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.
Please consider supporting my work. I really need your help if I am going to continue to provide the research and analysis that you value on a full-time basis. You can support my work for less than the price of a cup of coffee via my donor page or alternative become a paid subscriber to my Substack.
I extend my gratitude to my editor, who has provided invaluable contributions to my articles since October 2021 (but who, for personal reasons, prefers to remain anonymous).
Please feel free to share anything from iaindavis[.]com excluding any and all third party content. I use a Creative Commons License. All I ask is that you give credit to the author and clearly mark any changes you make. Please share my work widely. Censorship is increasing and we need to get this information out there. If you value what I do then please consider supporting my work. Many thanks.
Is there no appeals process in the UK? If not I’m surprised that any kind of investigative journalism has ever existed there, if the current example is any indication.
Thanks for your comments Devil. This is a civil not a criminal case. Richard D. Hall will need money to appeal the decision and it could take months or even years. In the meantime the ruling will stand.
Hi Iain
Thank you for writing such an excellent article.
As you say, it’s all about justice; not merely justice for Richard,but also for everyone who has to suffer under a system based on and governed by deception.
I think Richard’s single greatest error is in trying to tackle the British Establishment alone. He is an ant in the path of a bulldozer!
His best hope of any success would have been to align himself with,and enlist the support of, a reputable news outlet, such as UK Column.
I know the Column have been solid supporters of Richard’s case in recent months, but it would have been better to work together with them more closely, ab initio.
Having said that, if nothing else, Richard’s association with the Column can only raise the profile of his argument among a largely sympathetic audience and that is not something the entrenched powers can so easily dismiss.
Yet, I feel we are a million miles from any meaningful signs of success.
The majority of the public seem happy to meekly roll over and accommodate themselves to tyranny.
Perhaps it was ever thus.
The consequences of this latest travesty of justice are, as you so rightly point out, Orwellian in the highest degree.
I fear for the future of our children: a nightmare society is in the offing, unless enough ordinary folk wake up and see what is happening, right now, in front of their eyes.
Thanks Nick
I am not sure I entirely agree with you that UK Column have been “solid supporters” of Richard’s work. They had ample opportunity and many requests to highlight and share his reports, before the harassment claim was lodged, but they didn’t. That they have highlighted his case is most welcome, but even then they inferred that domestic false flag terrorism doesn’t occur.
They again, directed their audience to the excellent work of Robert Stuart (only including a link To Richard’s in the show notes), but Robert’s exposes a UK run false flag overseas. I believe Hall’s work is equally worthy and, most pointedly, demonstrates that the UK government orchestrate domestic false flags, potentially killing British people, as they evidently did on 7/7.
I do not for one moment think UK Column are “controlled op'” or accept any of the other more ridiculous claims made against them, but I do think they have been overly cautious in regard to Hall’s work. I understand the need to verify and act prudently but, if we are to have an impact in the battle against state oppression, sometimes it is necessary to be bold in my view. I think UK Column missed that important opportunity. Although I by no means allege this was anything other than a mistake.
Thanks for your thoughts on my reply to your original article.
I’m struggling to see how you believe the UK Column have inferred (implied?) that domestic false flag events don’t occur, when they’ve hosted symposiums centred on that very concept.
They had one only recently, chaired by Piers Robinson and featuring many excellent presentations.
They’ve also prominently featured the case of Matt Campbell, in his quest for justice over the death of his brother, Geoff, on 9/11.
Do you mean, perhaps, that the Column appears to disavow the idea of UK-based domestic false flags – that is, on home soil?
If they do, I share your concerns. I can only suggest the Column wants to tackle issues that aren’t quite so highly emotionally charged for its viewership and for which there is a more substantial and diverse amount of evidence than exists for home-brewed false flags, like the 7/7 Tube bombings, or the Manchester Arena *bang*.
That’s pure conjecture on my part, of course.
You sound a little irked by the Column: is this why your appearances on the show have petered out, latterly?
I miss seeing you there, I have to say.
On a point of admin: how do I get notified of your (and other’s) responses, without having to go back to the original article and checking?
Thanks again.
Thanks Nick. Sorry I should have clarified. I meant UK domestic FFs. Likewise it is conjecture on my part and I don’t accuse UKC of anything other than an oversight. It does appear to be a blind-spot however, and an important one. My concern is that there is a “substantial and [a] diverse amount of evidence” exposing UK-domestic FFs. Not least of all presented by Hall. Why not show UKC audiences that evidence?
I suspect that it is Hall’s contention that no one died at Manchester that is the “frightening” aspect for some, possibly including UKC. This is the logical conclusion if you examine the evidence demonstrating this was a “hoax” FF, as averse to 7/7 where real bombs were detonated and people were murdered.
It is Hall’s investigation of the alleged victims that has led him into legal problems. I think this was perhaps a tactical mistake on Richard’s part but he is fearless and has my admiration for not shying away from the very difficult questions. He has presented overwhelming evidence that there was no “bomb” but rather a pyrotechnic “bang.” The official account of TATP and a very large number of contradictory witness statements describing bright flashes for example.
The implication of such a “hoax” is, of course, that there were no genuine victims. Therefore, I understand why Hall felt it necessary to examine the victims. Hats off to him for doing it.
With regard to criticising UKC, as my submissions are no longer welcome, let’s just say I am now able to publicly voice criticisms I hitherto made privately.
On the point of admin this is a very basic WordPress comment section and I do not store anyone’s email. I am sure there are plugins that would enable me to notify comment makers but then I would need to store email addresses in wordpress, which I don’t want to do. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Thanks for your latest reply, Iain.
I’m left pondering why on earth your contributions are no longer sought by UK Column.
They’ve benefitted hugely from much of your work.
You must be too contentious, even for them.
That’s a worry.
(Is it all part of the general, systemic, “breakdown” Brian Gerrish is somewhat tediously fond of alluding to?)
I don’t really know why either Nick, so can’t give you much more information.. I think it is due to my views on multipolarity, which I know Vanessa Beeley passionately disagrees with, but I am not sure myself.
Truly a Tragedy, I hope some UK people will come out to support him or protest or something. I would know nothing about the Manchester Bombing or 7/7 without his research. There has to be a bunch of Brits that also appreciate his work, can’t they help at all?
Sorry, I don’t see any way to edit the comments, or I would have aggregated mine a little better.
Alex Jones suffered a similar fate. That guy can really bug me. I saw him in a recent debate on the same team as Glenn Grenwald and he was acting like a 3 year old, just insane. However, he has been right about SO MANY things, sometimes 10 years ahead of everyone else. And he was right about Sandy Hook. I watched it unfold in real time. So many of the videos that illustrated the multitude of contradictions have disappeared from the internet. One of the ones you can still see, which was also one of “breakthrough” ones for me, was the helicopter footage of all the crisis actors cycling thru the firehouse. The same people just going around in a big circle over and over again to look like a purposeful crowd.
Significant omissions include any resolution, or even further mention of the 2 men pursued from the school that same morning (with helicopter footage). They were caught and detained but never mentioned, or questioned about afterwards. Just 2 regular guys exiting a crime scene in haste and attempted secrecy, just like you or I would hang out at an elementary school shooting and then run from the police.
Way too many things to bring up without writing a whole book, I just wanted to bring up Jones who is much maligned for some good reasons,but if you subtract his personality his factual content was 98% at least.
You make some very valid observations about Alex Jones. Like you, I’m left scratching my head over his antics, at times.
On Sandy Hook, I take it you’re aware of the sterling efforts made by Wolfgang Halbig and James Fetzer, to find the truth of that day? Between them, they pretty much destroyed the credibility of the official narrative.
In a chilling parallel to R D Hall’s plight, sometime later, Fetzer was sued by Lenny Pozner, father of alleged SH victim, Noah. However, Fetzer’s case didn’t attract the attention of the media in the way that Jones’ did, probably because Fetzer would have been harder to dismiss as a crank, because he has genuine academic credentials to back up his claims.
As no institution can be perfect, their standards always need improving. However, tyrannical globalists are probably trying to manipulate us into demanding abolition of national institutions.
Inquiry and discussion thereof embed fear caused by incident, are binary, disrupt peace in society and damage health; as tyrannical globalists want.
Article offers neither improvement nor alternative to what it says cannot be passively allowed to persist nor any ideas about action to take: there’s scant sound data, analysis and practicality in it.
Article claims it does not say evidence is beyond dispute yet is more than enough to cast significant doubt: prior opinion and equivocal data cause bias.
As Inquiries depend on government to pay them tax payers’ money, they’re not in a position to be unbiased due to monetary conflict of interests; same for Iain if ruling could affect any of his income.
As ‘photographs’ can be computer-enhanced or entirely computer-generated, it’s questionable whether using ‘photographic evidence’ is valid anywhere by anyone.
Questioning everything, including unofficial things, seen or heard via electronics is advisable because none of it is own first-hand experience of real reality.
Thanks Jane. Are you using ChatGPT or something similar or is English not your first language?
I have written extensively about “solutions” elsewhere. We have a Common Law system for a start that does not permit judges to rule out defence arguments. Exposing false flag terrorism is to negate the suggested need for fear. As false flags always serve “tyrannical globalists,” objecting to any questioning of their “false flag” narratives, because it represents an unwelcome “binary,” is ridiculous and leaves us unable to question power.
“Significant doubt” and “not beyond dispute” are in no way mutually exclusive.
The issue is justice. This case does not threaten my income at all. Only Rivhard D. Hall’s. Certainly it could, justas it could threaten any independent journalists ability to question power, but to suggest a financial motive for this article sounds very much like mainstream propaganda.
Manipulated photographs and even deep fakes can easily be identified with forensic image analysis. Their existence does not preclude offering such evidence in a court case and it is absurd to suggest doing so is invalid.
Yes, questioning everything is advisable. Which is what Richard D. Hall has done and the High Court of Justice has ruled out.
If you cannot see how a judge ruling that evidence critical to a defendant’s case being dismissed as inadmissible without even looking at it and justifying the decision by citing the findings of a Government-funded Inquiry, then there is little hope for you.
The Judiciary purports to be independent of Government. Indeed it categorically must be. This is a cornerstone of the Constitution. But it patently isn’t independent when it merely accepts the Government-funded account without even evaluating evidence that challenges it.
As for Iain not offering improvement or alternative, that’s a preposterous claim. Allowing the evidence is assumed.
Certainly visual evidence can be manipulated. That stands for all evidence. Halls evidence did not just rely on this and did include first-hand experience.
Great article, Iain. Very important and somewhat chilling. It would seem that British ‘justice’ has moved in the direction of US justice. For some years now the DoJ’s campaigns of lawfare have frequently manipulated the legal process by the prosecutions moving to declare evidence inadmissible, thus completely undermining the defences’ case. For this to be remotely possible, it is essential nobody call out this clear travesty of natural justice. The sine qua non is as you say a compliant mass media who can attack the defendant ad hominem without remotely referring to the credibility of any evidence and the injustice of it being summarily dismissed without even being looked at by the judge. Only defendants with seemingly limitless resources can fight against such a system.
It appears that the UK’s legal system is as horribly broken as the US legal system. And with the raft of UK legislation that has been passed over the last few years, the outlook for independent investigative journalism and alternative media is indeed very bleak.
There is no justice, just us.
lol.. very drol…
That must describe you very well.
I can’t see why the concept of Discovery in UK Law shouldn’t apply. You would think Richard can apply for sight of the various documents that the Hibberts’ rely upon and the CCTV footage claiming to show them, as provided for by this process.
https://lawi.org.uk/discovery/
Richard’s situation echoes the prosecution of Jim Fetzer by Lenny Pozner. Fetzer was prevented from presenting his evidence regarding the Sandy Hook event and convicted on a very narrow matter, his claims about the anomalies on the death certificate for the alleged deceased son Noah Pozner. After subsequent failed appeals he was left with a $450,000 fine.
Thanks David. That is a big part of this travesty. Hall did apply for that evidence but the summary judgement that he had “no real prospect of success” overode that application. It is a total disgrace, a sham trial and kangaroo “justice.”
Great article Iain. Commentary is superfluous!I’ll see if i can share
Thanks Gerry
Ludicrous how Ruth Murrell casually takes out her phone to talk. Who was she talking to? How did she manage to hang on to it after receiving serious injury? It’s a joke, A bad one.
It certainly isn’t consistent with a large-scale terrorist attack, that’s for sure.
I’d love know to what extent the Queen knew she was participating in the hoax. The outfit she wore at the hospital, when she visited the ‘victims’, indicates she fully understood it was all theatre!
On the other hand, if she was merely an unwitting dupe, it suggests to me that the entire event was, at least partially, intended to be seen as a demonstration of just how powerful the real ruling ‘elite’ have become.
I’m reminded of the infamous photo of Prince Charles being blatantly and publicly poked in the chest by one of the Rothschild clan.
What can we do? Our liberties are being trampled on and our rights and freedoms curtailed by the day. This can’t go on. We MUST do something……………..anything………to let these people know we’ve had enough of them.
Thanks, Andi. May I suggest they don’t care what we think of them. Therefore, we shouldn’t care what they think of us, with vigour. We cannot change the system in my view. It is wholly corrupt. The solutions need to come directly from us in full rejection of their system. Basically, we need to build something better and I suggest whatever we construct it should be based upon decentralised autonomy.
Can we call it The Tooting Popular Front?
Sorry Iain, it’s a bit late and I really should be asleep.
Power to the people!
You may not be free to speak your mind, Iain and Richard but I feel no constraint upon me.
The Judge is corrupt and has proven that with his appalling judgement. He should be charged with criminal conduct while in office.
This ruling has to be overturned because it is harassment and bullying.
Thanks Frances. Couldn’t agree more. I do not know what the situation is with an appeal. Sadly, I don’t even think the Judge is necessarily “corrupt,” in the sense I think you mean. He represents his Establishment, that is what all judges do. Justice never has anything to do with their rulings. They are purely Establishment gatekeepers and have to be dragged kicking and screaming toward anything resembling “justice.” So he was just doing his job, ruling on the system as designed, and isn’t notably different from any other judge. His pejorative comments and snide remarks were all made in defence of the Establishment he is employed to protect.
I really don’t accept that nothing can be done – if Richard D Hall needs more money to mount an appeal then let’s raise the money… I’m up for it.
I don’t know what the appeal situation is but I am up for that fundraiser too.
You only need to watch 7/7 Ripple Effect here;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBDUhWCGw2k
If the link does not work simply Duck Duck Go and search the title.
Brit Legal System is mirrowing the USA. ie Not straight!
With respect, I think the US system is mirroring the Brit’s. Our system has always served the Establishment, for at least 800 years. Sadly what has happened to Richard is just another example, in a very long line, of travesties.
I have followed the work of Richard D Hall for many years and viewed his investigation into the Manchester Bombing. I watched it with a very sceptical eye but came away with my beliefs challenged, if nothing else.
Although I agree with Iain’s analysis and characterisation of this sham trial, I arrive at a slightly different conclusion when it comes to possible ramifications.
Yes, this could set a nasty precedent within the court system but there is a graver danger to the court system itself. I’m taking about the court that rules on the justice system itself – the Court of Public Opinion.
The Court of Public Opinion is the highest court in the land, even if not officially recognised. It can dispose of corrupt justice systems, corrupt governments, even entire empires themselves, as history has shown over and over again.
I believe that the UK justice system (as well as all three governments of Britain) are skating on thin ice these days. I’m no Nostradamus, but in the long term this decision might turn out to be worse for the justice system and UK government than for Richard D Hall.
BTW, I appealed a civic case judgement a couple of months ago. It cost me £154 (in Wales). So that’s an option.
I think there is every reason to hope you are right Simon.
I’m afraid I’m very sceptical of this entire thing. The case was “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.”
Whether or not the bombing occurred should neither have formed part of the defence nor been of consideration for the judge in this case. I understand that Hall’s claim that he was trying to expose or prevent a crime seems legitimate and would work in many cases, but “intelligence agencies and other companies and government agencies faking an event” is not going to be acknowledged as a crime – and what kind of crime? Fraud and malfeasance in public office, perhaps?
And a ‘ruling’ regarding the brother of the alleged bomber is totally irrelevant to a case re: harassment and data protection.
A real judge and real lawyers would have known all this. The case referred to specific legislation which backs up specific law – yet obviously went off into the bushes on both sides. It’s utterly ludicrous and the whole thing functions because of an almost complete ignorance of the law by just about everyone who reads anything about it.
Either the judge and all lawyers present do not know or understand the law, or this was a ‘show trial’ designed to scare off journalists and other enquirers into the truth of events. The judge’s conclusions, ruling, and reasoning is so preposterous I am inclined to believe it was a show trial. That is, not real.
I’ll have a good clue in a year or two by looking it up in case files. I’m betting it’s not going to exist, and is about as real as the MEN event itself.
Thanks Aliz
I don’t agree that Hall was wrong to legally in error to present the evidence he had uncovered. Most pointedly, this is the evidence that casts immense doubt on the claimants’ claim for harassment, which was almost entirely based upon what he had published, but more than that it shows he was acting reasonably and trying to expose a crime. This is an appropriate defence in such a harassment claim I believe.
As for it being a show “trial” you may well be right. It wasn’t actually a trial but it certainly was a kangaroo court. Time will tell and I too will be interested and more than a little concerned, to see how this ruling is used. As for it being “real” I take your point but, as I intended, I can attest that this travesty of justice occurred.
First of all, thanks for the detailed top quality analysis Iain.
I’ve noticed this about judges. They tend to be cowards who love the social status and lucrative incomes of their positions. They will not put any of that at risk for a pesky thing like truth.
Master Davison has turned to be no exception. (Am I allowed by the way to criticize a judge? Well, I should, as far as I know, have the legal freedom to.)
Davison, like many in his top profession, sought to avoid controversy by coming to the decision he did. (And I bet he knew it.) He relied on mass public ignorance to draw a judgment with blinding logical contradictions, obvious to anyone with a thinking mind. For example, he states in his judgment that for Richard’s case to have validity, Richard would have to prove that every single one of the 22 ostensible dead from the supposed blast are all still alive. In other words – and I can’t see any alternative interpretation – Richard would have to prove this element of his case beyond reasonable doubt, like a state prosecutor would have to in a criminal trial. Yet Davison also states that Martin Hibbert need only prove his case on the balance of probabilities.
Clear double standards, right there in your face in Davison’s judgment. Indeed, coming back to our God-given sense of reason, Davison is also blatantly wrong. Richard need only prove doubt about the claim that 22 died to make his case logically sound. I believe Richard successfully proved this doubt in his films anyway.
Actually, Richard is only seeking a more rigorous police investigation, not to have to do the work of the police itself (without the funding and resources that the police have at their disposal, as it appears Davison is claiming that Richard should have to do).
Another unfair point I noticed in Davison’s judgment is his statement that Richard was using the trial as a means to spread knowledge of his Manchester research. That indeed might be a secondary benefit, but so what? Richard has to do his best to make his case. That means for one thing an abundant supply of evidence. What is Richard supposed to do? Deliberately compromise his own case to avoid a charge that he’s displaying the nation the facts he’s uncovered?
So, to come back to why Davison made this (to my mind, corrupt) judgment, let’s try to discern the consequences on Davison had he decided to stick with truth. A cruel media smear campaign would have been waged against him (much like the one we saw against Richard). They would have called him a “theorist” for one. Moreover, my guess is, the media would have been calling for his dismissal. This would draw in politicians with an interest in the propagation of terror lies. Davison would be out, and with this would go the lucre that’s a natural part of his profession. This would be more than Master Davison could bear.
In short, Davison is a poor example to men (especially young men), who should be warriors for truth.
But would about Hibbert? (I will add that this is my opinion and my opinion only. I am allowed to think what I think, and I am allowed to tell others what I think.) I think he is a cry baby with a greed that has reached monstrous dimensions. He is willing to impoverish someone doing real men’s work (like Richard) so he could enrich himself. Many words come to my mind to describe Martin Hibbert, but it would be impolite to use them here. So I will just say this. Hibbert is an extremely poor example to men. In filing this prosecution, he behaved like a pampered over-mothered 12-year-old boy. I’m quite disgusted that this is what the media, governments and now the legal system encourage in men.
Many thanks. Excellent comment Lew. Some astute observations well made. I agree almost completely.
Without being mealy-mouthed, let me express my view of Hibbert.
I don’t know why anyone would be involved in a false flag operation. I don’t know what coercion or inducements may be used to get people to participate. So I don’t know much about why Hibbert is doing what he is doing.
Like you, there is nothing about his actions that I consider honourable. But I cannot criticise him beyond that, because I simply do not know what his motivations are, to the extent that I can’t even speculate.
Nicholas Kollerstrom was on Richie Allen, no fan of RDH, tonight backing Hall. Worth a listen on catchup tomorrow.
Thanks Paul. Unfortunately I listened to it. You can read what I thought of Allen’s views here: – https://iaindavis.substack.com/p/the-manchester-arena-false-flag
Ian Davis,
As a former Police Constable attached to the New South Wales Police Department, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, and having been involved in Security Investigations, and upon continuous viewing, reading, and research of Richard D. Halls prima facie evidence concerning the Manchester False Flag Operations, I not only favour and support Richard, but am in full agreeance that every dead living soul who has participated in complicity, lying, deceit, cover-ups, and false statements, are guilty of conspiracy to pervert and prevent true justice, from being revealed and indeed exposed as nothing more than a communist judaic and masonic plot to introduce further draconian domestic and foreign policies in attempt to furtherance their multi polar new world order, with the elimination of further freedoms and liberties from the populations.
The so called entity who has acted the role of judge has committed treason and needs to be arrested and charged as such.
No one can convince me, or any living souls who live and walk in the truth of the One True Living LORD God of Creation, that the so called judge who has ruled against Richard’s evidence, is that ignorant for lack of knowledge, that he, she, or anyone involved in this case,is not aware of the false flag terrorism exercises and operations that have been conducted by British Security Services, Military and Police Services, past, present and apparent future coming false flag terror events.
What the masonic fraternal order establishment is doing to dear Richard, is absolutely disgusting, and appalling, to say the least.
Anyone to think otherwise, is a liar.
Phillip Jones
County Kent
England 🏴
Many thanks Phillip. Yep, it is utterly disgusting.
There is something seemingly improper about using Mr. Terry Wilcox as a witness to the video footage placing the Hibberts at the scene and time of the blast. Terry Wilcox is the solicitor “instructed by two of the families” said to have been caught in the blast. He works for Hudgell Solicitors, the legal firm acting for the Hibberts. (You can check this on the Hudgell Solicitors’ website, https://www.hudgellsolicitors.co.uk/our-people )
I’m not a legal expert, but this looks to me a conflict of interest. Why is a representative of one side of a claim, namely the Hibberts’, given privileged access to restricted data, but the opposing side, namely Richard’s, denied all access to it?
Furthermore, if an acting solicitor can also act as a witness, then he must surely be liable to cross-examination by the other side? This might only be fruitful for the defence after seeing the footage first or being able to confirm it doesn’t exist.
This is where it gets interesting. I see three possible scenarios regarding the footage:
(1) The video footage that Terry Wilcox gave signed testimony to doesn’t exist.
(2) The footage exists but was faked.
(3) The footage exists and is real.
Let’s examine these scenarios one by one.
(1) Non-existent video. Very unlikely I would say. I can’t see Wilcox being willing to put his head on the line by giving false testimony to witnessing a video that’s not there. Apart from having to face jail time for perjury, his career and reputation would end up in tatters. The reputation of the firm he works for Hudgell Solicitors would also take a severe battering.
(2) Faked video. This is my favoured possibility, that Wilcox was duped into viewing and accepting falsified footage. In other words, that Wilcox himself held the honest belief it was real. This footage would have to have been filmed recently, that is, since the Establishment /BBC /Hibbert filed their claim against Richard. But an Eve lookalike would have to have been used by necessity. Eve was 14 at the time of the Manchester event in 2017. This would make her 21 today (or coming up to 21). She would look markedly different. So a girl who’s around 14 today would have to be used in Eve’s place. This girl’s face might have to be obscured, perhaps by shadow, or having her look the other way, to avoid anyone spotting the deception. Or perhaps they might avoid showing “Eve” in the first place to keep it simple. (Having said that, I wouldn’t put it past them to goof up and use a recent 20 or 21-year-old Eve.)
(3) Real video of real event. This would be an impossibility in view of the solid work Richard has done to expose the falsehood of the whole setup.
I hope this gives us an insight into what we might expect in the months (or years?) ahead.
Thanks for an excellent comment and your insightful observations Lew. Personally I’d go with option 1, but you make a very good argument. I think the judiciary and the legal system is entirely corrupt and if solicitors, barristers and judges were ever actually convicted for their perjury there wouldn’t be many left.
The Swiss Policy Research site, ( previously Swiss Propaganda Research, who used to run the eye-opening/red-pilling Swiss Doctor reports on Covid ), have just published their analysis of available videos of the Crocus Concert Hall “attack”, in which they conclude that it may be a staged event. This was a shock to me as I had, despite reading your article on the Manchester Arena event only days before, simply believed the mainstream stories about it. Have you looked into it, and what is your opinion?
Yes I think the evidence is very interesting and it seems entirely possible it was staged to an extent or perhaps completely staged. Riley Waggaman and Rurik Skywalker have been looking at this. I’ve added some of their posts below and I suggest following them as they provide a lot of links to mainstream and independent Russian outlets on many matters.
SPR Article: – https://swprs.org/the-moscow-concert-hall-attack-may-have-been-a-staged-event/
Rurik Skywalker 01: – https://slavlandchronicles.substack.com/p/some-people-are-saying-that-the-moscow
Rurik Skywalker 02: – https://slavlandchronicles.substack.com/p/lukashenko-contradicts-the-kremlin
Riley Waggaman 01: – https://edwardslavsquat.substack.com/p/a-very-curious-crocus-video
Riley Waggaman 02: – https://edwardslavsquat.substack.com/p/crocus-terror-attack-question-more