Most people I know still believe that the media give us genuine facts and information, opposing views and different sides of stories (‘why would they lie?’). They are living in a different reality.
As you have proved many times, if someone is given lots of media coverage it is always by design.
I was watching an old episode of Minder yesterday from about 1983. There was a scene where a newspaper journalist and his editor were discussing how to portray Arthur Daley in their article (Arthur had faked his own death to avoid a tax bill). The reporter said they shouldn’t make him out to be a hero for the people, the editor replied ‘we can make him whatever we want’.
I think Miri is almost certainly right about Richard D Hall - what she says completely stacks up. (I do wish that someone would encourage UKC not to promote him and his case, which they do from time to time, as they did with Assange, etc. Their news is the only news I watch and I normally find them reliable but they seem to get odd things wrong. But perhaps this is normal? - after all, they are only human!! I hope they are not still 'off' Miri, which was, in my view, a bad sign on their part.) Actually, had it not been for UKC and Miri I wouldn't have even heard of Richard D Hall as I don't read the papers or watch the telly.
As for Madeleine McCann, again I think Miri may well be right - time alone will tell and it will be interesting to see. Again, I hadn't given her a thought all these years until Miri mentioned her.
'If you know their name, they're in the game' seems a pretty good working hypothesis to me. One has to work from something and so far it appears to hold good.
Thanks Priscilla, I think it's only Brian Gerrish at UKC who doesn't like me (though I'm always open to coming on the show to sort out our differences, Brian!), I've always had a good rapport with the others when we've had cause to interact, and in fact, Ben Rubin interviewed me quite recently (not for UKC, for his own Rise UK platform). We had a really good chat, but alas it never went out as Ben was having technical issues with the software he was using and it didn't record properly (I've used the same software and had the same issues).
It is disappointing when our preferred broadcasters get things wrong, but to be fair, almost everyone on our side was unequivocally pro-Richard until quite recently. I think the tide may be slowly but surely turning...
Hope Brian and you sort things out. I really like Ben Rubin - a sparky and bright individual. Hopefully he’ll do another interview with you - that would be excellent!
Thought provoking as ever Miri and brave as this is definitely going to trigger a lot of truthers!
“I know you may like Richard - feel like you know him, even - and therefore feel personally affronted by my saying this about him, but please ask yourself honestly:
Why does he get so much media attention?”
Bingo
I think Dom & Chris may be suffering a bit of cognitive dissonance if they read this article because they seem pretty sure that RDH is legit
I think as a fairly new truther (convid shook me out of my zombie coma) I and other newbie truthers may be at a bit of an advantage when considering your thesis because we were not aware of Richard pre our recent awakening so don’t have much of an attachment to him and his work.
Your thesis certainly resonates with me
From a personal gut feeling level I have always found RDH creepy and I can’t be alone in this? I don’t think this is an accident
I also find his incredulity at truthers that have genuine questions about our official cosmology suspicious.
Thank you, Deenzy, all good points, and yes, I too find him creepy! I have never mentioned this in my articles, as obviously a personal aversion to someone is not proof of anything, but intuition (literally meaning "inner tutor") on others should never be ignored.
When I doorstepped teachers, police, publicans and public in Dunblane or elsewhere. I never once considered that I might be harassing people in a criminal or even morally objectionable fashion.
Whilst I never filmed, it's still okay to ask people to stand by their word to your face if you've a legitimate and respectful question imho.
So the whole claim of harassment itself seems spurious to me, unless it's entirely manufactured.
The media gaze is the biggest red flag for me, approved or otherwise, I wasn't aware he'd been covered by MS before; let alone a Panorama!
With the harassment, I think the two things that rankle here are the secret filming around people's houses (i.e., not public places) and his focus on a very young person (possibly still then even a child?) who appears to be disabled. With harassment, legally one crosses that line once the people in question have made it clear they don't want the attention and yet it continues, so it does look to me as if RDH probably crossed that line.
But yes, as you say, biggest flag is the phenomenal amount of media attention he receives.
Brilliant piece. Just brilliant. Your “official story” versus “official conspiracy theory” as “competing” narrative techniques to control an overarching mass media paradigm is especially poignant. It is a useful heuristic to continually evaluate the authenticity of any commentator with a platform: which narrative are they amplifying now? And in every instance, it seems it’s the apex agenda that ultimately benefits.
Since my awakening circa 2016, I have voraciously consumed output from the alt left to alt right, MSM to MFM, awake to anti-woke, culture warriors to keyboard warriors, white hat to black hat to tin foil hat… When James Delingpole said to Vox Day recently that his seminal 2015 book “SJWs Always Lie” is a “charming period piece” seen through the prism of today, it stunned me to think how far we’ve come in a short time in what seems increasingly like a long, drawn-out dystopian novel denouement.
A revealing gap analysis emerges when looking at how narratives are weaved and promoted across the mediascape by “competing” commentators over time: ie when they don’t promote a topic that they would be expected to promote or even once did promote heavily. Recent examples include Scottish Neil Oliver refusing to acknowledge via his platform the disturbing revelations from the suppressed Scottish Covid Inquiry, the only one of its kind in the world, despite pleading from activists. Or Joe Rogan not challenging “father of the Covid vaccines” Donald Trump on Covid vaccine deaths and injuries, despite Rogan’s previous protestations on the topic, his podcast guests (from Robert Malone to Peter McCullough to Aseem Malhotra) or indeed Trump’s partnering with RFK Jr and Elon Musk who have both publicly acknowledged the harms. Or how the assorted commentariat squirm their mental gymnastics to avoid narrative booby traps, from germ to terrain, criticism of Zionism to support for Israel, pandemic to scamdemic, democide to genocide, psyop to depop, new world order to one world government, geo-engineering to social engineering, statism to scientism…
These are not oversights. These are real-time gaslighting, misinformation, disinformation and limited hangout operations by skilled propagandists within an engineered reality. All should be considered complicit, captured, corrupt and controlled.
A third narrative should be amplified: the unofficial conspiracy theory. Typically arrived at through a distillation of multiple inputs from a vast range of dissident subject matter experts and well-informed, brave and concerned laypeople whose authenticity can be measured by the extent to which they are invariably censored, throttled, demonetised, deplatformed, defamed, ostracised, ridiculed, and definitely not promoted anywhere, ever, by any “official” source. Except in the last vestiges of free and open digital, physical and mental spaces while they still can
Thank you, Brian, an excellent and insightful comment.
Another key way to tell who is legitimate is whose reach is kept relatively small, and who becomes very visible and influential very quickly. All the "big names" have tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands (or even millions, as per Andrew Tate) of followers on social media, as obviously it is not in the cabal's interests to control anyone unless they are having an impact on a significant number of people. So if I was "controlled", my controller would have been long since fired for failing to even get me to 10k!
Thought provoking as Miri always is. Even if I am not sure about claims made by anyone, I choose to wait and see if I respect the commentator who made such claims.
Miri...I tell everyone "if you know their name they're in the game" lol my keyboard had the whole sentence ready made for me ( not sure that's a good thing tho? 😅)
I often wonder how people make money if they're on the wrong (right) side of those that desire to control us? And Richard D Hall does make money, whether he's is in on it or not, I can see a way that this will be used to keep us "conspiracy theorists " looked upon as crazy 😜
Thank you, TeeCee! Yes, RDH does make money, quite a lot of it by the looks of things, because if he didn't, there would be no point in the Hibberts taking him to court. First thing a lawyer would look into in this kind of case is, "does this guy have any money? Because if he doesn't there's no point suing him" (which is why as I've mentioned in previous articles, nobody is going to sue me!).
This comment seems a little bit contradictory to me. If the ultimate purpose of the court case is to discredit RDH’s conclusion that the Manchester ‘bombing’ was a staged event and to deter others from questioning the official narrative. Possibly even to push him into the public eye in order to fulfil his role in the long game Madeline McCann conspiracy, as you have hypothesised, then what does it matter how much money he has?
After reading Hall's book (available at £25 from his website), I found his basic assertions to be quite compelling.
He concludes that he can but speculate on 'why', much as you guess the reason for Madeline's disappearance, (I don't know about his views on this), although as a result of Manchester, Martyn's Law is now being pursued to restrict unofficial public gatherings.
The trial, apparently instigated by the BBC on behalf of the Hibberts, cleverly focussed upon the two points you mention, without allowing any supporting circumstances to be considered -so, if no 'why you done it' isn't allowed, then he has no defense and stitched. From what I've read, Hall's intrusion was minimal, from a distance and short.
Let's hope you don't get too popular to become noticed and controlled!
PS. A guy from Oldham who's particular about semi-colons? He's a keeper!
another function of controlled opposition that has struck me recently, is they are usually a posse, and that if you play along with them, it can be quite lucrative. There are a number of people who have been very good, about the pandemic, the vaccines etc, but who will pause to eg condemn Jordan Peterson as controlled opposition cos they actually quite fancy attending the next 'Resistance' Conference, and why put people's noses out of joint when it's not absolutely necessary. And there is only one requirement for admittance, 'just don't have a go at Israel'.
Another excellent article Miri. I don't know if you are aware of the Work of Christopher Spivey . His research regarding the McCann mystery play reaches the same conclusion.
Good to know there are such people as yourselves pointing out the theatrics of the lunatics in charge . All the worlds a stage apparently.
Thank you, Ramsay, and yes, Chris Spivey! I remember reading him a lot several years ago, but haven't seen anything from his for ages. Good to know he's still at it.
Very powerful case Miri. Just this last weekend I saw Sonia Poulton make the case for M M dying in the holiday apartment after falling down off the back of a sofa while unsupervised (negligent parents) and cracking her head on the stone floor. Evidence included the signals of the Portuguese Police cadaver dogs. No way I can be 100% sure either way on this. Just like so many things I used to believe!
Thank you, Trevor. Sonia does great work, but I think she's got it wrong on this. It just comes back to the core question as to why the establishment would keep MM's name in the headlines consistently for nearly two decades, and pour millions upon millions into her search fund, if they were trying to cover anything up! This level of publicity and funding is literally the exact opposite of a cover-up and its purpose is to keep the world's eyes on the Madeleine case. So the question is - why..?
The whole thing was staged by actors, IMO - they all flew out to Praia De Luz together to do some on-location filming of a "child abduction drama" that was passed off to the public as real. My full theory on this can be found here: https://miriaf.co.uk/nobody-wants-to-find-a-dead-cat/
As for harassment, it's a fine line and it's easy to cross. If you email someone and they reply asking you to never contact them again, and you do, legally, that is harassment. So if you turn up at someone's house and they make it clear they don't want you there, it's very easy to be in breach of the law.
I have a client who has for 50 years lived in the next village to Rothley - where the McCanns were claimed to live -and a different client who was a consultant at Glenfield Hospital at the time of the "abduction" and for many years afterwards
If the McCanns had been invented I would have expected both to have commented.
That question about the McCanns - how do you account for a nonexistent person’s disappearance to family and close friends? - is one I had re Michael Moseley’s ‘fake death’ but obviously in reverse? I can’t work that one out. Surely word would slip out?
I heartily applaud your ability to conduct a thought experiment and argue it so eloquently even when I don’t agree :)
Do they really need to conduct such a convoluted complicated ruse in order to demonise “conspiracy theorists”? Or to chip the general population? All the people that would be condemning us in the wake of this already are. The population is already partaking quite happily in voluntary chipping by carrying around their smart phones and watches.
Hi Miri, I have enjoyed reading your musings over the past few years and find many of them thought provoking and insightful. Regarding RDH, in a previous piece you seemed open to the possibility that he is being set-up in a potential role to help discredit independent journalism if ‘Madeline’ is found alive and well. In this piece you appear to be more of the opinion that he could be a conscious agent of disinformation.
Have I got that correct? If so, what appears to you to be the most compelling evidence for you to be able to assert that position? As you will be aware, people who are firmly of the position that RDH is completely sincere and has been totally stitched up with this fabricated court case will be understandably upset to see you take such a position. Personally it makes me feel uneasy that you may be maligning an innocent man even though I respect that you are free to make that judgement on a person if that is what your conscious is telling you.
Would you be prepared to have a face to face discussion with Iain Davis on this matter? I think that would be of great interest to your respective supporters. Iain has posted a lengthy rebuttal of this piece on his own substack page. I don’t know if you have seen it but I will copy and paste below:
26-10-2024
“I am not a paid subscriber to Miri so I can't comment on her post presently but perhaps she will read this. Miri lists the characteristics of a person who she considers not to be controlled opposition:
1. Never accepted any money or other favours to endorse certain people or theories
2. Every article (or video or book) represents my own original and organic thoughts, shared for no other reason than I believe them to be true
3. [Never] refraining from writing critically about certain people or theories [due to fear] of the response of my audience.
4. [Never succumbing to] threats - regardless of whether that person is a billionaire cabal member, or a random ranter on the internet.
I would ask Miri to explain how Richard D. Hall is not an exemplar of these, let's call them, principles. I have a lot of time for Miri's expressed concern that this case has been heavily manipulated and I agree with her that Hall has been used by the establishment. But I disagree with her about why and how he has been used.
Miri's interpretation of the ruling is wrong in my view. As I stated in the article the "course of conduct," deemed to constitute harassment by Steyn, was Hall's published and broadcast work that exposed the Manchester Hoax. Steyn explicitly stated this.
Miri is right to point out that Steyn vilified Hall for all manner of alleged travesties but this was vitriolic window dressing heaped upon him and not the salient issue in the case. His course of conduct was his journalism. Unfortunately, Miri has been dazzled by the BS in Steyn's ruling and overlooked that key fact imho.
Miri is also wrong about the reasons why I have not been prosecuted. I only just managed to get my book out in time for the trial. By then the prosecution of Richard was more than a year old. Had my book come out when Richard's did, and I very much regret that I didn't speak out sooner, I suspect that I may have had a claim launched against me too and I may yet.
Richard has been very well known in the independent media for more than a decade. The BBC and the Mail, for example, criticised him before he even published his Manchester book. As far as UK independent journalists go, they don't come much more high profile than Richard. He has been on the legacy media's radar for a long time and their pursuit of him is explicable for that reason.
I am relatively unknown. One of the criticism made against me is that I am capitalising on Richard's media presence. It's an invalid criticism and I see no reason to address it.
As yet we do not know what the injunction or the cost will be for Richard. But sadly, I strongly suspect that it will be severe. The idea suggested by Miri that Richard somehow profits personally from all this is, I have to say, quite absurd. Anyone who has witnessed how this case has effected him would know that. In typical Richard style he has shielded his family, as far as he can, from it. Unlike Martin Hibbert who did the opposite with respect to Eve--for whom I have a great deal of sympathy but not for the reasons suggested by Miri.
Certainly Steyn made a great deal out of Hall's "furtive" filming of Eve and visit to her home. Which, as I will explore in part 2, was completely incongruous with the evidence presented in the trial.
What Steyn did not highlight out is that Richard never broadcast any of that footage and only mentioned his visit very briefly in his book and video. By virtue of ignoring the fact that Richard is an investigative journalist and was perfectly entitled and reasonably justified in conducting that investigation, including gaining information by "other means" where necessary, Steyn was able to characterise his visit as she did. Miri has completely missed this point.
As for his book still being available on Amazon, I am absolutely certain that won't continue, given Steyn's ruling.
Having said all of that I do think Miri is right about the attention the case has drawn. I'm sure their were calculations made to what extent the Streisand effect could be tolerated. While, inevitably, it has drawn attention to Richards "hoaxed attack hypothesis" I think Miri has missed the point of the case. Something I'll explore in Part 2.
Clearly the intent was to stop Richard talking about it. This is another reason I wrote my book and published it before the trial. Now they will have to stop me talking about it too.
Like Richard, I make my book freely available for download. There is nothing to stop anyone downloading it, reviewing it, sharing it, quoting it or talking about it themselves. Then their voices will have to be silenced by people like Karen Steyn too.
Most people I know still believe that the media give us genuine facts and information, opposing views and different sides of stories (‘why would they lie?’). They are living in a different reality.
As you have proved many times, if someone is given lots of media coverage it is always by design.
I was watching an old episode of Minder yesterday from about 1983. There was a scene where a newspaper journalist and his editor were discussing how to portray Arthur Daley in their article (Arthur had faked his own death to avoid a tax bill). The reporter said they shouldn’t make him out to be a hero for the people, the editor replied ‘we can make him whatever we want’.
Thanks for all your great work 👍🏻
Thank you, Mick, and that's very telling re: Minder = they often use these sorts of shows to reveal to us how things really work...
In the same episode a detective said ‘the only thing I believe in a newspaper is the date’. 😄
I think Miri is almost certainly right about Richard D Hall - what she says completely stacks up. (I do wish that someone would encourage UKC not to promote him and his case, which they do from time to time, as they did with Assange, etc. Their news is the only news I watch and I normally find them reliable but they seem to get odd things wrong. But perhaps this is normal? - after all, they are only human!! I hope they are not still 'off' Miri, which was, in my view, a bad sign on their part.) Actually, had it not been for UKC and Miri I wouldn't have even heard of Richard D Hall as I don't read the papers or watch the telly.
As for Madeleine McCann, again I think Miri may well be right - time alone will tell and it will be interesting to see. Again, I hadn't given her a thought all these years until Miri mentioned her.
'If you know their name, they're in the game' seems a pretty good working hypothesis to me. One has to work from something and so far it appears to hold good.
Thanks Priscilla, I think it's only Brian Gerrish at UKC who doesn't like me (though I'm always open to coming on the show to sort out our differences, Brian!), I've always had a good rapport with the others when we've had cause to interact, and in fact, Ben Rubin interviewed me quite recently (not for UKC, for his own Rise UK platform). We had a really good chat, but alas it never went out as Ben was having technical issues with the software he was using and it didn't record properly (I've used the same software and had the same issues).
It is disappointing when our preferred broadcasters get things wrong, but to be fair, almost everyone on our side was unequivocally pro-Richard until quite recently. I think the tide may be slowly but surely turning...
Hope Brian and you sort things out. I really like Ben Rubin - a sparky and bright individual. Hopefully he’ll do another interview with you - that would be excellent!
Thought provoking as ever Miri and brave as this is definitely going to trigger a lot of truthers!
“I know you may like Richard - feel like you know him, even - and therefore feel personally affronted by my saying this about him, but please ask yourself honestly:
Why does he get so much media attention?”
Bingo
I think Dom & Chris may be suffering a bit of cognitive dissonance if they read this article because they seem pretty sure that RDH is legit
I think as a fairly new truther (convid shook me out of my zombie coma) I and other newbie truthers may be at a bit of an advantage when considering your thesis because we were not aware of Richard pre our recent awakening so don’t have much of an attachment to him and his work.
Your thesis certainly resonates with me
From a personal gut feeling level I have always found RDH creepy and I can’t be alone in this? I don’t think this is an accident
I also find his incredulity at truthers that have genuine questions about our official cosmology suspicious.
Thank you, Deenzy, all good points, and yes, I too find him creepy! I have never mentioned this in my articles, as obviously a personal aversion to someone is not proof of anything, but intuition (literally meaning "inner tutor") on others should never be ignored.
I wonder what kind of take Iain might have on this article? He speaks well of you anyway, I think.
Yes, I'm fond of Iain too, and his thoughts would be very welcome.
It would take 5 hours to read them.
I tried to send you his response. But I don’t think that happened! I’m pants at this substack thing! Best.
Thought provoking and brilliant as always Miri.
When I doorstepped teachers, police, publicans and public in Dunblane or elsewhere. I never once considered that I might be harassing people in a criminal or even morally objectionable fashion.
Whilst I never filmed, it's still okay to ask people to stand by their word to your face if you've a legitimate and respectful question imho.
So the whole claim of harassment itself seems spurious to me, unless it's entirely manufactured.
The media gaze is the biggest red flag for me, approved or otherwise, I wasn't aware he'd been covered by MS before; let alone a Panorama!
Thank you, :Leo!
With the harassment, I think the two things that rankle here are the secret filming around people's houses (i.e., not public places) and his focus on a very young person (possibly still then even a child?) who appears to be disabled. With harassment, legally one crosses that line once the people in question have made it clear they don't want the attention and yet it continues, so it does look to me as if RDH probably crossed that line.
But yes, as you say, biggest flag is the phenomenal amount of media attention he receives.
Brilliant piece. Just brilliant. Your “official story” versus “official conspiracy theory” as “competing” narrative techniques to control an overarching mass media paradigm is especially poignant. It is a useful heuristic to continually evaluate the authenticity of any commentator with a platform: which narrative are they amplifying now? And in every instance, it seems it’s the apex agenda that ultimately benefits.
Since my awakening circa 2016, I have voraciously consumed output from the alt left to alt right, MSM to MFM, awake to anti-woke, culture warriors to keyboard warriors, white hat to black hat to tin foil hat… When James Delingpole said to Vox Day recently that his seminal 2015 book “SJWs Always Lie” is a “charming period piece” seen through the prism of today, it stunned me to think how far we’ve come in a short time in what seems increasingly like a long, drawn-out dystopian novel denouement.
A revealing gap analysis emerges when looking at how narratives are weaved and promoted across the mediascape by “competing” commentators over time: ie when they don’t promote a topic that they would be expected to promote or even once did promote heavily. Recent examples include Scottish Neil Oliver refusing to acknowledge via his platform the disturbing revelations from the suppressed Scottish Covid Inquiry, the only one of its kind in the world, despite pleading from activists. Or Joe Rogan not challenging “father of the Covid vaccines” Donald Trump on Covid vaccine deaths and injuries, despite Rogan’s previous protestations on the topic, his podcast guests (from Robert Malone to Peter McCullough to Aseem Malhotra) or indeed Trump’s partnering with RFK Jr and Elon Musk who have both publicly acknowledged the harms. Or how the assorted commentariat squirm their mental gymnastics to avoid narrative booby traps, from germ to terrain, criticism of Zionism to support for Israel, pandemic to scamdemic, democide to genocide, psyop to depop, new world order to one world government, geo-engineering to social engineering, statism to scientism…
These are not oversights. These are real-time gaslighting, misinformation, disinformation and limited hangout operations by skilled propagandists within an engineered reality. All should be considered complicit, captured, corrupt and controlled.
A third narrative should be amplified: the unofficial conspiracy theory. Typically arrived at through a distillation of multiple inputs from a vast range of dissident subject matter experts and well-informed, brave and concerned laypeople whose authenticity can be measured by the extent to which they are invariably censored, throttled, demonetised, deplatformed, defamed, ostracised, ridiculed, and definitely not promoted anywhere, ever, by any “official” source. Except in the last vestiges of free and open digital, physical and mental spaces while they still can
Thank you, Brian, an excellent and insightful comment.
Another key way to tell who is legitimate is whose reach is kept relatively small, and who becomes very visible and influential very quickly. All the "big names" have tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands (or even millions, as per Andrew Tate) of followers on social media, as obviously it is not in the cabal's interests to control anyone unless they are having an impact on a significant number of people. So if I was "controlled", my controller would have been long since fired for failing to even get me to 10k!
Thought provoking as Miri always is. Even if I am not sure about claims made by anyone, I choose to wait and see if I respect the commentator who made such claims.
Thank you, John, and a wise approach!
Miri...I tell everyone "if you know their name they're in the game" lol my keyboard had the whole sentence ready made for me ( not sure that's a good thing tho? 😅)
I often wonder how people make money if they're on the wrong (right) side of those that desire to control us? And Richard D Hall does make money, whether he's is in on it or not, I can see a way that this will be used to keep us "conspiracy theorists " looked upon as crazy 😜
Thank you, TeeCee! Yes, RDH does make money, quite a lot of it by the looks of things, because if he didn't, there would be no point in the Hibberts taking him to court. First thing a lawyer would look into in this kind of case is, "does this guy have any money? Because if he doesn't there's no point suing him" (which is why as I've mentioned in previous articles, nobody is going to sue me!).
This comment seems a little bit contradictory to me. If the ultimate purpose of the court case is to discredit RDH’s conclusion that the Manchester ‘bombing’ was a staged event and to deter others from questioning the official narrative. Possibly even to push him into the public eye in order to fulfil his role in the long game Madeline McCann conspiracy, as you have hypothesised, then what does it matter how much money he has?
After reading Hall's book (available at £25 from his website), I found his basic assertions to be quite compelling.
He concludes that he can but speculate on 'why', much as you guess the reason for Madeline's disappearance, (I don't know about his views on this), although as a result of Manchester, Martyn's Law is now being pursued to restrict unofficial public gatherings.
The trial, apparently instigated by the BBC on behalf of the Hibberts, cleverly focussed upon the two points you mention, without allowing any supporting circumstances to be considered -so, if no 'why you done it' isn't allowed, then he has no defense and stitched. From what I've read, Hall's intrusion was minimal, from a distance and short.
Let's hope you don't get too popular to become noticed and controlled!
PS. A guy from Oldham who's particular about semi-colons? He's a keeper!
So agree about the semi-colons! No one gets taught how to use them these days!
another function of controlled opposition that has struck me recently, is they are usually a posse, and that if you play along with them, it can be quite lucrative. There are a number of people who have been very good, about the pandemic, the vaccines etc, but who will pause to eg condemn Jordan Peterson as controlled opposition cos they actually quite fancy attending the next 'Resistance' Conference, and why put people's noses out of joint when it's not absolutely necessary. And there is only one requirement for admittance, 'just don't have a go at Israel'.
Another excellent article Miri. I don't know if you are aware of the Work of Christopher Spivey . His research regarding the McCann mystery play reaches the same conclusion.
Good to know there are such people as yourselves pointing out the theatrics of the lunatics in charge . All the worlds a stage apparently.
Thank you, Ramsay, and yes, Chris Spivey! I remember reading him a lot several years ago, but haven't seen anything from his for ages. Good to know he's still at it.
Very powerful case Miri. Just this last weekend I saw Sonia Poulton make the case for M M dying in the holiday apartment after falling down off the back of a sofa while unsupervised (negligent parents) and cracking her head on the stone floor. Evidence included the signals of the Portuguese Police cadaver dogs. No way I can be 100% sure either way on this. Just like so many things I used to believe!
Thank you, Trevor. Sonia does great work, but I think she's got it wrong on this. It just comes back to the core question as to why the establishment would keep MM's name in the headlines consistently for nearly two decades, and pour millions upon millions into her search fund, if they were trying to cover anything up! This level of publicity and funding is literally the exact opposite of a cover-up and its purpose is to keep the world's eyes on the Madeleine case. So the question is - why..?
If Madeleine never existed, wouldn't the McCann's friends and colleagues have noticed her invention?
When Mrs McCann told the assembled friends "They've taken her", wouldn't they have asked "Taken whom?"
There's an implied right of access: knocking on someones door/ringing the bell doesn't constitute harassment. Neither does asking a question.
The whole thing was staged by actors, IMO - they all flew out to Praia De Luz together to do some on-location filming of a "child abduction drama" that was passed off to the public as real. My full theory on this can be found here: https://miriaf.co.uk/nobody-wants-to-find-a-dead-cat/
As for harassment, it's a fine line and it's easy to cross. If you email someone and they reply asking you to never contact them again, and you do, legally, that is harassment. So if you turn up at someone's house and they make it clear they don't want you there, it's very easy to be in breach of the law.
I have a client who has for 50 years lived in the next village to Rothley - where the McCanns were claimed to live -and a different client who was a consultant at Glenfield Hospital at the time of the "abduction" and for many years afterwards
If the McCanns had been invented I would have expected both to have commented.
That question about the McCanns - how do you account for a nonexistent person’s disappearance to family and close friends? - is one I had re Michael Moseley’s ‘fake death’ but obviously in reverse? I can’t work that one out. Surely word would slip out?
I heartily applaud your ability to conduct a thought experiment and argue it so eloquently even when I don’t agree :)
Do they really need to conduct such a convoluted complicated ruse in order to demonise “conspiracy theorists”? Or to chip the general population? All the people that would be condemning us in the wake of this already are. The population is already partaking quite happily in voluntary chipping by carrying around their smart phones and watches.
Hi Miri, I have enjoyed reading your musings over the past few years and find many of them thought provoking and insightful. Regarding RDH, in a previous piece you seemed open to the possibility that he is being set-up in a potential role to help discredit independent journalism if ‘Madeline’ is found alive and well. In this piece you appear to be more of the opinion that he could be a conscious agent of disinformation.
Have I got that correct? If so, what appears to you to be the most compelling evidence for you to be able to assert that position? As you will be aware, people who are firmly of the position that RDH is completely sincere and has been totally stitched up with this fabricated court case will be understandably upset to see you take such a position. Personally it makes me feel uneasy that you may be maligning an innocent man even though I respect that you are free to make that judgement on a person if that is what your conscious is telling you.
Would you be prepared to have a face to face discussion with Iain Davis on this matter? I think that would be of great interest to your respective supporters. Iain has posted a lengthy rebuttal of this piece on his own substack page. I don’t know if you have seen it but I will copy and paste below:
26-10-2024
“I am not a paid subscriber to Miri so I can't comment on her post presently but perhaps she will read this. Miri lists the characteristics of a person who she considers not to be controlled opposition:
1. Never accepted any money or other favours to endorse certain people or theories
2. Every article (or video or book) represents my own original and organic thoughts, shared for no other reason than I believe them to be true
3. [Never] refraining from writing critically about certain people or theories [due to fear] of the response of my audience.
4. [Never succumbing to] threats - regardless of whether that person is a billionaire cabal member, or a random ranter on the internet.
I would ask Miri to explain how Richard D. Hall is not an exemplar of these, let's call them, principles. I have a lot of time for Miri's expressed concern that this case has been heavily manipulated and I agree with her that Hall has been used by the establishment. But I disagree with her about why and how he has been used.
Miri's interpretation of the ruling is wrong in my view. As I stated in the article the "course of conduct," deemed to constitute harassment by Steyn, was Hall's published and broadcast work that exposed the Manchester Hoax. Steyn explicitly stated this.
Miri is right to point out that Steyn vilified Hall for all manner of alleged travesties but this was vitriolic window dressing heaped upon him and not the salient issue in the case. His course of conduct was his journalism. Unfortunately, Miri has been dazzled by the BS in Steyn's ruling and overlooked that key fact imho.
Miri is also wrong about the reasons why I have not been prosecuted. I only just managed to get my book out in time for the trial. By then the prosecution of Richard was more than a year old. Had my book come out when Richard's did, and I very much regret that I didn't speak out sooner, I suspect that I may have had a claim launched against me too and I may yet.
Richard has been very well known in the independent media for more than a decade. The BBC and the Mail, for example, criticised him before he even published his Manchester book. As far as UK independent journalists go, they don't come much more high profile than Richard. He has been on the legacy media's radar for a long time and their pursuit of him is explicable for that reason.
I am relatively unknown. One of the criticism made against me is that I am capitalising on Richard's media presence. It's an invalid criticism and I see no reason to address it.
As yet we do not know what the injunction or the cost will be for Richard. But sadly, I strongly suspect that it will be severe. The idea suggested by Miri that Richard somehow profits personally from all this is, I have to say, quite absurd. Anyone who has witnessed how this case has effected him would know that. In typical Richard style he has shielded his family, as far as he can, from it. Unlike Martin Hibbert who did the opposite with respect to Eve--for whom I have a great deal of sympathy but not for the reasons suggested by Miri.
Certainly Steyn made a great deal out of Hall's "furtive" filming of Eve and visit to her home. Which, as I will explore in part 2, was completely incongruous with the evidence presented in the trial.
What Steyn did not highlight out is that Richard never broadcast any of that footage and only mentioned his visit very briefly in his book and video. By virtue of ignoring the fact that Richard is an investigative journalist and was perfectly entitled and reasonably justified in conducting that investigation, including gaining information by "other means" where necessary, Steyn was able to characterise his visit as she did. Miri has completely missed this point.
As for his book still being available on Amazon, I am absolutely certain that won't continue, given Steyn's ruling.
Having said all of that I do think Miri is right about the attention the case has drawn. I'm sure their were calculations made to what extent the Streisand effect could be tolerated. While, inevitably, it has drawn attention to Richards "hoaxed attack hypothesis" I think Miri has missed the point of the case. Something I'll explore in Part 2.
Clearly the intent was to stop Richard talking about it. This is another reason I wrote my book and published it before the trial. Now they will have to stop me talking about it too.
Like Richard, I make my book freely available for download. There is nothing to stop anyone downloading it, reviewing it, sharing it, quoting it or talking about it themselves. Then their voices will have to be silenced by people like Karen Steyn too.
Heavy hint intended.”
Thank you, Monica! I really appreciate that.