Richard D. Hall – A Travesty of Justice
Iain Davis
UK independent journalist, researcher and documentary filmmaker Richard D. Hall faces conviction, sizeable damages and an injunction that could potentially end his career and his livelihood. The High Court of Justice has denied Hall the opportunity to present any kind of meaningful defence. This travesty of justice has potential implication, not just for Richard D. Hall, but for all journalists who dare to question power.
Hall was attempting to defend himself against a civil claim for harassment brought against him by two of the reported survivors of the alleged Manchester Arena bombing. The claimants’ original claim stated:
The Claimants seek damages, an injunction and other remedies against the Defendant [Richard D. Hall] under the Protection From Harassment Act 1997, the Data Protection Act 2018 and in misuse of private information. The Claimants’ claims are based upon conduct by the Defendant, including publication by him, related to the Claimants’ status as victims of the bombing of Manchester Arena in May 2017.
Richard D. Hall submitted his Defence. As the claimants’ claim averred that Hall’s publication of his Manchester Arena Bombing investigation constituted harassment, Hall cited Section 1(3)(c) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 [PfH 97] which states that a claim of harassment cannot be upheld if the defendant can show “that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.”
Further, Hall cited PfH 97 1(3)(a) which states that a claim for harassment cannot stand if the defendant’s course of action was “pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime.”
Hall noted it was an offence under Section 35 (2) and/or (3) of the Inquiries Act 2005 to distort or otherwise alter any evidence presented to an inquiry, prevent evidence from being submitted to an inquiry or intentionally suppress or conceal evidence or documents that should reasonably be made available to an inquiry.
Therefore, Hall’s defence was quite straightforward.
As the claimants’ claim was based almost entirely upon his published work on the reported Manchester Arena bombing, under Section 1(3)(c) of PfH 97, Hall’s defence argument contended that, by conducting investigative journalism, his “course of conduct was reasonable.” He also offered a defence, under Section 1(3)(a) of PfH 97, that his investigative work was “pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime.”
In order to demonstrate this, Hall intended to reveal his Manchester Arena evidence to the Court. This would show that his investigative journalism was, indeed, “reasonable” and that his research was conducted for the legitimate journalistic purpose of “preventing or detecting crime.” If proven to the Court’s satisfaction, the claimant’s claim of harassment would necessarily be denied.
Subsequently, on the 9th November 2023 the claimants legal team applied to the High Court of Justice for a “summary judgment.” They were seeking a High Court of Justice ruling to strike out Richard D. Hall’s defence in its entirety.
Such a ruling would enable the High Court of Justice to “dispose of all or part of a case without a trial.” The application for the “summary judgment” was based upon the claimants’ claim that Richard D. Hall’s defence had “no real prospect of success.”
On the 29th of January, in the High Court of Justice, Richard D. Hall offered a brief outline of the evidence he investigated and reported to the public. He argued that the Court could not rule on the harassment claim unless it considered all of evidence pertaining to the Manchester Arena bombing.
Essentially, Hall offered the evidence he had uncovered to prove he was an investigative journalist acting reasonably and endeavouring to expose a crime. He contended that this evidence, once submitted to the Court, would give him every “prospect of success” in denying the claimants’ harassment claim.
Subsequent to the hearing on the 29th of January, High Court of Justice Master Davison issued his ruling on the 8th of February. Davison identified “the Issues” which were disputed by Hall:
- i) On 22 May 2017 22 innocent people were murdered in a bomb explosion carried out by a terrorist at the Manchester Arena at the conclusion of a concert performed by Ariana Grande;
- ii) The Claimants were present at the Manchester Arena at the time of the bombing;
- iii) They were severely injured rendering Martin Hibbert [claimant] paralysed from the waist down and Eve Hibbert [claimant] brain damaged; and
- iv) The cause of these injuries was the explosion of the bomb.
On all of “the Issues” the High Court of Justice denied Hall the opportunity to present his evidence. Master Davison ruled all of it inadmissible and worthless prior to examining it in any detail. Master Davison ultimately determined:
I find that the Defendant [Richard D. Hall] has not discharged the evidential burden which rests on him. He has no real prospect, indeed no prospect at all, of success on the Issues and I will resolve them in the claimants’ favour. [. . .] I will list the case for a further hearing to decide consequential orders, costs and directions to take the claim forward to a final determination.
The trial is now virtually a fait accompli for the claimants. Richard D. Hall cannot mount any kind of substantial defence. The only remaining matter is to settle damages and define the terms of the likely injunction.
Richard D. Hall has been summarily judged without a trial by the British High Court of Justice. He could consequently lose his livelihood and be effectively barred from working as an investigative journalist.
Master Davison has ruled on the law, not on morality or on the crucial social requisite for justice. That such matters are for society to decide, not the judicial system, was emphasised by Judge Nicholas Lorraine-Smith during the appalling prosecution of David Noakes. Lorraine-Smith stated that the court was not a court of morality but rather a court of law.
For obvious reasons, in this litigious environment, I have to stress that I am not legally qualified to make any kind of criticism of the legal arguments presented in Master Davison’s judgment and I make none. Nonetheless, if the “rule of law” is to mean anything at all, the wider, social issues of fairness and justice matter. That is the sole purview of this article. Excerpts from the ruling are cited only to explain the wider, social implications of the summary judgment.
As a society, we cannot passively allow a legal system to persist if it is neither fair nor just and exists solely to protect and serve the government and other powerful interests. While Davison applied the letter of the law, his ruling, for all important social purposes, ultimately denied justice and simply protected a highly questionable government narrative that Richard D. Hall has exposed with an overwhelming body of evidence.
This is not for one moment to suggest that Hall’s own findings and expressed opinions are beyond dispute. But, on the whole, he has provided more than enough evidence to cast significant doubt upon the official state narrative of the Manchester Arena bombing. It is incumbent upon us to consider that evidence.
Probably, like most people, Master Davison doesn’t know much about false flag terrorism. Perhaps he is unaware that government sponsored false flag terrorism is a historical fact and a relatively common occurrence. There is nothing implausible about suspecting that the Manchester Arena bombing was yet another State run false flag operation.
To imagine that the mere suspicion is “preposterous” is simply to be ignorant of history. Davison seemingly demonstrated his ignorance when he said:
I have already referred to the inherent implausibility of the Defendant’s “staged attack” hypothesis. Whilst acknowledging that issues as to the claimants’ presence at the attack and the attack itself are separate and distinct, once the defendant’s general hypothesis has been rejected (as I have rejected it) it is unrealistic to maintain that the claimants were not there and were either not severely injured at all or acquired their injuries earlier and by a different mechanism than the bombing. Indeed, the latter points are simply preposterous.
This goes to the crux of the dismissal of Hall’s defence. If his “staged attack”—false flag—hypothesis is proven then all victim accounts, including the claimants, are doubtful. Consequently their harassment claim would likely be denied. By ruling that Hall’s evidence could not possibly prove his hypothesis, that evidence need not be examined. Consequently, unable to offer virtually any evidence in his own defence, Hall had no feasible way to contest “the Issues” and little to no chance of denying the claimants’ claims.
Davison’s ruling relied upon other judicial findings. This is quite normal and perfectly appropriate in our legal system. But that doesn’t make it reasonable or just from a social perspective.
Davison cited the case of Hashem Abedi—the brother of the reported Manchester suicide bomber—as proof that “22 innocent people were murdered in a bomb explosion carried out by a terrorist at the Manchester Arena.” In light of the Hashem Abedi ruling, Davison felt confident to state:
[. . .] although his [Richard D. Hall’s] beliefs may be genuinely held, his theory that the Manchester bombing was an operation staged by government agencies in which no one was genuinely killed or injured is absurd and fantastical.
It is reasonable to question the veracity of Hashem Abedi’s conviction. This was another passage of British justice, and another associated with the Manchester Arena event, in which no defence was heard in the court. While this doesn’t necessarily undermine the ruling, once again we are asked to accept a verdict based solely on the evidence offered by the prosecution, absent any defence argumentation at all.
As Davison seemingly knows nothing about false flag terrorism, presumably he is also unfamiliar with the multinational companies, such as the UK based CrisisCast, who provide crisis actors to governments and other clients to simulate crisis events. Staged terrorist attacks are commonly practiced.
For example, almost a year to the day before the Manchester Arena event, a major terror attack was staged at the Manchester Old Trafford shopping centre. The media reported:
A mock terrorist attack has been carried out at one of the UK’s busiest shopping centres, in a marauding assault similar to the Paris and Brussels atrocities. More than 800 volunteers took part in the staged attack at the Trafford Centre in Manchester on Monday night. As part of the drill a fake suicide bomber detonated an explosive device in a packed food court at the shopping centre.
Pretty much the entire UK “mainstream media”—or legacy media—has reported on the ruling in Hall’s case. They have each run more or less the same story, highlighting Davison’s “absurd and fantastical” comments and calling Hall a ” conspiracy theorist,” a troll, “Britain’s sickest man,” etc. The Metro homed in on another comment made by Davison:
He [Davison] added it was ‘fanciful’ to suggest Abedi did not die and ‘still more fanciful’ to argue the bomber was an intelligence asset.
It seems that Davison doesn’t know anything about Western governments’, and their intelligence agencies’, long history of manipulating and supporting Islamist extremist groups either. We can only assume he is equally unaware of the 2003 Overview and Recommendations Report of the Stevens Inquiries into possible British government collusion with loyalist terrorists in Northern Ireland.
Stevens concluded:
[. . .] there was collusion in both murders and the circumstances surrounding them. Collusion is evidenced in many ways. This ranges from the wilful failure to keep records, the absence of accountability, the withholding of intelligence and evidence, through to the extreme of agents being involved in murder. [. . .] The unlawful involvement of agents in murder implies that the security forces sanction killings. [. . .] Informants and agents were allowed to operate without effective control and to participate in terrorist crimes.
Evidently UK intelligence agencies have colluded with terrorists, and some of those terrorists are, or have been, assets. To claim that Hall’s hypothesis was “fanciful” was contrary to all the salient historical facts and evidence.
While no one can expect a High Court Master to be an expert on everything, perhaps Davison would have been better advised to refrain from making so many unfounded pejorative comments with regard to Hall’s investigative work. They were unnecessary and simply revealed Davison’s unenlightened opinions.
From a historical perspective, Davison’s claims that Hall’s “hypothesis” were “implausible” and “absurd and fantastical” were all unreservedly wrong. The only way to know if Halls’ evidence based opinions about Manchester are accurate is to examine the evidence he has presented.
Hall’s evidence will not be examined in the High Court of Justice. We have a “summary judgment” instead and almost the entire legacy media is steering us toward accepting it without question, largely by highlighting Davison’s ill-informed views and subjecting Hall to a stream of puerile personal attacks.
Richard D. Hall has thoroughly investigated, catalogued and examined the evidence surrounding the Manchester Arena attack. He has gone much further and delved far deeper into that evidence than any other journalist.
He has published a book of his findings and broadcast numerous videos on the subject. Hall signs off from his videos by advising his audience to “believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see.” He never asks his audience to simply “believe” what he says and consistently encourages them to examine the evidence themselves.
Virtually none of the evidence Hall has uncovered was included in the Manchester Arena “Saunders Inquiry.” Despite numerous articles written and news pieces broadcast about him, accusing him of all manner of abuses and failings, not one of them has reported any of the evidence Hall has unearthed.
None of us, including High Court Masters, can possibly know if Hall is correct, or not, unless we examine that evidence. Court rulings denying that possibility should not deter anyone from seeking the truth. We, the people, have every right to question the pronouncements of the government and its compliant “mainstream media.”
So let’s look at just one, tiny scrap of evidence—among the reams Hall has reported—that casts significant doubt on the official account of the Manchester Arena event.
One of the reported victims, Ruth Murrell, whose friend Michelle was among those who reportedly died in the blast, had a bolt blown through her right thigh by the bomb. She sustained “serious injuries,” according to mainstream media reports.
Ruth is one of the best known victims of the Manchester Arena bombing, and her story was widely reported. Following her serious injury and the trauma she suffered, Ruth met the Queen at Manchester Royal Infirmary who was said to have been almost moved to tears by the harrowing account she heard from Ruth Murrell.
Here is a video of Ruth walking around, just 4 minutes after the devastating Manchester Arena explosion. The video shows the City Room, which is the precise location in the Arena where the bomb was detonated just moments earlier, reportedly killing 22 people and injuring more than 1,000.
You can see people stood around, amiably chatting, and virtually no sign of any notable emergency response or, indeed, conspicuous activity. You will also note the complete lack of any sign of structural damage or building debris. Without wishing to dwell on the gory details that you might reasonably expect to see in the immediate aftermath of a massive bomb blast, this video is not consistent with a bombing that blew the bomber to pieces, killed 22 and injured hundreds just a few minutes earlier.
Reportedly, Ruth had just lost her friend who was standing right next to her when she died instantly from head wounds inflicted by blast shrapnel. Ruth’s daughter was also lying somewhere off-camera, having also sustained “serious injuries” similar to Ruth’s.
As you can see, the “serious injury” didn’t give Ruth cause to limp. She does not show any signs of either physical or emotional distress following the horror she has just experienced. Only 4 minutes after a bolt from a bomb blast reportedly punctured her right thigh, passed through her leg and caused massive tissue damage and blood loss, Ruth was strolling around seemingly unaffected. Nor did the bolt seemingly make any kind of entry or exit hole in her jeans.
Quite obviously, the video utterly contradicts the widely reported photographic “evidence” of the injuries reportedly sustained by Ruth Murrell in the 2017 Manchester Arena terrorist bombing. This evidence alone, reported by investigative journalist Richard D. Hall, is sufficient to cast immense doubt on the official narrative and it requires explanation. In light of this evidence, given Ruth Murrell’s published “story,” it isn’t unreasonable to question if any aspect of the reported Manchester Arena bombing is true.
As revealed through Hall’s investigative journalism, this video was shot on the phone of John Barr. Like any good journalist unafraid to question power, Hall contacted Mr Barr and asked for an interview. Mr Barr agreed and Hall published the interview in his book “the Night of the Bang” which you can download for free from his website.
Hall asked Barr when the footage was shot. Barr reportedly said:
That was around err …after the explosion erm… probably about 2 or 3 minutes after the explosion. [. . .] the explosion was about erm …10.32 so that was probably about 4 minutes after that.
According to Mr Barr, this footage (above) was taken from a video shot at the scene of a large-scale deadly terrorist attack, less than 4 minutes after it had occurred. Despite evidently being a key witness in possession of vital video evidence, Mr Barr was not invited to provide testimony to the official inquiry, and his video evidence was excluded from the proceedings.
In his summary judgment, Master Davison frequently cited the Saunders Inquiry into the Manchester Arena bombing as evidence substantiating the claimants’ account. The fact that Barr’s video, which was published on social media, was not included in that inquiry, suggests the possibility that it was “intentionally suppressed.” This would potentially constitute a State crime under Section 35 (2) and/or (3) of the Inquiries Act 2005.
At the very least, the absence of the Barr footage from the Saunders Inquiry indicates that the inquiry did not examine all the available evidence. If so, we might reasonably conclude that the Saunders Inquiry findings were tantamount to meaningless. That virtually none of evidence revealed by Hall was examined by Saunders only adds to suspicion that the so-called inquiry had a predetermined outcome.
Master Davison was satisfied with the totality of the evidence considered at the Saunders Inquiry. Claims made by the claimants, along with some ticket receipts entered into evidence by the claimants, were sufficient for Davison to conclude that the claimants were at the Arena on the night in question.
This was clarified in his summary judgment:
In relation to their presence at the Arena, the Claimants have provided a witness statement from the first Claimant, Martin Hibbert, that confirms that they were, indeed, there. [. . .] Mr Terry Wilcox, a solicitor who was instructed on behalf of two victims’ families, and who was able to review the CCTV footage on terms of strict confidentiality (because the footage was too graphic for public release) has provided a witness statement in which he confirms from the CCTV that Martin and Eve Hibbert were both present at the Arena on 22 May 2017 and were observed both before and after the detonation of the explosive device.
To be clear: only heavily redacted still images were presented at the Saunders Inquiry. Richard D. Hall has examined every single one one of those images and reports that the claimants cannot be identified in any of them. None of the CCTV video footage or images featuring the claimants was shown at the Saunders Inquiry. To date, only Mr Terry Wilcox, the claimants and an unnamed family liaison officer have ever reportedly seen the relevant footage and images.
While, in this civil matter, Master Davison was only concerned with the balance of probability—“beyond all reasonable doubt” is not required in judging such claims—given that the CCTV evidence has not been made public or seen by the Court, and in light of Hall’s high level of doubt that the claimants were present, some aspects of the High Court proceedings seem inexplicable.
Davison denied Hall’s request to submit into evidence the “CCTV moving images showing” the claimants in the Arena. This is the same footage reportedly seen by Mr Wilcox. Had the Court allowed those images and the footage to be shown, It would have been very inexpensive and easy for Davison to have provided the relevant clips. Doing so would have shown whether the claimants claim to have been in the Arena was true “beyond all reasonable doubt”—far beyond the balance of probability.
So why Davison chose not to allow Hall’s application and requested court order to obtain this evidence seems rather odd. What is stranger still is that it was Hall, and not the claimants’ legal team, who made the request for the CCTV video. Surely the claimants’ would have wanted to submit it into evidence themselves, thereby proving “beyond all reasonable doubt” that Hall’s opinions are completely unfounded?
Hall has also reported evidence that indicates the claim against him was potentially instigated by the BBC. If so, the case can certainly be considered part of a wider drive by the government to censor all dissenting opinion. While the case has already taken a massive toll on Richard D. Hall, and threatens to ruin his life, the broader implications for investigative journalism cannot be overstated.
It seems likely that an injunction granted against Hall will necessitate that all of his evidence is taken down and years of his painstaking research expunged from the public record. Any such decision will be nothing short of book burning.
In many respects, this case, and specifically the “summary judgment,” has ramification as damaging for journalism as those the Assange case portend. It appears that High Court of Justice Master Davison has set a precedent, based upon his appraisal of the “balance of probability,” that will have a crushing impact upon journalism and anyone’s ability to question power.
Despite the known fact that governments perpetrate acts of false flag terrorism, both at home and abroad, there is now virtually no scope for any investigative journalist to question the official narrative of any future false flag terrorist attack. All the State needs to do is convince a purported victim to launch a similar claim and the court can cite Richard D. Hall’s summary judgment to deliver the same brand of “justice” to them.
The potential exists for this ruling to be applied to the broader questioning of State narratives. A civil court action, claiming some sort of harassment or harm caused, may well be sufficient for any published criticism to be silenced. Journalists hoping to emulate the great questioners of power, such as Gary Webb or the late John Pilger, could face penury and ruin if they ever dare to express doubt about official, State claims.
Ultimately, we the people will suffer the consequences. No longer able to access dissenting opinion, our views will be manipulated and controlled by an effective Ministry of Truth.
You can read more of Iain’s work at his blog IainDavis.com (Formerly InThisTogether) or on UK Column or follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his SubStack. His new book Pseudopandemic, is now available, in both in kindle and paperback, from Amazon and other sellers. Or you can claim a free copy by subscribing to his newsletter.
SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN
If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.
For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.
I completely agree. I also found the appearance of the claimant on a national Breakfast TV show worrying & unfair. He stated he “took no prisoners” & was talking to politicians about change the law – the implication is that he wants Richard imprisoned & by definition any journalists that are found to be saying things they shouldn’t by the state. The claimant seems to be getting away with all sorts – not justice at all!
I agree with all of this.
This is about the spirit not the letter of the law
Whatever the outcome, please continue to donate generously to support Hall.
The UK security services not only allowed, but encouraged, British Libyan radicals such as the Abedi family to travel to Libya and join the NATO orchestrated insurrection which ultimately deposed and brutally murdered Colonel Gaddafi. A close friend of Salman Abedi stated that Abedi had undergone military training whilst in Libya, run by British special forces. The official enquiry was unusual in that it featured an emphatic ‘mea culpa’ from MI5 for its failure to act on any of the numerous red flags thrown up by Abedi. Did Abedi simply slip through the net of the security apparatus? Or was he merely a puppet on a string in another hideous pantomime? In a free country subject to the rule of law, asking this and similar questions with a modicum of sincerity and sensitivity, would not constitute a civil wrong.
“Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance” – A.Einstein
A fine article – but just another establishment stitch up, to use the common parlance.
No way on earth were they ever going to allow RDH give evidence.
They played exactly the same shell game with Chris Spivey and his exposure of the Lee Rigby ‘murder’. Like Hall he went into minute details of the official narrative and exposed masses of inconsistencies as well as links with the main offender to UK spooks.He too was prosecuted for harassment and likewise given a summary judgement.
It’s what they do.
It has been my belief, these last four years (I’m ashamed it’s not longer), that *all* state initiated Inquiries, or judicial reviews, are systemically corrupt. It appears that our governments lie to us all the time, about everything.
Coming to the realisation that one should “believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see” only 4 years ago is nothing to be ashamed of. In fact you should be proud that you have had the courage to do what many others won’t. To admit to oneself that you had been deceived!
exactly the tactic used against Alex Jones
When the court’s agenda is not justice under the law, but “justice” for a political purpose, the court’s reason to exist ceases.
Same as Assange and by the same UK court. They have all been “penetrated” if you ask me. The BAR is “Private” and have secret meetings behind closed doors with government (collusion).
They are protected under “the law” from scrutiny by the people.
The Courts in the US are just as corrupt. The judges are vested with absolute authority. If the judge won’t allow video or other evidence they just declare it invalid. Jury instructions are absolutely subjective and made up on the fly by judges to eliminate free thought by jurors. There is no oversight. Appeals go to other judges who are also part of the absolute authority rich boy and girl Club. Those Club members protects the State and the Club as a whole and Club members. The Bar Association is a private-association, publi-private-partnership monopoly that does not pay taxes and cannot be sued. The Democrat & Republican parties are also private-associations that do not pay taxes and cannot be sued. This is why candidates cannot be popularly chosen by the People, they cannot be elected popularly because they cannot get on the ballot. They cannot get airtime on debates where… Read more »
This is horrible…..but “Master Davison has ruled on the law, not on morality or on the crucial social requisite for justice.” Wake up, that’s what rule of law IS about. Try to define morality, you will have hard times. Therefore, it has no place in the court of law. Justice…..as far as I know students of law learn in the first year that law and justice are two very distinct notions. It shouldn’t be like this, but it IS. “As a society, we cannot passively allow a legal system to persist if it is neither fair nor just and exists solely to protect and serve the government and other powerful interests.” I don’t know who was the wise man saying: Every ruling elite sooner or later tailor the law to fit them well. Try to remember this case for next time when you build an argument with appeal to law… Read more »
Judges are supposed to rule on law, and their interpretation of the will of the legislators. That is very clear.
In this case, the judge ruled not on the law but on his personal opinion that the defence case was preposterous. Because he is an upper middle class bastion of the ruling class.
Again, in no way I defend horrible judge’s decision.
You are in contradiction, judges are allowed to interpret but are not allowed to have opinion. Can you make a good distinction what is interpretation and what is opinion?
I can say the judge interpreted the defense attempt as pimping conspiracy theories. It is possible he really believes that conspiracy theories are total gibberish and he is not allowed to have gibberish in his court and spending his time and tax-payers money on it.
I have a feeling that you, unlike me, still have some trust in judicial system and that it can basically fulfill its purpose (justice?).
Out of interest Iain, did you call it in May 2017..?
did OFF G..?
Has Alex Jones paid his 2 trillion gazillion dollar fine ..?
Alex Jones is clearly a controlled opposition agent and it was a staged trial to deter others questioning official narratives
He won’t be paying anything
If this incident was staged, as seems just about certain, then it can be summarised as typically British incompetence and amateurism, hence the appalling mess they are now needing to navigate their way through by silencing journalists, suppressing evidence, conjuring up High Court cases and so on.
The authorities permitted a group of crisis actors to be filmed leaving Victoria railway station, walking briskly and purposefully, and then sitting down on the station steps, whereupon extensive ‘blood’ began to flow from ‘wounds’ they had sustained in the incident (I will not call it a bombing).
Typically useless UK. They can’t even organise a proper false flag attack without screwing it up. They had two navy ships in Bahrain harbour a week or two ago. One managed to reverse into the other at a decent speed, to spectacular effect.
DEI appointment I guess doing the steering.
These crisis actors…what exactly is in it for them to perpetrate a massive fraud on the public? Are they not at all conflicted? All it takes is one to blow the lid off the whole scam.
And who would believe this “one” person ? For whom is “one” going to reveal that “one” has participated in this hoax or false flag ? “One´s” word stands pretty much alone against almost all the established society. Just like it is for all of us other “ones”.
The conviction that they are helping to bring attention to a great, great problem and bring many further resources to things like counter-terrorism, emergency response services or healthcare. Do you really think there are not tons of people who would be persuaded by such promises? Not to mention cash rewards for certain particularly “useful” cases or those who might be looking to relocate and start a new life on the government’s dime. Keep in mind they are also promised that no one is actually going to die from their little, honorable deception.
Anyone who is a student of human nature comes to the conclusion that these things are quite plausible.
I tried to get another job in Manchester or Oldham, which was where I lived…for all my life. I was still in love with both of them…but they weren’t interested but both still really nice to me…as I told her on the dole….I had already bought the tickets for Black Sabbath at Leeds Queens Hall fronted by Ronnie James Dio…I invited her too…cos I still loved her too. She seemed delighted for me that I had a new girlfriend – but no I am not coming…, My other Ex phoned me up and my Girlfriend answered the phone, and said there is this girl on the phone for you. Everyone was extremely polite. There was no hate….Years later – when the girls met again at music festivals, and gigs…they still looked almost exactly the same..and got on extremely well. They had all spent a year or so looking after me…and… Read more »
fuck off
And who exactly is Richard D, Hall? It’s a small point but I have never come across a British person using a middle initial in their name. Perhaps there is some reason in Hall’s case but it is unusual.
I’d always assumed that the D. was to avoid confusion with Richard Travis Hall, who’d been quite a popular media figure in the UK, when RHD launched his series of investigative (left field) programmes. Regardless, Dick Hall’s hardly an uncommon name, and, hence, he was probably either considerate in not wanting to become THE RH, or believed someone else had already claimed the name in the public consciousness.
As to the man himself, in my perception, he is smart, sincere, and pretty industrious, though he does have a problem with participles.
Who cares what the man calls himself, er, bigger concerns going on here for ALL of us.
There are many – try reading a book! I think he said it was to avoid confusion. And anyway does it matter?
There is a discussion of this by a teacher who puts some useful stuff on Odysee
https://odysee.com/@SarahPlumley:4/GemmaO'DohertyandSarahPlumleyExposingFakeTerror:8
The fake or non existent grief shown by some the so called victims relatives is quite revealing. She also goes into the numerology, 22? Just from the DM article cited elsewhererefers to
‘Although she miraculously survived the devastating blast on May 22, 2017’
‘When suicide bomber Salman Abedi, 22’
‘he killed 22 people’
‘struck by 22 pieces of shrapnel’
‘the horrors of May 22’
‘This included rulings on whether 22 people did die’
An earler article from the Fraudian claimed MI5 had 22 pieces of information on the bomber, other instances are mentioned in the vid.
All the best to Richard, hope he gets through this shitshow.
Their symbolism will be their downfall.
I have seen Richard D. Hall videos many times over the last few years since The Manchester Bombing….
Whilst despite his best attempts – Studio probably in his bedroom – he never struck me a a Professional – more like one of the kids who didn’t quite get in to New Order….or Oasis, Hawkwind or Even The Fall
wtf is going on?
The Bastards have Deleted His Website
Surely they haven’t arrested him.
What did they accuse him of?
https://www.thevoid.uk/void-post/manchester-the-night-of-the-bang-richard-d-hall/
I didn’t believe it either
I thought his programmes were well made – he doesn’t have the money for a huge operation so clearly can’t be as slick as on the telly!
There are three varieties of false flag attacks conducted by Deep States. The first can be exemplified by 9/11. Lots of dead people lying about (or pieces thereof), and the actual killers were Deep State employees. Motive was to instigate US invasions in the ME to the advantage of the US and Israel. The second type is a hoax perpetrated primarily via the Mocking Bird media. No one dies and it is all theatre. Sandy Hook is an example of this and so is the Boston marathon. Sandy Hook was purported to be a “legitimate .gov drill” to most of the people who actually took part in it. Purpose was to overturn the 2nd Amendment. The Boston Marathon used paid crisis actors as pseudo injured victims. The third type is the hybrid false flag in which there are lots of crisis actors, lots of dead people, and lots of Deep… Read more »
Thanks for this succinct and comprehensive overview. As a natural “truther” type, I am open to descending into so-called “rabbit holes”– especially because over the years, it’s become obvious that the overclass aka Deep State manufactures crises complete with official narratives. Unfortunately, the contrarian Sphere of Deviance inevitably acquired its own culture, and both zealots and dilettantes began to knowingly throw around terms like “crisis actor” and the even more overused “controlled opposition” at every opportunity. The distressing truth is that it’s become far too easy to instantly create dubious alternative narratives to counter dubious official accounts. Two examples: In 2009, US Army Major Nidal Hasan, a psychiatrist, allegedly fatally shot 13 people and injured more than 30 others at Fort Hood, Texas. I write “allegedly” because I don’t know the truth of the matter. Within a day or two of the event, I came across a would-be exposition and analysis by the well-known… Read more »
Thanks for your reply. I used to listen to Webster Tarpley maybe 10 years ago but I got an increasingly uneasy feeling about what he was saying and stopped. Some FFs are easy to identify with almost no doubt, especially “big ones.” The JFK hit and 9/11 for example. Big makes complex and the choreographers are sloppy and expect the proles to be idiots. Take the magic bullet with JFK. I wouldn’t even know where to start with 9/11. As a chemistry major the claims regarding what dropped the buildings were absurd in themselves. I regard Trump as a bloviated, narcissistic asshole and am constantly amazed at the high percentage of conservatives willing to forgive if not forget commander-in-chief beauuutiful warp speed vaccine clotshot. Because of my disdain for Trump (though when it comes to a lifetime of petty evil he falls a notch or two below FJB), I never… Read more »
Whether subversion or invasion follows the false-flag, the plutocracy is in the driver’s seat. This may be over minerals (Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Syria, Yemen, Iran, Venezuela, Bolivia, Brazil, etc.) – even to keep those minerals off the market. It may be because an upstart government rejects shoddy imports, refuses to take a big loan, etc.
FWIW — I correspond quite frequently with my brother, someone who lives in rural Sussex and is reliably Conservative, Daily Telegraph subscriber etc. etc.
He’s started to notice that something’s not right. All sorts of restrictions, stuff that’s not ‘traditionally English’. I figure that if things have started to penetrate his conservative bubble then it must be really bad over there. Still, I suppose it had to happen sooner or later.
“This travesty of justice has potential implication, not just for Richard D. Hall, but for all journalists who dare to question power.”
In memoriam Dr.David Kelly, RIP.
And Julian Assange,
I have followed Richard D Hall’s work on his Rich Planet website for many years now and he always advised that people should ‘believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see’, – in other words, do your own research and make your own judgments on subjects. That included his own work of course but I find that Richard has always erred on the side of caution when assessing evidence and he is not some random ‘conspiracy theorist’, of which there are plenty on the web. His work on 9/11, 7/7, the McCann case, Jo Cox, Jill Dando, the Covid ‘pandemic’ and many others has always been, in my opinion, research that has been carefully collated, not prone to sensationalism, and weighs evidence in a rational and logical manner. It is certainly not illogical or ‘preposterous’ as stated by the Judge in the court transcript, which means… Read more »
UK law has always been Masonic law, crock of shit held together by EU law, now showing the world what it always was in more discerning age.
He is one of the very few I will spend the time listening to at length because of the very things you have mentioned about how he carries out his investigations. I don’t think there is anyone out there (and I’ve been awake for some time now), more forensic in their examination of the evidence he comes across. Phenomenal investigator. The establishment will do everything they can to shut him up. It would be sweet justice indeed if people came out in their thousands to help pay any damages he is ordered to pay. I know I’d help him and I’m only on minimum wage but I’d still support him, because this is and will be a ruling against ALL of us.
Thanks for the article Iain. These puppets (presidents, judges etc) who from our perspective, seemingly occupy positions of power & influence, are all afraid of something that operates outside of the Law.
Our challenge is systemic at this late stage.
It makes me think of Woodrow Wilson’s comment after complying with the Central Bankers over a century ago..
[…]They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.”
So now normalcy bias is the law.
The top photo says it all with the oxymoron of Royal and Justice in the same phrase.
Manchester Arena bombingSuicide bombing in Manchester, England on 22 May 2017
NUMEROLOGY AND ASTROLOGY SAVVY TERRORISTS
ALSO THAT YEAR..On 22 March 2017, 😱
Foreign Office Minister Tobias Ellwood – whose brother was killed in Bali bombings – reveals moment he gave CPR and mouth-to-mouth to dying police officer,..
How many are sitting on the Officer “helping” him?
He was a very unpopular politician – could it have been used/set up to give him a bit of a lift in the poularity stakes?
Firstly Richard D Hall doesn’t have to worry. The court can only come after his legal fiction ie. Mr RICHARD D HALL.
Secondly, the judge has to abide by oaths, although there will probably be secret oaths we know nothing about. In any event, accusing the judge of not abiding by his oath and fraud by abuse of power is a route to go. They won’t like this but going by the evidence Richard has a case that if proven would destroy the credibility of all terror events, as the official versions are pathetic, and only possible using criminal media.
Thirdly, unless we stand up against what is now fascist, totalitarian control by the deep state, government, corporate interests, police, and the so-called protectorate justice system we have all had it.
You may be right.
The problem is, the most obvious mistake in FFs, WTC7, has been roundly dismissed as not possible to be as TPTB say by many eminent engineers and still the narrative continues to be believed.
If the gold standard of FF fuck-ups is allowed to go unquestioned what chance is there for the others ?
I’m not so sure – it they do order he pays that 50k that will come from Richard whether it is his business entity or not.
Let there be no doubt, we are not living in a democracy.
An inverted Satanic world..
Who remembers Brenda Leyland, she was door stepped by a Sky reporter She then committed suicide as a result. This is what Sky said “The team at Sky News followed its editorial guidelines and pursued a story in a responsible manner that we believed was firmly in the public interest” So it is ok if the mainstream door step some one even if it leads to tragic results. Harassment . Richard sent them one message asking for interview there was no reply He visited there house once and nock on door there was no reply He filmed there house from his car once They were not aware of any of this till much later so could not have been harassed by it. They are claiming data protection for data in the public domain. They are claiming that opinions in a book and video amount to harassment. When the mainstream makes… Read more »
Lent starts on Feb. 14 and is observed for 40 days through abstinence and penitence. It ends with Easter, which falls on March 31 this year. To celebrate the yearly ritual the mainstream always has a staged attack. This years theme is Texas (fake border migrant truckers alt media shill) huge stage shooting.? in a church, expect trannies migrants and guns to rule the next few days weeks of headlines. Next up Pastor not allowed to pray in church. Christian arrested in the street for preaching migrant trannies palsatina hate marchers wave flag in church screaming free free palastains. With ‘Antis**itic Writings’ on there flags and shirts. Always on the build up to Easter and the selection. Richard Hall and the real alt media would call bullshit in a evidence based manner to prove it inconsistencies Yet Watch the MSM alt media go ape and tell you it was sssooooooooo real… Read more »
Corporations represent psychopathy in structural form (ask, Dr Robert Hare). Capitalism exists to make profit, period. The worship of psychopathy & greed, in the corporate captured West is why we are, where we are, today. 😔
From ‘A Brief History of Modern Corruption’
‘In this article I will outline the evolution of corruption in the polity, from the PPP model introduced in the early 1990s to the rise of vast global investment firms like Blackrock, and their influence on decision-making that is in favour of private gain rather than public interest. Whereas the rule of law is in the interests of the majority of the population, and is therefore easy to preserve in a reasonably uncorrupted democracy, the rule of law is not in the interests of people who seek to corrupt the polity, or who have corrupted the polity, for private gain. This means we can expect to see the weakening of the rule of law in line with the rise of corruption.‘
More here:
https://real-left.com/a-brief-history-of-modern-corruption-public-private-partnerships-and-the-rule-of-law/
I remember when the crisis actor meme appeared on YouTube a number of years ago. A very entertaining young American ridiculed disasters claiming everything came down to crisis actors and none of them were real. No deaths, no injuries.
Alex Jones picked this up and ran with this at Sandy Hook, claiming the school wasn’t even used before the attack. A story so ludicrous it seems to me it must have come from the intelligence community, fronted by their asset Jones to discredit false flags, the cornerstone of conspiracy theory. I essentially quit at that time.
In a Delingpole interview Richard Hall said he believes this was a false flag attack with crisis actors and no one was killed or maimed. In exactly the same way Alex Jones reported on Sandy Hook. To me that was the end of conspiracy theory.
The valid identification of false flags has been irredeemably tainted by the illegitimate use of the concept of crisis actors used to model possible to disasters to the claim that no one was killed in a particular incident.
Claiming that real people with real injuries and even deaths are fake is like taking a long walk off a short pier and Hall has inevitably landed himself in very deep water.
To be clear I believe it was a false flag incident and the crisis actors were part of a disaster exercise in the building. It doesn’t follow that no one was killed.
Richard Hall is apart of the old alt media (truth movement) and was is very respected. Unlike 95%+ of the new alt media who scream it the Islamic jihadist. if you can remember back then,? some of the biggest faces on the truth movement / alt media defected and in a coordinate manufactured manner all started to endorse Trump and ‘leave EU referendum’ all scream at the same time, that the staged attacks were all now real and the moslems (whilst they the west bombed the middle east). another example of how they changed you tube. I went into You tube 24 hours ago and type in superbowl ritual and hardly anything come up Back then in 2017 you tube was paying serious money to content creators and occult stage attack specialists where on it, they was censored and then you tube had this political zombie crap that now calls… Read more »
This is an equity claim (albeit a very poorly written one) for damages due to harrasment, the GDPR/Stalking by the defendant would constitute a guily verdict in this case, so this looks like another set-up to fail case and more masonic theatre by all parties.
I just posted here about the failures of Anglo just-ice here by comparing the above with Climate cheat Micheal Mann winning his case in a Washington DC court last week and pooof….. gone
Anglo just-ice has become a matter of picking the right sub issue in front of the right court and the right judge.
That is how climate hockey stick fabricator Micheal Mann won his case after 12 years in a Washington DC (of course) court.
His scientology wasn’t even considered; his graph algorithm made a hockey stick of any data, he used selected knotted trees as thermometers and got away with it.
His Club of Rome inspired sponsored wanted an alarming climate graph fort their money and got one. Now they wanted him scott free and got that too: ve$ted intere$t$.
once again we are asked to accept a verdict..
No, as in the case of covid laws ratified by traitorous legislators, there is no asking or acceptance involved.
It seems that Davison doesn’t know anything about..
This ignorance is critical to his career.
Well, at least Biden has got his finger on the pulse of important issues:
https://twitter.com/jason/status/1756726329695973841/mediaviewer
If X ain’t working, try here:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/11/business/biden-shrinkflation-super-bowl-toblerone/index.html
The Justice system is there to preserve the Power.
I just dont understand how someone can think you can challenge and beat the system by using the same system who made the breach?
Everybody knows lawyers are like beavers, building dams in the system, stealing the fish, and let everybody else rebuild the mess they made.
You can only point at system failures from outside, and let the system itself make the correction.
I agree, but just to clarify, Richard D. Hall was defending himself. I don’t speak for him but I think he shares your perspective.
Taking a title: “defendant”, “claimant” etcetera is a diminishment of the status from that of simply a man, or woman, and is giving authority for others to administer you, like a “child” (I, use that word specifically). As it is seven levels below man, and woman, a creation of all creation. Titles come with duties and obligations. Law and legal are not the same; if it is not spelt the same it does not mean the same thing. Law is that which a man, or woman, is bound to follow; for example do no harm; do not do a wrong to another man, or woman; do not trespass upon another man, or woman; and that which a man, or woman, may establish by way of notice. Legal is for titles and those who claim titles; that which those of mankind are bound to follow when using a title; and acts,… Read more »
“believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see.”
Wise words from from a Truth teller.
May the curse of Karma full heavily on the heads of the usurpers.
Thank you Iain… I have tried in the past and in vain to show people the Nick Bickerstaff video which The Sun newspaper put out to perhaps make people think all might not be well with the official narrative… which Richard D. Hall shone a light on….. even in the light of evidence many don’t see… some do… hopefully more… the case here very diligently put by yourself.
Thank you Ian for writing this long overdue article, and thanks to OffG for publishing it. The moderators did take down my comment on exactly the same event a little while back. It is controversial. This is Britain’s ‘Sandy Hook’ we are discussing. And it is as fake as the one across the pond. It is now, after keeping Julian in Belmarsh for years on ridiculous now not even existing trumped (sic) up charges except possibly bail-jumping, (how I wish he had jumped a little bit further) not to be expected that anything remotely resembling justice is to be found in a UK high/criminal court if the case is remotely ‘political’ in any way whatsoever. As Max Igan, now comfortably ensconced in the leafy suburbs of Acapulco nearly put it in his latest Crow House, ‘Everything either has been, is, or will be criminalised.’ It looks like ‘lawfare’ to me.… Read more »
that is definitely not max igan in the above metube vid
No, that is definitely me. This is definitely Max.
https://davidicke.com/2024/02/12/the-criminalisation-of-everything-max-igan/
Way too much hair, man. Good song.
Max igan – liked loads of his stuff until he made out Christchurch was legit – just that there were other shooters. And yet the footage of the ‘carnage’ was as dubious as Manchester – if not moreso. Then told his viewers he was at serious risk and on ‘a list’ but managed to ‘escape’ to Mexico. Not for me.
By comparison I give you Icke: banned from most of the known world.
Max doesn’t have to be paranoid. It doesn’t mean they’re not out to get him.
Are you paranoid enough? That is the question.
Loads of people think that David (Icke) is a fake or controlled oppo. A close female friend was in his original group in Glastonbury, and I myself have tracked him down to his then lair in Wembley Point to stick cash money in his hand. He’s quite small in person. I get my news primarily via his site.
Unfortunately I am not surprised by this ruling, The state only considers “Journalists” who have bodies that “license and regulates” them, OFCOM for broadcast and now the Internet and also the newspaper regulators as well etc etc, anyone outside of that would always find themselves open to being sued. I also find branding Hall “Britain’s sickest man” to be comical if the ramifications were not quite so problematic. When you consider the UK has in its prisons murderers, rapists and violent offenders, I cannot see how this comment can possibly be reasonable. Ignoring the evidence Richard D Hall has presented whether you agree with said evidence or not, also opens up the possibility for room to ignore and actively prosecute anyone who for example brings forward evidence of “vaccine harms from the MRNA covid jab“. After-all, the same defense could be used of not contradicting a public inquiry regardless of… Read more »
Iain, I am very glad that you are exposing this travesty which has nothing at all to do with ‘justice.’ And that OffG are showing it. Especially as they took down my comment on this very issue a little while ago./To slightly over-quote Max Igan, whom I know, now ensconced in the leafy suburbs of Acapulco ‘Everything has been, is being, or will be criminalised. ‘
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWnXsQlsrN8&t=154s
Max has played the above guitar.
If a law is so opaque, arcane, and elastic that an ordinary person cannot understand it, then it’s a bad law.
It’s no wonder that sociopaths, psychopaths, sadists and bullies are attracted to the legal profession.
Legal WeEVILS.
(With apologies to weevils).
Most of the laws are impractical, intrusive, opaque, etc. Have a heart for the legal industry.
Your alternative update on #COVID19 for 2024-02-12. Unacceptably high harm-to-reward. If WHO treaty goes thru, you can bury democracy. Tractors Take Over (blog, gab, tweet, pic1, pic2, pic3, pic4).
In common with every other institution, the legal system has been utterly corrupted.
It has moved from “Justice is Blind” to “Justice has been blindsided”.
All in pursuit of enforcing the Narrative.
Has the legal system ever been legal and fair?
2000 years ago they crucified a man just for telling people the truth. In the 1700 century the US made Treaties not worth the ink written on it.
From 1778 to 1871, the United States signed some 368 treaties with various Indigenous people across the North American continent. Not one of them was upheld.
Just to make a few examples. Are we the people, Ian Davis, Richard D. Hall, still hoping? We hoped and we will continue to hope……………….LOL. You were hoping 😂 .
I don’t speak foor Richard D. Hall, but I have no faith in the “legal system” at all. It is a weapon of oppressive “lawfare” in my view and it always was. Justice has nothing to do with such a legal system. That said, the Common Law could be used to deliver justice were it not controlled by the State. While it is, it never will be.