Poor little Rich boy

I had a very enjoyable chat with independent researcher and writer, Iain Davis, yesterday, regarding the ongoing Richard D. Hall debacle (Iain will put it up on his Substack soon). This marked the third interview in a loose series, starting off with Iain and Aisling O'Loughlin, then Aisling and me, and finally, me and Iain.

The three of us have three different and distinct perspectives on the 2017 Manchester (alleged) bombing, and the legitimacy of researcher Richard D. Hall.

Aisling believes Manchester was real and Hall is a fraud.

Iain believes Manchester was a hoax and Hall is legit.

I, then, effectively am "in the middle", agreeing with Iain that Manchester was a hoax, but with Aisling that Hall is a fraud.

(You can read my previous articles on Hall here and here, and I would recommend doing that if you haven't before, as there's a lot of extra detail there that I won't rehash below.)

So the three of us have all thrashed it out in interview - and credit to both of them for doing this, because we need more debate and disagreement within this very loosely defined "movement", otherwise it all gets too tribal. We're supposed to be independent thinkers, which of course means, at times, we will disagree. And we should be able to do that without name-calling or falling out, which I'm pleased to report Iain, Aisling, and I have all been able to do.

Do I agree with them both on certain fundamental things?

No.

Does that mean I now hate and denounce them or believe they are "controlled"?

Also no.

So healthy debate (rather than the anonymous insult-throwing that passes for it on Twitter) is to be encouraged.

However, the debate with Iain was slightly badly timed, because a key piece of evidence has since come to my attention that I did not know yesterday, which adds extremely considerable weight to my case.

My position on Hall, for those new to this debate, is that he is an intelligence asset inserted into the narrative, precisely in order to go through with the high-profile Hibbert harassment case, and to ensure an anti-free speech law - "Eve's Law", named after Martin Hibbert's then 14-year-old daughter, Eve Hibbert - is pushed through.

I believe that Hall intentionally undertook actions that he knew would give the Hibberts reasonable grounds to take him to court - specifically, concealing himself outside the house of a disabled teenage schoolgirl and secretly filming her. As a seasoned journalist, he would know full well that the optics of this scenario are utterly terrible, and would lead to him being completely demonised.

For the Hall loyalists, please just put your hero-worship of the man aside for a moment, and ask yourself honestly:

Is a middle-aged man hiding in a van and secretly filming a disabled schoolgirl, a good look?

Does it make conspiracy theorists look good, or bad?

You know the answer - and so does Rich.

And that's why he did it.

This reckless behaviour also turned out to be irrelevant to his investigation - because he concedes she really is disabled and is not (as he was allegedly seeking to prove with his secret filming) faking.

Furthermore, because of Eve's age specifically (16 at the time), what he did acutely undermined the integrity of his own case.

To repeat: Hall was a highly experienced journalist and would have known how much he was risking by secretly filming schoolgirls whom he had no actual evidence to suggest weren't really disabled - whilst there were plenty of adult (alleged) victims he could have investigated instead.

Why, for instance, didn't he focus solely on Martin Hibbert, rather than dragging his young daughter into it? Martin himself has said he would have tolerated Richard saying accusatory things about him, but it was when Richard started targeting his young disabled daughter that he decided to take action, and of course, the public - and a judge - are going to enormously sympathise with that.

To repeat: that's why Richard did it. He did it to make himself look bad, to get himself into trouble, and to kick off the whole proceedings that have eventually culminated in an anti-free speech law.

This has now been confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt by the latest bit of evidence that has come to light:

Richard D. Hall accused Martin Hibbert of not being Eve Hibbert's real father.

Why the hell did he do that? What, after all, would it prove if Martin wasn't? Men bring up children who aren't biologically theirs all the time.

Disingenuously insinuating that this would "prove they were actors" (what, why? As if members of the same family can't both be actors?), Hall insisted on Martin presenting evidence to the court that Eve really was his child.

Which Martin duly did (he presented birth certificates to the court, which Hall accepts is valid evidence).

Therefore making Hall look even worse.

And thusly, by association, all conspiracy theorists.

Surely everyone can now see he is doing this on purpose.

Yes, it's fine to make allegations that turn out to be wrong, but they have to be meaningful and credible. As I said, it wouldn't have proved anything even if Martin wasn't Eve's real father. It wouldn't prove they're actors. Equally, the fact they are father and daughter doesn't prove that they're not. So it was a completely pointless allegation on Hall's part, which was clearly designed only to have the effect of diminishing his own credibility.

Diminishing his own credibility is a well-established habit of his, because this has all been set up and staged from the start to reach the conclusion we are now at, and you can literally see it written all over Agent Hall's face.

Here he is leaving court, where he has just been crushingly defeated, ordered to pay £45,000 in damages, £240,000 in costs (and think about where that money's coming from), and has had his livelihood severely undermined and possibly destroyed.

(Photo credit PA Media)

That, folks, is called Duper's Delight.

Anyone legitimate who had just been so comprehensively crushed as Hall was, would look crushed themselves. I'm not saying he needs to be in floods of tears, but if any of this was real, he certainly wouldn't be grinning from ear to ear.

It comes down to this: Hall is either a stunningly perceptive investigative journalist - in which case he would know not to secretly film disabled schoolgirls, nor to accuse people of not being their children's parents - or he's a co-opted fraud, himself a "crisis actor", there specifically to do what he has just successfully done: push an anti-conspiracy law into place.

The fact is that the proposed anti conspiracy law, Eve's Law, would not exist without Richard D. Hall, and it's exclusively because of him that the establishment was able to create the case law precedent that will now clamp down on free speech for all of us.

Do you really think that's an accident, a coincidence, a happy piece of serendipity for the establishment that is so desperate to have such a law in place?

Or is it not far more plausible they set it all up from the start, with Agent Hall tasked from the beginning with doing all the right things to ensure this law became realised?

Now, to be very clear (as some others have relentlessly misinterpreted my position on this), I believe there was no bomb in Manchester, and I believe that Richard D. Hall is correct in asserting this. (And to reiterate, he was not in court for saying there was no bomb.)

But I believe he has asserted a correct view, and presented (some) correct evidence, to gain your trust and backing, so he can then lead you into a trap.

In other words, Hall is to the Manchester bombing what Alex Jones is to Sandy Hook: an establishment asset there to shut free speech down for the rest of us.

And he's done it.

By all means continue to believe he hasn't done it on purpose, but the evidence strongly suggests that he has. Either that, or he's just so severely lacking in integrity and has such catastrophically terrible judgement that he's done it "accidentally" - which in itself is reason enough not to trust him.

But in drawing your conclusions, please remember what Agent Hall himself specifically says (because they always have to tell us)...

"Believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see."

Thanks for reading! This article was originally published at miriaf.co.uk, which is entirely reader-supported, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, meaning your support is what powers this site to keep going. If you enjoyed this article, and would like to read more in the future, please consider…

1. Subscribing monthly at Substack or Patreon (where paid subscribers can comment on posts)

2. Making a one-off contribution via BuyMeACoffee

3. Contributing in either way via bank transfer to Nat West, account number 30835984, sort code 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA (please use your email address as a reference if you’d like me to acknowledge receipt).

Your support is what allows these articles to keep being created and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.