when Hollywood, Disney, and other forms of media including journalism have not turned a profit in years. Whatever label you wish to put on it the outcome of them will basically be the same.
There are a couple of possible upsides to this otherwise appalling judgement. The first is that any publicity the case received in the mainstream media might have drawn people into their own investigation of what up to now they have accepted as a particularly egregious terrorist atrocity. If that leads to even a few people 'waking up' some good has been achieved.
But in my view there is a second and more important benefit from this verdict. It must surely remove any lingering belief that 'fairness' or 'justice' are to be found in our courts of law. Courts and judges who participated in this farce are acting on behalf of the same state that oversaw this hoax. So why would they expose the very plot their superiors had conceived and put into operation?
If more people can see and accept that the purpose of the legal system is to uphold the state, and not to get at the truth, then perhaps real change has drawn a little nearer. But this is not an abstract philosophical matter for Richard D. Hall himself. The last couple of years must have been the most hellish of his life. He is a good and decent man who has been doggedly trying to reveal these villains for what they are. I can only hope that he takes some comfort from the knowledge that his own verdict on Manchester is correct.
Well said. One of the main reasons I wrote my book was to try to forward the argument and present the evidence while Richard couldn't. I did not want him to feel like he was a lone voice and the only person sticking his neck out. If I could add further evidence I felt that was extremely important. As you suggest, Richard was bogged down with these legal matters, which I suspect was very much part of the reason for bringing the case, and didn't have the opportunity to press the importance of the evidence. I hope, in a small way, I was at least able to alleviate some of that burden from him during a hellish time.
Iain said: "One of the main reasons I wrote my book was to try to forward the argument and present the evidence while Richard couldn't."
Your book achieves and exceeds this goal, it is an inspiring piece of work, as well as a real page-turner. More importantly, it is a public show of support for Richard which gives courage to others such as me to speak up and stand their ground.
That's great to hear Pighooey. Before this dissolves into the mutual appreciation society, I thank you for your excellent work which has also inspired and encouraged me.
Iain, you are also a good man. I don't want Richard to feel like he is the only one sticking his neck out. Knowing you can publicly support him brings me great comfort, what pains me is that I am very much of the system that stifles free speech.
For any open-minded person outside the legal profession who read the transcript of the trial, it's difficult to see how the finding logically follows from what was said in court. Hibbert's claim seemed weak and continually undermined. Hall's defence seemed reasonable. I think this was an eccentric judgement and a different judge could easily have decided to harrassment had taken place. I recently re-watched Hibbert's appearance on TV, when he claimed a piece of shrapnel had severed "the two main arteries in his neck" and another had severed his spinal cord. One might have imagined he would have bled out within two minutes. But no, he spent an hour "making peace with himself". I had to laugh out loud. He's a classic example of a narcissistic self-publicising fantasist., and not someone who you'd care to take his word about anything.
This is like a very bad B movie with half the script lost down the toilet.
At paras 58 of the judgment, an extract of Mr Hibbert's evidence is set out, which includes that his friend (Lee Freeman) had told him (early May 2018) that Lee (not MH) had come across a YouTuber "who stated that the arena bombing had never happened". He also said that Lee had told him that the YouTuber's name was Richard D Hall and "According to the videos" (note plural not singular) "all of the 'survivors – including Eve and me – ... had been actors".
At para 59, more of MH's evidence is quoted. MH expressly states that he remembered well when this was (early May 2018 coming up to the 1 year anniversary) and "the one bit I remember of it was Richard seemed to have an issue with me talking about the number 22 … in that it, the bomb, happened on 22 May, there were 22 deceased victims, I had 22 shrapnel wounds, 22 staples..."
This is patently false for 4 reasons, namely:
1. As set out at para 50, RDH's 1st video mentioning Manchester (apart from an August 2017 video with guest Nick Kollerstrom, commented upon below) was published on 15 June 2018, which is after when MH says be became of Richard and what was said about Manchester and him.
2. Notwithstanding 1, MH expressly refers to videos (plural) but RDH only published a single video in June 2018.
3. RDH does not mention MH or his 22 shrapnel wounds in his (single) 2018 video.
4. What MH is actually referring to are videos (plural) by a completely different YouTuber (UK Critical Thinker) who produced a series of circa 40 videos about Manchester (including one focusing on all the "22" coincidences and another that focused solely upon MH and his coincidental 22 wounds).
The judge clearly realised that MH's evidence was impossible as what MH claimed he'd been told and seen (in May 2018) was prior to RDH's June 2018 Video. However, despite this, the Judge said (para 62) "Although Mr Hibbert was undoubtedly an honest witness, it seems probable that his recollection of when he first heard of Mr Hall and the content of the first video that he saw is, understandably, in some respects disordered."
The evidence that MH gave in this regard was indisputably 100% false. There is no "seems probable" about it. It is certain that not only was his recollection "disordered" but, simply, not true. The Judge makes her own excuses for a witness (under oath) telling falsehoods by saying it was disordered, which expressly contradicts MH saying "I remember it well". Getting fundamental facts so wrong brings into doubt a witness' reliability & credibility; and their ability to tell the truth. It is therefore impossible to reconcile how the Judge found him to be "undoubtedly an honest witness".
Unbelievably, the Judge goes on to re-order the "disorder" of MH by making a case for MH. A Judge should not be making a case for either party as the burden is 100% on the shoulders of the respective parties to make their own case.
To compound matters, the case that the Judge makes by re-ordering MH's disorder not only contradicts the conduct complained of (para 11) but it also blatantly contradicts the actual facts!
The Judge refers to the, prior, August 2017 video (which is not part of the conduct complained of at para 11) and states that "It is possible that that is the video that was drawn to Mr Hibbert's attention in May 2018". But despite saying that this is possible, she immediately contradicts this by saying "but there is no reference in that video to the claimants, or to Mr Hibbert's 22 shrapnel wounds, and the thrust of it does not match Mr Hibbert's recollection of the video he saw."
How on earth can she, with any credibility, say it is possible that the 2017 video is the video MH said he saw? Also, the Judge is contradicting the fact that MH expressly referred to "videos" (plural).
Worse still, if it can get any worse, the Judge expressly states that it was RDH's guest (Dr Nick Kollerstrom), not RDH, that was referring to ""funny numbers" (such as "a 22 year old killing 22 people on the 22nd")" and she had expressly stated (when mentioning that video at para 47) that within that video RDH clearly stated the following:
"I would state that at this point in time, I have no opinion on Westminster or Manchester other than I don't trust the mainstream media and I wouldn't trust an inquest. That's my only opinion at this point in time because I haven't done a personal investigation."
Whilst this is what RDH states near the start of that video, the quote is somewhat disingenuous as it omits what RDH goes on to say, namely:
"I'm not pre-judging Manchester, NICK'S GOT HIS OWN OPINIONS. I NEED EVIDENCE".
He adds more by stating that he is looking for first hand witnesses (not second hand witnesses) and emphasises that he wants to hear from any first hand witness at the Manchester incident.
So it is patently clear that the 2017 video is prior to RDH doing any investigations and he was not prejudging anything however Dr Kollestrom had his own opinions, which he (not RDH) expressed in that video. So, contrary to what the Judge stated, it was not (even remotely) possible that the 2017 video was what MH stated (in evidence at paras 58 & 59) that he was referring to that he watched (or told about by Lee) in May 2018.
Even though the Judge says it was possible that MH had seen the 2017 video (but effectively dismisses that it actually could be) the Judge has a further attempt at making MH's case by referring to RDH's June 2018 video. However in this video, RDH expressly states that he has not yet done a detailed investigation and is still gathering information. He does not say any of the things that MH states were in the videos looked at in May 2018, which the Judge has to conclude by saying:
"However, the 2018 Video does not refer to the claimants by name or show any images of them. Nor does it address the number of shrapnel wounds Mr Hibbert received."
So it was clearly neither RDH's 2017 video nor his 2018 video that MH claims to have seen in May 2018. But instead of concluding that MH has not made out his case (and his evidence was false), the Judge makes his case for him by referring to RDH's 2020 video (more than 2 years after MH claimed what he'd seen in 2018), noting a number of references that RDH made in this video that included "22" (one of which was the number of pieces of shrapnel that hit MH). On the basis of this, the Judge says:
"I accept Mr Hibbert's evidence that it was in 2018 that he first heard of Mr Hall and saw one of his videos, but the content of the video he recalls seeing in December 2018 more closely matches those which were published in 2020, and it is probable that he has misremembered the content of the first video he saw, confusing it with content that he saw later."
Words almost fail me trying to describe this paragraph! MH said he saw videos (plural) in May 2018 and the judge "accepts" his evidence that in December 2018 (7 month later than MH claimed) that he watched just a single RDH video. It is anything but probable that he confused the earlier video (August 2017, where only Dr Kollerstrom, not RDH, was expressing an opinion) and had "misremembered" (even though he said he remembered well) that the content was actually from RDH's 2020 video!
As I sated above, the videos (plural) that MH would have been alerted to, by his friend Lee (in May 2018), could only have been those videos produced by another YouTuber (by the name of UK Critical Thinker) and not RDH.
It is impossible that a course of conduct by RDH, harassing MH, commenced in 2018 because RDH did not (even remotely) mention MH in his 2018 video; and (according to the Judge) MH only became aware of any reference by RDH to MH following the 2020 video (which MH "misremembered" as being in 2018).
Furthermore regarding the 2019 Video, the Judge says the following (para 79):
"The 2019 Video does not refer to the claimants by name or show any images of them. Mr Hall's evidence, which I accept on this point, was that both the 2018 and 2019 Videos were published before he became aware of the existence or identity of either claimant."
So, again, it seems impossible that there was a course of conduct of harassment of MH, by RDH, from 2018 when she accepts that RDH was not aware of MH when he published his 2019 video and that video (and all videos prior) did not mention MH or even show his image.
Thank you so much for this excellent comment. It is little....er..... hiccups like this that I will hopefully expose in in Part 2. These become even more outrageous when we contrast the ruling with the trial transcript. As you say, it is not for the judge to make the case for the prosecution but that is very clearly what she has done.
Money has loud voice.
Compromise is compulsive.
Family history cemented.
Templar educated DAME Karen Maggot of Franken'stein is South African twat from old spunk of TEMPLAR, SIR Johan van Zyl Steyn, Baron Steyn, PC who was a South African-British judge sleeping in house of lords among other places of even less repute. He was another Rhodes Scholar at University College, Oxford. SO same mercenary Hixoss scum as always. However he seem very reasonable & considered liberal (must be a plant /shill tactic).
Karens most famous mess is Coleen Rooney & Vardy theatre until now.
This is interesting about slimy janus faced father=
''On 11 January 1995 he was elevated to a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary and was created a life peer as Baron Steyn, of Swafield in the County of Norfolk.[6] As a Law Lord he achieved prominence for his liberal views and espousal of human rights. He was a fierce critic of Augusto Pinochet's claim to stand immune from prosecution. His record of open criticism of Camp X-Ray at Guantanamo Bay led to pressure from the UK government that he make himself unavailable for the hearing on the indefinite detention of suspects under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 that began on 4 October 2004. The decision in the latter case caused the government to review its policy of indefinite detention of terror suspects and led to the equally controversial Terrorism Bill 2005. His judicial work in the House of Lords has been instrumental in weaving the Human Rights Act 1998 into the fabric of English law. He also drew upon his background as a commercial lawyer.''
from wikipedea
Now everyone have good laugh with bitter tears.
Really gutted about this. Couldn't even read through the court ruling balls Richard posted on his site and which you've helpfully included here.
Of course all this is a farce and incredibly stressful for Richard, but it's clear an alternative - the truth of the matter, i.e., exposure of a false flag event (reminds me of the more elaborate Sandy Hook hoax which I only came to learn about this year) must not come to light... publicly, officially.
So much seemingly rests on maintaining this Govt created lie the outcome in some way seems entirely logical, predictable. But it was such a ridiculous case I naively half hoped truth, common sense, justice, would prevail. Yet, the Govt/agencies' spectacle secured a win (for now anyway).
Thanks very much for your work on this Iain.
Out of interest, what was your source for Sandy Hook?
Thank you for such a clear and thorough analysis Iain. Real journalism is under attack unfortunately, but you, Richard et al are really appreciated.
There was no legal or factual basis for the proceedings brought against Mr Richard D Hall in the first place, even taking into account the terms of the tyrannical, nonsensical, arbitrary and capricious, wholly-novel particular statutory offence of harrassment upon which the legal action was based (itself a radical departure from true law (offences) based on fundamental truths knowable by natural reason, and tested over timein it's application by the proper, rigorous system of common law (judicial analysis and reasoning) involving actual cases, thus creating eitjher reliable precedent or showing logical distinction and necessary non-application.
The case, the novel statutory offence(s) it was based on, and its prosecution, together is yet another example (now commonplace across all government, wrested as it is from objective eternal truth, God's law, the natural law) of the judicial system being flagrantly, unlawfully and unconstitutionally abused to wage actual objectively-clear-and-egregious unlawful harrassment and persecution on a person for lawfully conducting a fair and open investigation into matters of grave public interest, which raise, inter alia, issues of critical importance for fundamental rights, freedoms of people, constitutional duties and power-limits of government and its agencies. One can see why a tyrannical government (not a true, lawful government but simply a part of a newly- powerful worldwide tyrannical system) will not permit such natural, normal enquiry which in uncovering factual truth exposes the operation of systematic corruption and the war against true law and justice (which obeys God and protects and upholds man in his true nature).
It is no wonder this inherently irrational and unjudicial "judgment" should not have been properly handed down in open court.
I'm appalled at the persecution of Mr Hall, as I am that of countless other persons who want to bring the truth to light in these dark times.
God bless.
Lynda Finneran
I've just noticed that the date on the Judgement document is the 22nd October...
Yes. That is certainly something worth discussing. Especially seeing the BBC managed to get a whole article written and published after the ruling was "officially" issued in 11 minutes.
Well spotted, but how would an investigation of this fit with Iain's article entitled "the occult deception" ? That article seemed to suggest that a discussion of numerology was a red-herring and it was all a matter of who did what and when.
Personally, I see it as a "yah-boo-sucks" to us. They can (and do) keep releasing those two little ducks safe in the knowledge that if we call attention to it, they win. It gives their target audience (the spellbound masses) a giggle at the "bonkers conspiratards", and serves to extinguish any glimmer of curiosity they may otherwise have had.
Iain has noted the 22 stuff multiple times - it has blatantly been a running theme of the Manchester Arena operation.
How does investigation of numerology (beyond noting that it was involved)
help anything or anyone in ANY practical way?
I personally think matters of who did what and when is of much greater importance & potential use, than extensively speculating about the occult level of these events.
I read your numerology stuff around this event - I felt I knew nothing more of use after that.
Perhaps you can tell us how it can help?
Do you think it is useful in persuading Joe Normie that State agencies lie to them?
Because throughout history that numerology (#4, not specifically #22, #4) - as well as other forms (9s, 6s, 33s etc.) - is pushed out on nearly any news-reported event that could be faked, exaggerated, or serving an agenda. Different forms of Gematria are also usually present.
I suggest not to solely look at the event under discussion here, but many other UK and overseas events that have been used to push for changes in legislation and/or culture and/or behaviour. Simply read the standard narritive (Wikipedia is a good tool for that) and see what numbers you spot.
Westminster Bridge event; recent incident in a school in Llanelli; significant events from the 1990s; dates, ages, times and places during the Chartist uprising. Could it be open source coding signalling that the event is serving another purpose? And, "no", I am not doing it for you, or responding to any questions that you ask about them, you need to want to do the work yourself.
Both sides - legacy media and so-called 'alt media' - are using this numerology, gematria and the usual hand signs.
It is interesting that nearly everytime that I raise different points concerning gematria, my comments are usually buried with long essays from the usual frequent commentators on these boards: a comment bomardment strategy to push them out of sight of a casual reader. They may have also promted Iain's "the occult deception" article, I don't know.
Also, someone tweeted a BBC journo politely asking them about both the hand symbols they were throwing up and Gematria - blocked instantly - but not for bad internet behaviour or abuse clearly.
Your analysis of other commentators' discoveries regaring the photographs is also not accurate: As I remember it, two had been found and pointed out: one was quite hard to source, the other easy. Both versions appeared in RDH's documentary. The question was: how did this happen and could it be explained? Why didn't RDH just use the easy one which was the one on MH's twitter - if you are going to root source that would be the one that you would use. As it happened, I then sourced a third version of the photo with the two people teleported in their seats, which was perhaps even harder to find: why was that one created/published?
With all of these internet images, we don't know for sure whether they are edited, entirely faked, or accurate, on first glance - we might adduce further evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, later on. We MIGHT be able to state when they were TWEETED to the public - *if* we can trust twitter/x to accurately report the time and date of the tweet, and trust it not to be subject to doctoring thereafter.
Nobody is denying that numerology occurs & is almost certainly deliberately used in these events.
My question was 'how does it help us by focussing on it, beyond just noting when it is present?'
The handsigns stuff is also interesting, and pertinent but, again, how does it help us to FOCUS on that?
Joe Normie generally just rejects this stuff without further thought, and trying to talk about these events from the occult perspective generally just creates the opposite effect from what is desired, when I've tried & seen others trying on social media & offline.
In what way specifically was my analysis of the two photos of the Hibberts' restaurant scene not accurate?
Claims that they were digitally created have not been evidenced, that I'm aware of.
The second photo wasn't difficult to source - I found it just with a simple search engine image search.
I've spoken with Richard about the two different images having been used and he appeared to not realise he had used two different versions.
I personally think it was an honest oversight, but I'm still not quite sure how he managed to do that.
It's something I intend to discuss with him further at some point - at the time we spoke, there were more pressing issues (like the court case) ongoing, which dominated our conversation.
That you say there is a THIRD photo of the restaurant scene is actually news to me.
Are you saying that version has Martin & Eve in opposite seats?
Are you sure it hasn't just been mirrored?
Where can this be found, please?
I have a reason to not trust that Twitter/X does not alter the content of posts on very rare occasions, but I'm not prepared to discuss this further here at the moment - so I agree with you about viewing anything on that platform cautiously.
I totally agree that ANYTHING on the internet CAN be altered and, in this age of deepfakes, people are right to suspect ANY video, still image or audio could be fake.
However, tools are freely available which can expose fakery in content, & a skilled, careful, analytical eye can often confirm content to be fake or genuine with reasonable confidence.
I put the two photos of the Hibberts in the restaurant into two different photoforensics sites, and neither of them showed ANY evidence of having been edited - you are welcome to repeat this exercise, and/or post what exactly it is about the images you feel proves they are digital constructs.
As I recall you & Blubby did some extremely sketchy analysis of the photos some months ago, and failed to prove anything at all. (you blocked me from your page though, as you appeared to just not like what I said).
You also seemed to obsess about the woman behind Eve 'doing the claw hand sign' - this was exactly the sort of speculation I'm referring to as being unhelpful when people spend too long trying to interpret the occult layers in these events.
The movement of the people in the scene are consistent (to my eyes) with two photos having been taken with a second or two between them - possibly one with a flash, & the other without (there are what appear to be flash reflections in objects on the Hibberts' table in one, if you look closely).
The Hibberts themselves are almost in exactly the same positions, but not quite - if you examine the two photos very carefully there are slight differences.
My logic was that if these pictures were indeed digital constructs, the images of Martin & Eve would have likely been EXACTLY the same.
If there is a THIRD photo, I would appreciate you pointing us to the source.
Thanks.
The third photo showed up on the Bing search engine, which was saying that it came from another site, which it harvested (amongst others) in a keyword search. When I went to that site, the photo was not there. However, the Bing cache itself still had it.
Further details are buried in a substack post thread (not article) and I doubt that I'll find that anytime soon.
I cannot post attachments here. I'll try a link. It appears that some sort of mirroring function has been applied to one of the more regularly cited photos. I do not work with that software, so I don't know.
https://imgur.com/a/fvUqD59
Just to confirm that the photo you posted a link to is indeed the originally tweeted one, horizontally flipped.
I thought I'd post again though, as I just found a site to compare two photos - potentially really useful tool, this is;
https://www.diffchecker.com/
Just upload the two pictures to the site & it will do a comparison analysis.
Got it.
That appears to be the version of the photo that Martin originally tweeted, just mirrored. People do this sometimes to avoid possible copyright issues, or to prevent their posting of it to not come up on a tineye.com search.
I'll have a closer look in a bit to confirm, and will post again if I can find any more differences - with a quick look I think it's just mirrored though.
Cheers.
State (Government) agencies using numerology?
My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
So Joe Normie may not be interested in “22” eh?
I welcome your attempts to interest Joe Normie in numerology.
Good luck with that!
Please do post here sharing your successes when you have them.
What a surprise
Are you another new BlubSturgeon sockpuppet, by any chance?
I will be treating you as such unless I see anything to make me think differently.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
I made a comment as to the "22nd" i.e. that magical number popping up again.
There are people here (two in particular - a brother & sister team, apparently) who use multiple sockpuppet accounts.
You may not be the brother, but I'm watching people's posts here carefully at the moment for games, and will call them out if I see them.
My apologies if you are not the guy I suspected you are.
Apology accepted.
I have been following this event right from the beginning, but only found this blog a short while ago as I have been away from any internet access.
Great reporting Iain
I was wondering... Do you have any opinion on the thoughts of Miri AF? As depicted here:
https://miri.substack.com/p/controlled-freaks?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=384935&post_id=150724243&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=xafil&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
She seems to believe Hall is controlled in some manner, perhaps even controlled op, especially regarding the Madeleine McCann case.
I personally don't think Hall is anything but genuine, but I was wondering if you had any opinions regarding the Hall accusation.
I personally think it's almost irrelevant because instead of talking about people and characters we should just be talking about the evidence of the matter, but that's just me.
What do you think? Do you have any close connection to Hall?
Cheers
I
I am not a paid subscriber to Miri so I can't comment on her post presently but perhaps she will read this. Miri lists the characteristics of a person who she considers not to be controlled opposition:
1. Never accepted any money or other favours to endorse certain people or theories
2. Every article (or video or book) represents my own original and organic thoughts, shared for no other reason than I believe them to be true
3. [Never] refraining from writing critically about certain people or theories [due to fear] of the response of my audience.
4. [Never succumbing to] threats - regardless of whether that person is a billionaire cabal member, or a random ranter on the internet.
I would ask Miri to explain how Richard D. Hall is not an exemplar of these, let's call them, principles. I have a lot of time for Miri's expressed concern that this case has been heavily manipulated and I agree with her that Hall has been used by the establishment. But I disagree with her about why and how he has been used.
Miri's interpretation of the ruling is wrong in my view. As I stated in the article the "course of conduct," deemed to constitute harassment by Steyn, was Hall's published and broadcast work that exposed the Manchester Hoax. Steyn explicitly stated this.
Miri is right to point out that Steyn vilified Hall for all manner of alleged travesties but this was vitriolic window dressing heaped upon him and not the salient issue in the case. His course of conduct was his journalism. Unfortunately, Miri has been dazzled by the BS in Steyn's ruling and overlooked that key fact imho.
Miri is also wrong about the reasons why I have not been prosecuted. I only just managed to get my book out in time for the trial. By then the prosecution of Richard was more than a year old. Had my book come out when Richard's did, and I very much regret that I didn't speak out sooner, I suspect that I may have had a claim launched against me too and I may yet.
Richard has been very well known in the independent media for more than a decade. The BBC and the Mail, for example, criticised him before he even published his Manchester book. As far as UK independent journalists go, they don't come much more high profile than Richard. He has been on the legacy media's radar for a long time and their pursuit of him is explicable for that reason.
I am relatively unknown. One of the criticism made against me is that I am capitalising on Richard's media presence. It's an invalid criticism and I see no reason to address it.
As yet we do not know what the injunction or the cost will be for Richard. But sadly, I strongly suspect that it will be severe. The idea suggested by Miri that Richard somehow profits personally from all this is, I have to say, quite absurd. Anyone who has witnessed how this case has effected him would know that. In typical Richard style he has shielded his family, as far as he can, from it. Unlike Martin Hibbert who did the opposite with respect to Eve--for whom I have a great deal of sympathy but not for the reasons suggested by Miri.
Certainly Steyn made a great deal out of Hall's "furtive" filming of Eve and visit to her home. Which, as I will explore in part 2, was completely incongruous with the evidence presented in the trial.
What Steyn did not highlight out is that Richard never broadcast any of that footage and only mentioned his visit very briefly in his book and video. By virtue of ignoring the fact that Richard is an investigative journalist and was perfectly entitled and reasonably justified in conducting that investigation, including gaining information by "other means" where necessary, Steyn was able to characterise his visit as she did. Miri has completely missed this point.
As for his book still being available on Amazon, I am absolutely certain that won't continue, given Steyn's ruling.
Having said all of that I do think Miri is right about the attention the case has drawn. I'm sure their were calculations made to what extent the Streisand effect could be tolerated. While, inevitably, it has drawn attention to Richards "hoaxed attack hypothesis" I think Miri has missed the point of the case. Something I'll explore in Part 2.
Clearly the intent was to stop Richard talking about it. This is another reason I wrote my book and published it before the trial. Now they will have to stop me talking about it too.
Like Richard, I make my book freely available for download. There is nothing to stop anyone downloading it, reviewing it, sharing it, quoting it or talking about it themselves. Then their voices will have to be silenced by people like Karen Steyn too.
Heavy hint intended.
Hall can only be fined what he can afford to pay in UK court system I think, in USA maybe different with megabuck figures.
Bankruptcy is easily mitigated & used all time by wealthy.
OUAT there was a legal element that could over-rule judgement made in bad faith or against the public good, as is how the case here flowered with poison fruits, but I do not know if applicable to Halls situation.
Thanks for the thorough reply, Iain.
Some other commenter mentioned how Miri is also off the mark wrt to Hall's expose of the Madeleine McCann case. I haven't seen Hall's work regarding that, so I can't comment personally, but if she's off regarding that, there's no reason to trust her in her other opinions towards Hall
Her whole thesis of 'if it's in the news then it's fake/controlled' is a terribly flawed imho. Any person that might be getting annoying for the powers that be can just be presented as a loony and anyone who believes 'if it's in the news then it's fake/controlled' will just toss it away without considering any of the evidence.
Evidence in all of these things is key, and I think Miri misses the mark there
Thanks for the input Iain, and hopefully we'll never see you in the news being harrassed by the bbc or other (possible) crisis actors.
I think it's important to be mindful and wary of not falling into the trap of assuming that when accusations start flying around it means one of them is innocent. The classic trap/play is when they use multiple agents and play against each other. So Agent#1 accuses Agent#2 of being an agent, which obviously provokes discord, suspicion and even sympathy (for the victim of the accusations). Then Agent#3 comes along and exposes Agent#1 as an agent and that reinforces Agent#2's credentials. And - added bonus - it discredits any theory that Agent#1 had been promoting. This works especially well when Agent#1 had actually been telling truths.
Rinse and repeat. Whenever they carry out something successful then that success gets reinforced in their brains so they do it again. If it works, after all.
In the same vein they would get an agent to promote some perceived-to-be-wacky or emotive or whatever 'conspiracy theory', along with maybe some of the usual tropes like far-right, anti-semitic, trolls etc. etc. and then they get Agent Slazenger to do a documentary about how awful conspiracy theorists are. Maybe a book deal too perhaps. I'm sure the royalties from Marianna's book would cover the costs of the operation. Not that the likes of the Circus ever really want for money, of course. There's big dollars to be made from trapeze artistry and clowning around these days. Just ask Boris.
I suggest you make your own mind up about RDH (as you seem to have being doing up until now) and don't be influenced by others' opinions (unless supported by facts and reliable/ credible evidence). What is important is the content of what's being said (and if it is supported by the relevant facts and credible/ reliable evidence) and not who (or what organisation) is saying it.
I've read the article that you linked and I lost count of the number of unsubstantiated claims/ pure speculation and lack of reasoning by the author. She clearly has a fertile imagination, with the following being an example:
"I personally am increasingly swayed by the theory Madeleine never existed at all (the child we saw being a combination of CGI images and a child actor), and that this has been an elaborate, acted-out hoax from the start."
She then provides further speculative details of this theory and concludes that an actress playing Madelaine will be "found" in the near future, with the purpose of such being to completely and utterly demonise conspiracy theorists. She links her crystal ball/ future telling skills to RDH by claiming that he is one of the most renowned proponents of the theory that "The parents did it and covered it up".
This alone shows that the author does not have the first clue about RDH's research of the Madelaine case and/or his conclusions and she has clearly never watched his circa 15 hours of documentary films (in dozens of parts). If she had then she would have known that RDH does not give any definitive conclusion about what happened to Madelaine but merely sets out 3 main categories within which (overall) he identifies many different possibilities.
In terms of a cover up, RDH does not accuse the parents of such but identifies many different people (including the UK police and people high up in UK organisations) that were instrumental in a cover up and blocking/ hampering proper investigations.
Given that she can't even get basis facts correct then I suggest that any opinions she has, particularly when such are not even remotely substantiated, are completely worthless and do not merit any consideration, let alone any serious consideration.
This is further reinforced by her conclusion, in which she boldly claims that the MSM's "high-profile "exposés"" of RDH (including him losing this civil case) means that he will end up " vastly more wealthy as a result". The fact that RDH will be held liable for all the legal costs plus the damages that he will be due (which are yet to be determined and likely to be significant) demonstrates how much the author is out of touch with reality.
The above is only my opinion and I am not telling you (or suggesting) that you should have the same or similar opinion. It is clearly up to you to make your own mind up.
I haven't seen RDH's videos about the Madeleine McCann case, so this helps a lot. Yes, I can see RDH being fairly objective about the evidence as he sees it and not being conclusive about it. I'll have to watch it on my own to form my own opinion, but this falls in line with what I know of RDH. If this is true, which I'm leaning to believe it is, then Miri is way off.
Thanks!
Miri does make it clear that her theory regarding MM is just that; a theory. Personally I find it a compelling theory and would not be at all surprised if it plays out. I don't think it is simply the product of a fertile imagination, I think it comes from an understanding of the methods of the parasite class and what they are capable of. I am increasingly of the opinion that many false flags are entirely staged and there are a lot of people who are either willing to go along with the agenda or are being forced to in ways I can hardly bear to imagine.
You close by saying that you are "increasingly of the opinion that many false flags are entirely staged...", which mirrors RDH's position. Have you studied his work/ watched his in-depth documentaries?
Regarding the MM case and RDH, Miri says the following:
""The parents did it and covered it up" theory is one of the most famous and enduring conspiracy theories in the world, with Richard D. Hall one of its most renowned proponents."
This is completely untrue about RDH. If it is not due to a fertile imagination I'd be extremely interested in your explanation for how and why she got this so far wrong.
Again, if not due to a fertile imagination, I'd also be interested in your explanation for how she thinks RDH is going to end up up "vastly more wealthy as a result" of this court case and it being reported in the mainstream media?
Finally, you say that you find Miri's theory about Madelaine (that she never existed and an actress playing her will be 'found' soon "to fulfil a number of key agenda items, not least, completely and utterly demonising conspiracy theorists") compelling. Can you explain why you find that theory so compelling please?
Yes, I have watched RDHs videos on Jill Dando, Madeline McCann and the Manchester (non)bombing. I think he is an excellent investigative reporter and I have no reason to doubt his sincerity at this stage. I am not inclined to agree with Miri that there is sufficient evidence to assume he is 'in the game’, as she says. But I can consider the possibility that he may be being used as an unwitting pawn in a larger nefarious agenda.
I don’t think Miri has ever quoted RDH as explicitly stating that he believes Madeline’s ‘parents’ killed her. I think she is saying that the ‘parents killed her and covered it up’ has been a much publicised conspiracy theory. By virtue of the fact RDH has done considerable research which challenges the official narrative, he will inevitably get associated with that theory regardless of whether that is something he himself believes.
By claiming that RDH will end up “vastly more wealthy” I think that Miri is affirming she believes him to be a conscious agent of disinformation in the same way that Russell Brand increased his reach and popularity considerably after his ‘negative’ mainstream media exposure. This is not an opinion I agree with as I stated above.
I honestly do not know if Madeline McCann truly existed as an actual person or whether the whole event was a staged managed psyop involving several crisis actors, but based on what I have come to believe regarding several false flag events, I now think the latter scenario is at least plausible.
Thanks for replying and and addressing most of my points and questions.
Given that you say you've watched RDH's videos on MM then you will know (as a fact) that the theory that "the parents killed her and covered it up" is not RDH's theory nor is he a proponent of such theory, let alone "one of its most renowned proponents".
Therefore Miri's claims in these regards are patently false. That is one of the reasons supporting why I said she had a fertile imagination.
There is nothing wrong with speculating about different possibilities (on any topic) when there is uncertainty and/or a lack of facts. I suggest that this is just human nature and people do it all the time. However that is completely different to categorically making a claim (as Miri did) that is completely contradicted by the actual facts of the matter.
I find it very surprising that you set out what you "think Miri is saying", when your interpretation is not only different to what Miri expressly said but also because what Miri actually said is unambiguous, namely:
""The parents did it and covered it up" theory is one of the most famous and enduring conspiracy theories in the world, with Richard D. Hall one of its most renowned proponents."
You say that RDH's research "challenges the official narrative" but you seem to be conflating the MSM narrative with the official narrative. It was the Portuguese police that were the officials in charge of the investigation and their records were put in the public domain. Such records showed that the stories of the McCann's (and their friends) were incredible, contradictory and undermined by actual facts. These records also show that the McCanns were suspects and KMcC refused to answer questions that would assist the police with their enquiries.
So RDH was not challenging the official narrative (and documents) but actually building upon such in his investigations. I therefore cannot follow how you reach the view that his research (which does not conclude with any definitive theory but a wide range of possibilities) would result in him to "inevitably get associated with that theory regardless of whether that is something he himself believes". That, simply, does not not make any sense let alone there being any inevitability about it.
I note that you do not agree with Miri that RDH will become vastly more wealthy and his reach & popularity will increase. Her claim in this regard is another reason why I said she had a fertile imagination because what she claimed makes no sense.
Finally, you say you do not know if MM truly existed but I asked you to explain why you found Miri's theory (which culminates in her being found and "used to fulfil a number of key agenda items") so compelling. The only agenda item that Miri identified is in order to completely and utterly demonise conspiracy theorists. So, I'll repeat my question, Can you explain why you find that theory so compelling please?
I agree that Miri may be mistaken for implying that RDH is one of the leading proponents of the ‘parents did it and covered it up’ narrative. However, I think it is irrelevant whether or not this is what RDH actually believes. Most people will never look at his work by virtue of the fact that for some time he has been portrayed in the MSM as a ‘conspiracy theorist’. At the same time the conspiracy theory that the parents are part of a cover up and know that MM is dead, has also been widely spread as the ‘official conspiracy theory’. Should this conspiracy theory be disproved by ‘MM’ being ‘found’ alive and well thus ‘proving’ that the official story of the kidnapping was right all along, it will further cement in many people’s minds that ‘conspiracy theorists’ (i.e. independent investigative journalism) cannot be trusted.
You might want to look at Miri’s piece on what she actually thinks is the main reason for the MM psyop. She does not think it is simply to discredit investigative journalism.
https://miriaf.co.uk/nobody-wants-to-find-a-dead-cat/
We have got to know Richard well as a result of this case and being targeted ourselves by the dreadful Spring MI5 asset. He is a completely genuine man. His work on Manchester is impeccable. Miri is an operative involved with a few other shady types.
"Miri is an operative involved with a few other shady types." Please could you provide some supporting evidence for this statement. Many thanks.
“Miri is an operative involved with a few other shady types.” Sounds interesting! I wonder if you could explain a little more please?
Steyn obviously has need to protect the state sanctioned narrative. It’s telling. “Justice is lost, justice is raped, justice is gone.” - Metallica.
Stalin would blush at the state of the English clown courts. Hibbert is an outrageous liar. He was planning his own suicide prior to the Manchester hoax and probably did something stupid which MI5 could then use against him. None of the stories add up. Richard is vindicated. I hope he doesn’t give them a penny. Ignore the courts. Ignore the State. The staging of ‘terror’ events to justify wars and curtail our freedom is being revealed to the world thanks in no small part to RDH. Well done Iain for defending him. Excellent piece. We gave our thoughts on the sham last night here: https://gemmaodoherty.com/friday-night-psyop-special-on-manchester-hoax-and-richard-d-hall-fake-harassment-charge/
There was never going to be any other verdict. The only hope is that the exposure moved the dial a bit more in our direction.
That was what I thought from the outset - that it didn't matter to the court's verdict what defence RDH mounted.
What mattered, in my opinion, was mounting a solid defence, which Richard did, to expose the corruption of the court & it's complicity in trying to cover up the evidence which Richard's investigation into the event brought to light.
This worked very well, and I see people on social media being drawn to comment about the 'outrage' of Richard daring to investigate the lies that were put out by Martin Hibbert in the msm after the event (such as him claiming a bolt went right through his daughter's head & that the bang occurred in the main arena space), & then discovering that the story & the court case were not quite as they thought.
The BBC & Spring, the rest of the msm, some alt media channels, Fibbert, the court & others promoted RDH's (& others') work on Manchester Arena to a FAR wider audience than would EVER otherwise have been possible, & the bad actors scored a massive own goal in pursuing that case against him.
What will really 'move the dial' now is folk, perhaps such as yourself, being brave enough to continue capitalising on that mistake & the huge amount of work that's been put in over 7.5 years so far by many people, and spreading RDH's work on this event & also Iain's book & essays written about & around the event.
Iain's extremely well-written & referenced work (free PDF available to subscribers to his website) on this has moved the battleline forward a considerable distance, and sceptical people can be educated with it's content about historic State involvement in 'terror' narratives (such as 'Operation Gladio'), and crucial details about the lack of evidence for a large TATP bomb blast at Manchester Arena in 2017, exploration of other aspects of the event, & the kangaroo court case against Richard D Hall.
https://iaindavis.com/books/
You are close to deluded if you even imagine that scenario
Thank you for your great service to truth in a time of satanic worldwide tyranny and persecution.
Why blame Satan who is just TIME , when 'god is author of all good & evil'.
History shows evil christian hypocrites have committed more horror than any satanists, maybe you should be more wary of them Lynda, there are far too many of those scum sucking monsters about these days!
"Consequently, the approximate 12.5 million UK adults who are less convinced were vilified if they questioned the purported victims’ stories."
Who were, may I ask, these less convinced 12.5 million, and how was that figure quantified?
From my book:
A recent study commissioned by the BBC and conducted by the Policy Institute at King’s College London found:[13]
"Notable minorities of the UK public say they believe conspiracy theories about terror attacks including the Manchester Arena bombing. [. . .] A third (35%) say they don't think the official story [about a number of different terrorist attacks] has told us the whole truth, and one in five (19%) goes as far as saying they think the victims of terror attacks inthe UK are not being truthful about what happened to them.[. . .] One in seven (14%) say it’s definitely or probably true that the Manchester Arena bombing involved “crisis actors” who pretended to be injured or killed – but that people weren’t really injured or killed. [. . .] A quarter (26%) of the public say it’s definitely or probably true that the mainstream media and government officials are involved in a conspiracy to cover up important information about the attack at Manchester Arena."
Presently, the size of the UK voting population is about 48 million.[14] The Kings College researchers reported that these "conspiracist" beliefs were more widely held by younger people and tended to diminish with age. That said, if we take the entire UK adult population, the Kings College results suggest that approximately 6.7 million British adults think “crisis actors” were involved in the reported Manchester Arena bombing and nearly 12.5 million people in the UK question the official Manchester account.
Interested to know the demographics. I assume a lot of the Asian community question the narrative more than white.
Possibly although there isn't much about that in the study: - https://www.kcl.ac.uk/policy-institute/assets/truth-under-attack.pdf
The number that know the moon landings were staged is even higher. My question is why stage this shit so poorly. And then promote that it's staged using assets like Richard D Hall etc.
"HERE ARE TRUTHFUL FACTS MOST PEOPLE DO NOT KNOW, …. BUT SHOULD…" - https://stopthepirates.blogspot.com/2012/07/these-documents-are-not-secret-they-are.html
"IT'S A BIG CLUB AND YOU AINT IN IT."
— George Carlin - https://rumble.com/v3vkrce-the-architect.html
Connecting the Dots (Concealment Secret Society) - https://juxtaposition1.substack.com/
Geneva Switzerland, Centralized Command & Control | It's a small world after all. It's a small, small world. - https://juxtaposition1.substack.com/p/geneva-switzerland-centralized-command
There was only one outcome to this case the court would never rule that the state sponsored a elaborate bomb hoax against its own citizens but we all know that's exactly what happened hall is Britain's a Jones but a genuine journalist and person who deserves all our support. We have now entered a new future for Britain that's Orwellean and communist.
He has my full support and I will find a way to give it beyond the words of this thread. A real decent guy who values the truth. I hope he reads this comment at some point.
Language matters and how you can claim this is communism is beyond me when the prevailing system we live under is Capitalism! So it maybe totalitarianism or fascism but it’s certainly not communism!
How is the system we are in is capitalism when Hollywood, Disney, and other forms of media including journalism have not turned a profit in years. Whatever label you wish to put on it the outcome of them will basically be the same.