When the National Lottery was first launched in 1994, there was a widespread belief amongst many - that persists to this day - that this ostensibly get-rich-quick scheme was really nothing but a tax on the poor and vulnerable.
Indeed. In my early twenties, I worked in fundraising for several of the big names (Oxfam, NSPCC etc) and I can confirm they are all corrupt. The only charities one ought support are small local ones where you can verify for yourself the good work they're doing.
I've just read both articles - this one and the 'Controlled freaks'.
Two thoughts:
1. I'm wary of sending cash to anyone I don't know to fight a case that is often opaque - especially if the person involved should / could have taken advice to avoid the pitfall. Even more so if that person has apparent wealth.
2. The law is a very, very expensive process which runs along the lines - keep paying, and when that's no longer possible, prepare for a loss.
I have litigated in the UK, and won. However, no matter how just the cause, the law rewards the cunning. It is a crude construct aimed at stopping the very worst behaviour, and little more.
I do think you would be awesome in court. Your ability to construct views is very much like a barrister (it's meant to be a compliment). This appears to require holding several views simultaneously.
Thank you, Andrew, I very much take it as a compliment. There were only two things I ever wanted to be growing up, first was a writer, second was a lawyer. You may not know this, but in 2021, I did some consultancy work for a law firm. I have no legal qualifications, but I connected with an "awake" lawyer over Facebook and he told me I understood the laws that pertained to Covid better than most lawyers, so he asked me to come on board to help people resist vaccines, masks etc - you can see the details here https://www.jonathanlea.net/blog/miri-finch-joins-the-jonathan-lea-network/
I only ended up doing a few weeks of work because demand fizzled out as the Covid chapter came to an end, but I've wondered on several occasions whether I should retrain as a lawyer. Unlike most who go into this profession, I don't aspire to great wealth and would actually want to do it to defend people for the right reasons.
But like you say, that's a very hard path to travel.
I think there are many who are robust in their moral approach practicing law. The there's amoral 'jobs worth' such as former DPP (2008-13) and now Prime Minister 'I am the law' Rodney Starmer KC. The latter will fade, and the need for the former has never been greater.
In my naive youth I was convinced the law helps people. Yeah right. The clear need for cunningness while counting in 6-minutes per billable hour showed the way.
Thoughtful piece as always. I would tend to agree funding court cases is a poor choice since the outcome will always favour the State and its narrative and the outcome is entirely predictable. But there may be grounds to consider supporting some writers even if suspected of subversive intent. After all in Hall's case he has written some penetrating analyses exposing the nefarious activities of the state and in readng these efforts we can at least understand what the government wants us to believe. And,after all, who really knows who is totally legitimate in this world of mirrors. I don't claim to know. The safest option is not to support anyone. But that is tossing out the baby with the bathwater.
I agree, and have purchased both books and films from people I'm pretty certain are compromised, but like all controlled opposition, they have to give out good information to seem legit, so if they do, why not peruse it? It's not people buying Richard's book I'm against (indeed I've linked to it myself), but specifically funding his - and any high-profile, MSM-promoted - court case.
I recall that the Dolan case, although losing, did bring to light some of the Government papers from their 'Behavioral Sciences' department (aka 'The Nudge Unit') which stated something along the lines that if the public were not afraid enough, then they need to be made to feel afraid. Sometimes, even losing a court case, can bring some crucial information to the public's attention.
Why the UK Government has a 'Behavioral Sciences' department in the first place, should - in itself - be a cause for public concern (but let's face it, it's now 2024 and most of the the sheep don't give a hoot about what happened from 2020 - 2023).
A fair point, but as a very wealthy man worth £200 million, he could easily have funded this case himself rather than taking money from those who - he himself admitted - couldn't always afford it.
I also seem to recall it turning out he himself was making a very tidy profit importing PPE!
Miri, I don't recall hearing about Dolan being involved in PPE importing (and profiting). However, if that is true then that is very disappointing (especially considering that he already has £200m and a nice lifestyle in Monaco).
Wow! I understand that this is called 'hedging' (being on both sides of the trade so you win either way). Since 2020, my faith in humanity has already been punched in the face multiple times. I really do just give up on the lot of them...
Cheers Miri. I recall back in 2020, Dolan was quick off the mark to challenge the lockdown. Yep, he's wealthy and lives in Monaco but I recall that he 'rationalised' that if people cared enough to oppose the ridiculous lockdown orders legally and support his challenge, then he would match the donations with his own money (or make up the legal costs shortfall). I also recall he did a short documentary visiting Sweden to highlight their completely different approach.
I totally get the 'Conspiracy Tax' reality, especially the 'Donate NOW to SAVE TOMMY!' kind, but if Dolan was a grifter, then he was a very smooth operator and very quick off the mark (March - April 2020). He didn't get my spider-senses tingling - and I am a very tight-fisted and untrusting person. I donated to his challenge to the lockdown (it is interesting how we feel so powerless, we are programmed to look for others to 'save us'), but noticed how he backed-off after the final decision and retreated. Is he 'establishment' or was he 'warned off'?
I cannot seem to find the short Sweden documentary Dolan did online anywhere anymore. However, for those interested, here's some of his interviews at the time - discern for yourselves! Is this the face of a mastermind grifter?
Yes, to be fair, Dolan is the one I'm least suspicious of, as he used a fully transparent platform to fundraise (CrowdJustice) and as you say., seems to have disappeared since.
So I don't think he is "one of them" in the same way as the others I mentioned, but rather, as a savvy businessman, was irked that lockdown was losing him money so filed a case purely in his own interests, but realised he could get the public to bankroll it, given lockdowns were affecting them too, thus saving himself a few quid.
This is why he purported to oppose "pandemic" measures but was simultaneously quite happy to import and deliver PPE - because it was making him money, and for him, as for all successful businesspeople, the bottom line is always maximising your profit.
Agreed. I think it is now extremely dangerous to adopt favourites in the truther movement and invest faith in their opinions. The government are far ahead of the game with the best brains available and are capable of playing both sides with invisible sleight of hand. Best trust nobody.
I agree. Also, the internet makes it so easy for people to 'click and donate' these days. People are also desperate for saviors that by donating their money without pausing to think is now too easy. I keep telling people time and time again, that as soon as you hit the internet - you are in a military space - and that computer inside your home has been weaponised against you.
I recall the classic best-selling book on UX design (User Experience) being titled 'Don't Make Me Think'. Internet designers use clever techniques to get people to skip their rational brain, and respond emotionally, handing over their cash.
Great term coinage, Miri, providing an incisive lens for what happens in these situations.
Richard Hall is just so obviously an operative.
Regardless of what he was charged for or the outcome, psyops do not require "investigation" as they are done hidden in plain sight. There were no suspicious deaths related to Manchester, NOBODY who recognises Manchester as fake thinks that there were any suspicious deaths apart from Richard Hall and Iain Davis (so we have to wonder about him too).
My policy is never to donate to anyone involved in alleged "conspiracy" exposure crimes because inevitably they will be operatives as Miri outlines and - if sadly they aren't - well I'm sorry but I'm not going to risk it.
Below is a comment on an interview with the parents of another Martyn spelt with a y, Martyn Hett, who supposedly was one of the 22 who died. The video of the interview has been removed but you can see a 30-second version below:
"Holy Shit. I am really shocked. The mother actually says her boy would be happy to be dead to get all this media attention. OK, I know grief can be strange, but – really? saying your kid would be happy to be dead and famous is beyond anything I can easily accept as normal. At best it’s sociopathic. At worst…I don’t know! I just do not know what to think.
These two seem utterly unmoved, smiling, calm. Not bravely smiling through the pain. Just regular smiling and unmoved. WTF is that?
And why is she sitting there with an arm full of the dolls she makes like some sort of freakish product placement? And as I said what are the odds this “son of the year” who was all over the media a couple of years ago for what seems like quite odd reasons of itself, is now in the media again for being a victim of terror?
I am genuinely shaken and genuinely confused. I have never bothered to look at any of this alleged fakery before. I have to have a long think about this and ask some trusted friends to view the video.
Thanks Petra, very interesting! I think the tide is well and truly turning on RDH. When I first questioned him, I got enormous pushback, but with every subsequent article, more and more are coming round. As you say, it is really rather obvious when you look at all the evidence.
So glad you're having influence in that direction, Miri. People seem ridiculously inclined to settle for the second-level of truth which is really no truth at all.
OK, to reiterate Miri's points while adding some of my own thoughts.
1. If we know the name they're in the game. It's also good to bear in mind that there is absolutely loads of CO out there and at every level of truth ... so even if someone seems to saying eye-watering amounts of truth they can still be CO. It is utterly key for the TPTB to control the narrative and in order to do that they NEED people saying some truth at least and they can easily afford for people to say really quite staggering truth (because normies simply refuse to look) ... but still be CO.
At the same time, one needs to be very suspicious when people do seem to be saying staggering truth because it can be very misleading. I've written a post exposing the 1968 30m BBC drama, The News-Benders, as really being a work of deception rather than revelation. When you can see that while The News-Benders very much SEEMS to be revealing truth but is actually doing the exact opposite, it is most instructive in how CO operates. If the BBC is telling you anything that seems to expose how the world is run, by definition, you know they're deceiving you. https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/priming-the-disbelievers-the-moon
2. RDH's rejection of the official narrative with an hypothesis that is only partly true, that is, hoax (true) plus "suspicious deaths" (not true) and the successful charges against him result in the following:
--- the undermining of genuine analysts speaking the simple truth that it was an anti-terror drill, no deaths involved.
--- the undermining of genuine analysts because the normies will interpet the successful charges as meaning ALL his claims about Manchester are false when, in fact, only some of them are ... and the claim of suspicious deaths and spying on people really seems quite crazy
--- the successful charges will scare people into concern about speaking the truth
3. Both RDH and Alex Jones (Sandy Hook) were not charged with crimes per se, they were sued in civil proceedings for damages by the families supposedly affected. In the case of RDH he was charged with harassment, defamation, and privacy violations. Neither of them were charged with saying that the events were hoaxes.
4. RDH has 40 videos analysing the Manchester hoax on his website by the excellent UK Critical Thinker. If anyone should be getting charged/sued with anything surely it is UK Critical Thinker. He certainly questions witness, survivor and loved one testimony.
5. The notion that there were suspicious deaths involved is completely alien in the hoax analysis world as far as I'm aware. I've been analysing events since 2014 and NO ONE has said for any event such as Sandy Hook, Manchester, Westminster Bridge, London Bridge, Brussels Bombing, Charlie Hebdo, Orlando shooting and on and on that suspicious deaths were involved. OK, people believe in deaths for 9/11 but that was really pushed as a "false flag" whereas the other events haven't been. You either get "hoax" or you believe the narrative as is, no one is putting forth "suspicious deaths".
6. Of course, just because RDH is the only one saying it doesn't mean he's wrong, however, his seeming suspicions make no sense. In the case of Saffie Roussos, immediately we can see "fakery of death" support from the fact that the family sold their fish and chip shop which they would need to do in order to move somewhere with their still-alive daughter. This doesn't prove anything of course because even if she were really dead they might move away, however, what sparks his suspicion is what Saffie's parents say. If it's a hoax - as he recognises it is - the parents will be scripted so we simply expect them to say whatever they are instructed to so why would he put any significance into what they say? We would presume their instructions would be not to say anything that might cast suspicion on them so if they ARE saying something that could cast suspicion we have to wonder why. My inference is that they were SET UP to seem suspicious in order for Rich to come along and say, "Hey, suspicious!"
Excellent comment, Petra! Deserves to be its own article. I agree with everything (except the idea that anyone well-known - i.e., who gets a lot of press exposure in the MSM - is legit, as I have yet to find a single example!). So key what you say that Richie and AJ were NOT charged with saying the events were hoaxes - as you say, plenty of other people say this too and aren't charged with anything.
Also great point about the nonsense pointlessness of analysing the statements of crisis ACTORS to see if they're suspicious. Obviously if they're ACTING, they've been handed scripts, so whatever they say is done on purpose - !
Thanks, Miri - actually, I was forgetting that "if we know their name they're in the game" refers to those well-known in the MSM. I was thinking of people who are pretty well-known but not in the MSM so I'll take that out.
I appreciate you taking the time to reply to my comment. Here are my thoughts on your points above:
1. I accept the reality of CO. Nevertheless, I have observed that it seems to have become a bit of a trend for people to make accusations of someone being CO simply because they hold a different opinion. What I think is extremely difficult to discern is the difference between (a) someone who is deliberately out to deceive, i.e. a state-controlled asset, (b) someone who is sincere but is being tricked into promoting false information, (c) someone who is deliberately promoting false information because there is some (likely financial) benefit for them in doing so (d) someone who is sincerely promoting false information because they either truly believe what they are saying or are in an advanced state of cognitive dissonance because their livelihood and reputation depend on their current stance.
You say “one needs to be very suspicious when people do seem to be saying staggering truth”. Whilst I am of the opinion (or certainly hope) that ultimately there is an objective Truth, who amongst us can honestly say we possess the ability to discern truth from misinformation at all times? In practise, we tend to be drawn to the ideas that further enhance and reinforce our current opinions based on what we have learnt so far and our gut feelings.
You cite News Benders as being an example of state propaganda and I am inclined to agree. However, my interpretation of it is different to yours as I think it is an example of ‘hidden in plain sight’, since I am currently of the opinion that the Apollo moon landings were faked.
2. You say RDH is promoting an interpretation of the Manchester event that is only partially true. I am assuming you are saying this because you have come to the conclusion that this event was nothing more than a drill and that nobody dies in a drill? Even if this is true, the fact that RDH may not think this is not proof that he is controlled, he may be expressing his genuine opinion based on his interpretation of the evidence. I think we can all agree that one of the primary aims of the lawsuit was to scare others into concern about speaking the truth or even expressing an unpopular opinion.
3. I agree that there are strong parallels between the AJ/Sandy Hook trial and the RDH/Manchester Arena trial. However, I don’t think this is conclusive proof that RDH is a controlled asset. I still think he could have genuinely thought he had no option but to defend himself in court and, perhaps in conjunction with some bad legal advice, thought there could be a different outcome.
4. Why was RDH taken to court rather than UKCT? Perhaps because as Miri points out, you cannot be sued for expressing an opinion. RDH could be made an example of because it was possible to (rightly or wrongly) accuse him of harassment. Also, if Miri’s theory that RDH is (either wittingly or unwittingly) playing a role in the ‘Madeline McCann psyop.’, then it would be necessary for RDH to be brought to the attention of the public at large in order to further cement in people’s minds that independent journalism cannot be trusted.
5. As with point 2 above, the fact that RDH is considering the possibility that there may have been actual deaths involved does not prove that he is a controlled asset. I too can only speculate on the logistics involved in these ‘false, false flag events’ or ‘staged events’ and the motivations of the people involved. There certainly seems to be evidence that people with pre-existing injuries are recruited. So I don’t think that it’s much of a stretch to speculate that in some circumstances people who have already died in a pre-event incident could also be recruited.
6. Regarding analysis of the interview of SR’s parents. Again I can only speculate on the logistics involved when it comes to the recruitment and coaching of these event participants. I suspect that anyone who is not either naturally gifted or has received extensive training in acting would be able to pull off a convincing performance if handed a script to learn. I think this is why so many of these interviews feel like there is something that is not right about them. I am not sure of the point you are making regarding the fact that RDH decided to talk to someone, who claims to be a expert in witness statement analysis, as part of his research into the Manchester arena event.
I'm not sure where you people get your ideas from but it's blatantly false to claim that RDH was/is well known in the MSM. Yes, the fact that the BBC gave him any attention at all is suspicious but that's one flaw in an otherwise spotless career.
The rest of your response is just nonsense and the fact that MiriAF thought it was noteworthy is beyond comprehension.
Needs clarification. RDH is not well known in the MSM generally but his case is currently receiving publicity in it. In the case of say Alex Jones he is reasonably well known generally.
Curious to know what nonsense you identify in my response.
Because a lot of people on our side (sensibly) don't consume MSM, they're often not fully aware of just how high-profile a certain individual has become. RDH certainly isn't as famous as AJ as you say, but has enjoyed a great deal of publicity over many months including the Daily Mail labelling him "Britain's sickest man" - ! To get that kind of accolade from the country's second biggest circulation newspaper is really rather phenomenal publicity - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13065107/Meet-Britains-sickest-man-Youtuber-doorstepped-Manchester-bomb.html
Richie has also enjoyed extensive publicity in The Sun, The Guardian, Sky, ITV, Reuters, and even The New York Times - one of the highest circulation publications in the world.
(And I too wait to be enlightened as to what "nonsense" you shared!)
1. You wrote a treatise on controlled opposition. Yeah, we know about CO.
2. You say that RDH rejected the official narrative with a hypothesis that is only partially true. According to whom? Who is the recognised arbiter of truth on this matter?
3. Spying on people? Was any trespass involved? Any unlawful or illegal act?
4. "NO ONE is putting forth suspicious deaths" SO WHAT? As you admit, it doesn't mean that RDH is wrong so why bring it up?
You "infer" that it was a setup to ensnare (unwary conspiracy theorists?) NO ONE was putting forth setups to ensnare so - how dare you!
5. Successful charges will scare people - duh! That's why they do these lawsuits.
6. UK Critical Thinker v RDH? Who even knew that UKCT even existed? RDH has built up a following over decades of work no thanks to any big money sponsors. Of course, the conspirators are going to go after RDH.
7. Lumping RDH with AJ? AJ has been a big platform distraction for decades while RDH remained in relative obscurity. The real mystery is why so many supposed champions of truth have so eagerly jumped up to bash him. It's hardly slow news day but maybe it's gotten too dangerous to talk about the real stories.
1. Controlled opposition (CO) is a very sophisticated phenomenon ... as it needs to be for it to be effective. If all those willing to disbelieve the false narratives they drown us in who are familiar with the concept were able to easily recognise it, it wouldn't work for those in power. How many people, for example, recognise The News-Benders as a work of propaganda? Understanding the basics of a phenomenon is not the same as really understanding it. So yes, a treatise, but I don't think inappropriate.
2. Truth doesn't have arbiters, arbiters occur in court rooms which are not about truth. All of us can put forward our case for truth and others either accept our case or not. My case for RDH's "suspicious deaths" not being true is made in my Point 6. I see now I put my points in the wrong order - should have made Point 6 before saying RDH's claim is only partially true.
3. I'm only putting forward the reasons given for the civil claims against RDH. Like Miri, I think it's all staged.
4. I bring up the fact that no one else is putting forth suspicious deaths because it raises the question of why not? I've made claims that no one else has AFAIK, eg, The News-Benders, Operation Northwoods and Collateral Murder are works of propaganda, however, we can see why they aren't detected by others because, as I say in Point 1, controlled opposition is a sophisticated phenomenon. Similarly, Miri seems to be the only one making the case that RDH's case is all staged ... but we can see why she's the only one - being like-minded though I would certainly suspect it even before reading her articles. In RDH's case though I'd make the claim that the reason he's the only one making the claim of "suspicious deaths" is that there is no good reason to make that claim.
5. Yes, I know it's obvious but I'm simply including all items to make my case. I think Miri has made the case admirably herself but, as she said, she got a lot of pushback when she put her case forward initially.
6. The authorities' concern isn't how much money people have to take them to court. If people have committed a crime they will be charged by the authorities. The point being made is that there is no crime in calling out hoaxes which UK CT has done, the alleged defamatory matter et al are of a different nature.
7. Controlled opposition is an incredibly effective weapon against those of us interested in the truth and anytime it's detected it should be exposed. Miri has done a great job and the way I see it a job of great importance.
Yep. Thanks for writing another great article that shares my opinions.
In 2023 I saw Jacqui Deevoy on Twitter, asking for crowdfunding to sue Anna Brees for libel. As a true conspiracy nut, I knew it would never happen.
I'm too cynical to fund anyone anyway tbh. And there's so many asking for money.
I confess that during CONVID I used to fund 'the sick note', Richie Allen but he went on an all out attack on people like me who don't believe the ball earth theory or other 'extreme' beliefs.
Similarly, Richard D Hall had a big globe earth projected on the wall of his show set 😂🤡🌏
Thank you, John, and I agree.. I just don't see there is a need for libel / slander laws these days. If someone says something about you you don't like, you have three options:
1. Ignore it (usually the best and most effective option - hence why the MSM keeps ignoring me!)
2. Contact the person privately and explain you think they've made a mistake and would they mind correcting it
3. Write your own defence of yourself and share it on your Substack, blog, etc
Those options are perfectly sufficient in an age where everyone has a public platform available to them. I can see there might have been a need for some sort of defamation legislation before the internet when only the MSM could make public pronouncements about people. But now we all can. I like Jacqui D but did not think her libel case was a good idea! And as you say, these things often don't go ahead anyway.
It has been a long held burning desire of mine to spend lottery proceeds on JC DeCaux-style advertisement boards - having engaged a clever PR ad agency / person - with truth bombs galore.
As a side note, it becomes interesting when (in the absence of clear harm) courts can decide what is best for kids in contradiction of the child’s parents; specially in the taxpayer funded NHS it should be a legal minefield. I am thinking of the personal sovereignty aspect in terms of “delivering” children (and placentas) and birth certificates bearing names in capitals and, it would seem, the parents handing “ownership” of kids to the government. A pandora’s box of a rabbit hole I am yet to conquer.
Yes, it's quite the rabbit hole. I haven't conquered it yet myself. I don't know if it's true that if children aren't registered at birth, then the state has no power over seizing them (i.e., social services etc), or how such an unregistered person would function in society as an adult - bank accounts, mortgages and so on. But it's certainly a very interesting subject.
Miri, the wealthier middle classes don't play the lottery, but they do play 'the stock market' ('cause they so smart y'see). And that's why they are called 'the dumb money' by the upper echelons of the finance industry.
Disclaimer: Always manage your risk, and always be aware that the value of your investments can go down as well as down.
I can remember donating to the Simon Dolan case because I think I felt so traumatised by the lockdowns that at that time I was inclined to support anyone who appeared to be doing something proactive to stand up against the nonsense. Then for a while I thought that Andrew Bridgen had genuinely come to see the light regards to the death shots, especially because he appeared to have been injured himself, so I chucked him a bit of money as well. I no longer think AB is the people's hero I once assumed him to be but I'm not going to give myself a hard time for wanting to give people the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.
Likewise, I am not at the stage where I can feel confident to throw Richard D Hall under the bus because I cannot feel certain he is not a sincere investigative journalist who has just been stitched up by our thoroughly corrupt legal system and now faces potential bankruptcy as a result. If that proves to be naive on my part and I change my mind further down the road then so be it. I think I would still rather be the kind of person who thinks the best towards an individual until such time I have sufficient evidence to convince me that they are not what they seem.
With regards to the fact that much of the financial penalty RDH is ordered to pay will go to the Hibberts, I have found myself wondering what motivates people to end up in the situation where they get to be crisis actors for the shadowy cabal and I can't help but wonder whether it is more stick than carrot. Who knows what they've been through to have ended up in that situation so I am not even sure I begrudge them getting a few quid. I personally would not want to live a life of deception for any amount of money.
Thanks Lynne, I totally sympathise with this perspective and I was there once, too (I also donated to Mr. Dolan - and encouraged others too - as well as, as I have related before and to my considerable embarrassment, financially supported Laurence Fox!).
Since then I have learned that we, unfortunately, can't ever give people in the public eye the benefit of the doubt, because the establishment is very, very careful about who it promotes and gives mainstream media publicity to, and it's only ever to its own assets.
Any PR boss or newspaper editor knows the absolute veracity of the phrase "there's no such thing as bad publicity" and so they NEVER heavily publicise anyone unless it's because that person is in the club (just look at the extraordinary amount of international MSM media attention RDH has received, with detailed articles in all the big media vehicles in this country and abroad).
To publicise (and to reiterate, "to publicise" does not mean "to be nice about", it simply means drawing attention to) anyone gives them huge potential power and influence. Thusly, every time the MSM does a "hit piece" on a supposed anti-establishment figure like Russell Brand, Donald Trump, or Richard D Hall, that person's star - and therefore star power - rises exponentially.
The predictable effect of the MSM saying "look at this crazy, evil conspiracy theorist" (the Daily Mail literally called RDH "Britain's sickest man") is for those of a conspiratorially-minded nature to become outraged, and want to passionately defend and support this person - e.g., donate to their court case, subscribe to their channel, or in some other way financially support them.
MSM knows this. It admits it. (It ran an article admitting how it had helped Russell Brand become vastly wealthier by running so many "hit pieces" on him.)
So if they wanted to financially ruin anyone, the LAST thing they would do is give them this kind of attention. Instead, they would ignore them (starving them of vital publicity all operations need to make money) and cut them off at source by e.g., taking their PayPal, as they took mine in 2022 and that of many other activists.
RDH still has his.
This is all a sophisticated psy-op carried out for the purposes covered in my articles (this one, 'Controlled Freaks' and 'Richard D's Hall of Mirrors?'), and as is elaborated on in Petra Liverani's excellent reply to your other comment.
Thanks Miri, I appreciate you taking the time to reply. I did read your previous articles concerning RDH and I left a comment on ‘Controlled Freaks’ asking if you would be willing to have a face to face conversation with Iain Davis because, as you know, he has a very different perspective on this and I am sure I can’t be the only one who would be very interested to hear you both have a discussion about this.
I am open to the possibility that RDH is a state sponsored asset because I am open to consider all kinds of possibilities in a reality where I am increasingly coming to appreciate the saying “wheels within wheels”. However, I am not currently convinced by any of the evidence I have been offered.
Whilst I appreciate there is some truth in the axiom; “there’s no such thing as bad publicity”, I also think that MSM will run stories with the sole aim of ruining a person’s reputation if they are being perceived as a threat to the system. As evidence of this I would cite the case of Andrew Wakefield, who I believe was totally pilloried by the press (and still continues to be) in order to make it nearly impossible for anyone to present any evidence which might be critical of the V-word. So with that in mind, I think it could be possible that RDH is being similarly portrayed in the press as public enemy number as a warning to anyone else who questions official narratives.
I don’t think the fact that he still has an active Paypal account is strong evidence that he is CO. In fact, the opposite could be argued. If he is CO, surely his PP account would have been suspended to give the impression that the establishment are trying to shut him down? I don’t think the fact that he asks people to donate directly to his bank account is particularly incriminating. Both PP and crowdfunding sites take commission so this could be a perfectly valid reason, in fact it’s the reason he states on his website. As to whether he will become fabulously wealthy due to donations from ‘gullible’ conspiracy theorists, that’s impossible to know at this stage.
I’ll reply to Petra’s comments separately. I very much hope you are able to have a discussion with Iain about this. Personally, I am starting to find wading through these comment threads a daunting task and it is only going to get worse with a seemingly ever increasing number of trolls and AI bots. Nothing beats a genuine human conversation.
Offer to settle out of court, as he knew he could not possibly win and his defeat would be used to set case law precedent and thus make it much harder for others to speak out.
To "hide in the bushes" in a turn of phrase, not to be taken literally (just like to say a gay person is "in the closet" does not literally mean they have locked themselves in a wardrobe). The phrase implies: to behave in a way meant to camouflage or conceal oneself.
Richard D. Hall, a middle-aged man, acted to loiter around the house of a sixteen-year-old schoolgirl, who he acknowledges is disabled, and furtively film her. Nobody in their right mind would find that acceptable behaviour, let alone "investigative journalism". It's so obviously dodgy that it appears deliberately contrived to get him into trouble.
"Hide in the bushes" was an actual false claim made against RDH as I suspect you know and I believe that you used it intentionally for that reason.
"Nobody in their right mind?" I disagree. The results may have been inconclusive but fishing for evidence is always hit or miss.
Settling out of court was probably the smarter option but professional pride can be a curse. I know now that offering to pay for harm on receipt of an itemised bill for any injuries would've sorted out any false claims but does RDH know that?
No, I really did not know this, but have since learned it was alleged Rich "hid a camera in plant foliage" which he denies and says "no, I hid it in my van" - ah well that's alright then! Fine to secretly film disabled schoolgirls from your van rather than a bush... this is a completely irrelevant detail and makes no difference to anything.
Bush / van, doesn't matter - everybody knows middle-aged men shouldn't be secretly filming young girls for any reason, including Rich himself, because he admits that Eve is disabled, and yet he still maintains the bombing was a hoax.
To be clear, he claimed he was filming her to "prove her injuries were fake". His filming led him to conclude that they weren't.
But he still says the bombing was a hoax.
So, by his own admission, whether Eve's injuries were or were not real had no bearing on the veracity of whether the bombing was a hoax. Therefore, his own defence that he was filming her as part of his investigation into whether the bombing was a hoax, doesn't stand up.
If any of this was legitimate and real, his counsel would have told him to admit his culpability in harassment and settle out of court. To do this is not conceding any ground on whether the bombing was or was not a hoax, it's simply dealing with the actual charge, which was harassment.
He should have admitted to harassing vulnerable youngsters, paid the slap on the wrist fine, and got on with his life continuing to expose hoaxes or whatever else he wants to do.
Martin Hibbert claimed he escalated to court, not because of what Rich said about him ("he can say what he wants about me", he said), but for involving his young disabled daughter, a position that will obviously get huge public sympathy.
If Martin had therefore refused to settle out of court, Rich would have him over a barrel, and be able to say, "but I thought this was about stopping your daughter getting unwanted attention? If this goes to trial she will get far, far more attention than if we just settle out of court and draw a line under this now".
So as I say, if Martin Hibbert had refused this offer, it would have massively exposed him, and enormously increased Rich's credibility too, insofar as he can admit when he's wrong and that he should never have involved Eve (a vulnerable child who should be considered out of bounds).
But instead he doubled down, took this to court, inevitably lost, and thus set case law precedent, meaning that now "Eve's Law" is going to be passed, tightening up free speech and making it much harder for genuine activists to speak out.
Job done, Agent Hall. And if it comes to light, as I strongly suspect it will (and have written about in below linked article), that Madeleine McCann has been alive all along, Rich will lose even more credibility and conspiracy theorists will be vilified even more. It's all planned.
Irrelevant details? If so, why did you bring it up?
Do you have any first hand knowledge of RDH's work or are you getting all of this second hand? If you'd read his book on Manchester, you'd know that he was investigating all victims reported in the inquiry. This wasn't a schoolgirl. It was an alleged participant in a hoaxed attack therefore a valid subject for investigation.
As for the McCann case, it was a matter of huge public interest and RDH did excellent work pulling various threads together. I had already read Amaral's book and Richard's shows added extra context. It's funny that Amaral could still have his job and the rest of us could have used our time and energy elsewhere if you'd been there to tell us it was just a big hoax to discredit RDH far in the future.
Apologies if my words seem a bit sharp but I hold you in high regard and I find this attack on a decent bloke most unbecoming off you.
I am cautious about Tommy Robinson but he interviewed well with Jordan Peterson. His strident tactics about the ROP were only going to inflame some injudicious people. Interesting about his fund raiser not being in a more bona fide fund. Cause for concern. However he has appeared to suffer for his cause (more than Messrs Hall and Bridgen) being in solitary confinement for periods legally defined as torture, as well as losing teeth. The Reform party has distanced itself from him, thereby damaging their credibility. Maybe both are in some way controlled opposition??
Similar to why I NEVER give a penny to corporate charities.
Indeed. In my early twenties, I worked in fundraising for several of the big names (Oxfam, NSPCC etc) and I can confirm they are all corrupt. The only charities one ought support are small local ones where you can verify for yourself the good work they're doing.
I've just read both articles - this one and the 'Controlled freaks'.
Two thoughts:
1. I'm wary of sending cash to anyone I don't know to fight a case that is often opaque - especially if the person involved should / could have taken advice to avoid the pitfall. Even more so if that person has apparent wealth.
2. The law is a very, very expensive process which runs along the lines - keep paying, and when that's no longer possible, prepare for a loss.
I have litigated in the UK, and won. However, no matter how just the cause, the law rewards the cunning. It is a crude construct aimed at stopping the very worst behaviour, and little more.
Thanks Andrew, a succinct analysis, and I agree.
I do think you would be awesome in court. Your ability to construct views is very much like a barrister (it's meant to be a compliment). This appears to require holding several views simultaneously.
Thank you, Andrew, I very much take it as a compliment. There were only two things I ever wanted to be growing up, first was a writer, second was a lawyer. You may not know this, but in 2021, I did some consultancy work for a law firm. I have no legal qualifications, but I connected with an "awake" lawyer over Facebook and he told me I understood the laws that pertained to Covid better than most lawyers, so he asked me to come on board to help people resist vaccines, masks etc - you can see the details here https://www.jonathanlea.net/blog/miri-finch-joins-the-jonathan-lea-network/
I only ended up doing a few weeks of work because demand fizzled out as the Covid chapter came to an end, but I've wondered on several occasions whether I should retrain as a lawyer. Unlike most who go into this profession, I don't aspire to great wealth and would actually want to do it to defend people for the right reasons.
But like you say, that's a very hard path to travel.
I think there are many who are robust in their moral approach practicing law. The there's amoral 'jobs worth' such as former DPP (2008-13) and now Prime Minister 'I am the law' Rodney Starmer KC. The latter will fade, and the need for the former has never been greater.
In my naive youth I was convinced the law helps people. Yeah right. The clear need for cunningness while counting in 6-minutes per billable hour showed the way.
Thoughtful piece as always. I would tend to agree funding court cases is a poor choice since the outcome will always favour the State and its narrative and the outcome is entirely predictable. But there may be grounds to consider supporting some writers even if suspected of subversive intent. After all in Hall's case he has written some penetrating analyses exposing the nefarious activities of the state and in readng these efforts we can at least understand what the government wants us to believe. And,after all, who really knows who is totally legitimate in this world of mirrors. I don't claim to know. The safest option is not to support anyone. But that is tossing out the baby with the bathwater.
I agree, and have purchased both books and films from people I'm pretty certain are compromised, but like all controlled opposition, they have to give out good information to seem legit, so if they do, why not peruse it? It's not people buying Richard's book I'm against (indeed I've linked to it myself), but specifically funding his - and any high-profile, MSM-promoted - court case.
I recall that the Dolan case, although losing, did bring to light some of the Government papers from their 'Behavioral Sciences' department (aka 'The Nudge Unit') which stated something along the lines that if the public were not afraid enough, then they need to be made to feel afraid. Sometimes, even losing a court case, can bring some crucial information to the public's attention.
Why the UK Government has a 'Behavioral Sciences' department in the first place, should - in itself - be a cause for public concern (but let's face it, it's now 2024 and most of the the sheep don't give a hoot about what happened from 2020 - 2023).
A fair point, but as a very wealthy man worth £200 million, he could easily have funded this case himself rather than taking money from those who - he himself admitted - couldn't always afford it.
I also seem to recall it turning out he himself was making a very tidy profit importing PPE!
Miri, I don't recall hearing about Dolan being involved in PPE importing (and profiting). However, if that is true then that is very disappointing (especially considering that he already has £200m and a nice lifestyle in Monaco).
Yes, his Jota Aviation firm was delivering PPE to the NHS at the time he filed the lawsuit - https://www.lawyer-monthly.com/2020/07/high-court-hears-legality-of-the-governments-lockdown-measures/
Wow! I understand that this is called 'hedging' (being on both sides of the trade so you win either way). Since 2020, my faith in humanity has already been punched in the face multiple times. I really do just give up on the lot of them...
Cheers Miri. I recall back in 2020, Dolan was quick off the mark to challenge the lockdown. Yep, he's wealthy and lives in Monaco but I recall that he 'rationalised' that if people cared enough to oppose the ridiculous lockdown orders legally and support his challenge, then he would match the donations with his own money (or make up the legal costs shortfall). I also recall he did a short documentary visiting Sweden to highlight their completely different approach.
I totally get the 'Conspiracy Tax' reality, especially the 'Donate NOW to SAVE TOMMY!' kind, but if Dolan was a grifter, then he was a very smooth operator and very quick off the mark (March - April 2020). He didn't get my spider-senses tingling - and I am a very tight-fisted and untrusting person. I donated to his challenge to the lockdown (it is interesting how we feel so powerless, we are programmed to look for others to 'save us'), but noticed how he backed-off after the final decision and retreated. Is he 'establishment' or was he 'warned off'?
I cannot seem to find the short Sweden documentary Dolan did online anywhere anymore. However, for those interested, here's some of his interviews at the time - discern for yourselves! Is this the face of a mastermind grifter?
https://odysee.com/$/search?q=simon%20dolan%20
[Note that the movie 'Bring me the Head of Alfredo Garcia' appears in this video list - one of my favourite classics!]
Yes, to be fair, Dolan is the one I'm least suspicious of, as he used a fully transparent platform to fundraise (CrowdJustice) and as you say., seems to have disappeared since.
So I don't think he is "one of them" in the same way as the others I mentioned, but rather, as a savvy businessman, was irked that lockdown was losing him money so filed a case purely in his own interests, but realised he could get the public to bankroll it, given lockdowns were affecting them too, thus saving himself a few quid.
This is why he purported to oppose "pandemic" measures but was simultaneously quite happy to import and deliver PPE - because it was making him money, and for him, as for all successful businesspeople, the bottom line is always maximising your profit.
Agreed. I think it is now extremely dangerous to adopt favourites in the truther movement and invest faith in their opinions. The government are far ahead of the game with the best brains available and are capable of playing both sides with invisible sleight of hand. Best trust nobody.
I agree. Also, the internet makes it so easy for people to 'click and donate' these days. People are also desperate for saviors that by donating their money without pausing to think is now too easy. I keep telling people time and time again, that as soon as you hit the internet - you are in a military space - and that computer inside your home has been weaponised against you.
I recall the classic best-selling book on UX design (User Experience) being titled 'Don't Make Me Think'. Internet designers use clever techniques to get people to skip their rational brain, and respond emotionally, handing over their cash.
Great term coinage, Miri, providing an incisive lens for what happens in these situations.
Richard Hall is just so obviously an operative.
Regardless of what he was charged for or the outcome, psyops do not require "investigation" as they are done hidden in plain sight. There were no suspicious deaths related to Manchester, NOBODY who recognises Manchester as fake thinks that there were any suspicious deaths apart from Richard Hall and Iain Davis (so we have to wonder about him too).
My policy is never to donate to anyone involved in alleged "conspiracy" exposure crimes because inevitably they will be operatives as Miri outlines and - if sadly they aren't - well I'm sorry but I'm not going to risk it.
If you're interested in Manchester I cannot recommend more highly the 40 videos by UK Critical Thinker which - funnily enough - we have to thank Rich for. https://www.richplanet.net/richp_guest_menu.php?person=18
This is a video on Martin Hibbert - https://www.richplanet.net/richp_guest.php?ref=821&part=1&person=18
Below is a comment on an interview with the parents of another Martyn spelt with a y, Martyn Hett, who supposedly was one of the 22 who died. The video of the interview has been removed but you can see a 30-second version below:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/martyn-hett-parents-manchester-suicide-bomber-salman-abedi-victim-stockport-a7757731.html
"Holy Shit. I am really shocked. The mother actually says her boy would be happy to be dead to get all this media attention. OK, I know grief can be strange, but – really? saying your kid would be happy to be dead and famous is beyond anything I can easily accept as normal. At best it’s sociopathic. At worst…I don’t know! I just do not know what to think.
These two seem utterly unmoved, smiling, calm. Not bravely smiling through the pain. Just regular smiling and unmoved. WTF is that?
And why is she sitting there with an arm full of the dolls she makes like some sort of freakish product placement? And as I said what are the odds this “son of the year” who was all over the media a couple of years ago for what seems like quite odd reasons of itself, is now in the media again for being a victim of terror?
I am genuinely shaken and genuinely confused. I have never bothered to look at any of this alleged fakery before. I have to have a long think about this and ask some trusted friends to view the video.
It’s insane."
Thanks Petra, very interesting! I think the tide is well and truly turning on RDH. When I first questioned him, I got enormous pushback, but with every subsequent article, more and more are coming round. As you say, it is really rather obvious when you look at all the evidence.
So glad you're having influence in that direction, Miri. People seem ridiculously inclined to settle for the second-level of truth which is really no truth at all.
Please could I ask what makes you so certain that RDH is an operative?
OK, to reiterate Miri's points while adding some of my own thoughts.
1. If we know the name they're in the game. It's also good to bear in mind that there is absolutely loads of CO out there and at every level of truth ... so even if someone seems to saying eye-watering amounts of truth they can still be CO. It is utterly key for the TPTB to control the narrative and in order to do that they NEED people saying some truth at least and they can easily afford for people to say really quite staggering truth (because normies simply refuse to look) ... but still be CO.
At the same time, one needs to be very suspicious when people do seem to be saying staggering truth because it can be very misleading. I've written a post exposing the 1968 30m BBC drama, The News-Benders, as really being a work of deception rather than revelation. When you can see that while The News-Benders very much SEEMS to be revealing truth but is actually doing the exact opposite, it is most instructive in how CO operates. If the BBC is telling you anything that seems to expose how the world is run, by definition, you know they're deceiving you. https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/priming-the-disbelievers-the-moon
2. RDH's rejection of the official narrative with an hypothesis that is only partly true, that is, hoax (true) plus "suspicious deaths" (not true) and the successful charges against him result in the following:
--- the undermining of genuine analysts speaking the simple truth that it was an anti-terror drill, no deaths involved.
--- the undermining of genuine analysts because the normies will interpet the successful charges as meaning ALL his claims about Manchester are false when, in fact, only some of them are ... and the claim of suspicious deaths and spying on people really seems quite crazy
--- the successful charges will scare people into concern about speaking the truth
3. Both RDH and Alex Jones (Sandy Hook) were not charged with crimes per se, they were sued in civil proceedings for damages by the families supposedly affected. In the case of RDH he was charged with harassment, defamation, and privacy violations. Neither of them were charged with saying that the events were hoaxes.
4. RDH has 40 videos analysing the Manchester hoax on his website by the excellent UK Critical Thinker. If anyone should be getting charged/sued with anything surely it is UK Critical Thinker. He certainly questions witness, survivor and loved one testimony.
5. The notion that there were suspicious deaths involved is completely alien in the hoax analysis world as far as I'm aware. I've been analysing events since 2014 and NO ONE has said for any event such as Sandy Hook, Manchester, Westminster Bridge, London Bridge, Brussels Bombing, Charlie Hebdo, Orlando shooting and on and on that suspicious deaths were involved. OK, people believe in deaths for 9/11 but that was really pushed as a "false flag" whereas the other events haven't been. You either get "hoax" or you believe the narrative as is, no one is putting forth "suspicious deaths".
6. Of course, just because RDH is the only one saying it doesn't mean he's wrong, however, his seeming suspicions make no sense. In the case of Saffie Roussos, immediately we can see "fakery of death" support from the fact that the family sold their fish and chip shop which they would need to do in order to move somewhere with their still-alive daughter. This doesn't prove anything of course because even if she were really dead they might move away, however, what sparks his suspicion is what Saffie's parents say. If it's a hoax - as he recognises it is - the parents will be scripted so we simply expect them to say whatever they are instructed to so why would he put any significance into what they say? We would presume their instructions would be not to say anything that might cast suspicion on them so if they ARE saying something that could cast suspicion we have to wonder why. My inference is that they were SET UP to seem suspicious in order for Rich to come along and say, "Hey, suspicious!"
Video of RDH and Genevieve Lewis analysing Saffie's parents' "suspicious" words. https://aislingoloughlin.substack.com/p/evil-richard-d-hall-and-genevieve
Excellent comment, Petra! Deserves to be its own article. I agree with everything (except the idea that anyone well-known - i.e., who gets a lot of press exposure in the MSM - is legit, as I have yet to find a single example!). So key what you say that Richie and AJ were NOT charged with saying the events were hoaxes - as you say, plenty of other people say this too and aren't charged with anything.
Also great point about the nonsense pointlessness of analysing the statements of crisis ACTORS to see if they're suspicious. Obviously if they're ACTING, they've been handed scripts, so whatever they say is done on purpose - !
Thanks, Miri - actually, I was forgetting that "if we know their name they're in the game" refers to those well-known in the MSM. I was thinking of people who are pretty well-known but not in the MSM so I'll take that out.
I appreciate you taking the time to reply to my comment. Here are my thoughts on your points above:
1. I accept the reality of CO. Nevertheless, I have observed that it seems to have become a bit of a trend for people to make accusations of someone being CO simply because they hold a different opinion. What I think is extremely difficult to discern is the difference between (a) someone who is deliberately out to deceive, i.e. a state-controlled asset, (b) someone who is sincere but is being tricked into promoting false information, (c) someone who is deliberately promoting false information because there is some (likely financial) benefit for them in doing so (d) someone who is sincerely promoting false information because they either truly believe what they are saying or are in an advanced state of cognitive dissonance because their livelihood and reputation depend on their current stance.
You say “one needs to be very suspicious when people do seem to be saying staggering truth”. Whilst I am of the opinion (or certainly hope) that ultimately there is an objective Truth, who amongst us can honestly say we possess the ability to discern truth from misinformation at all times? In practise, we tend to be drawn to the ideas that further enhance and reinforce our current opinions based on what we have learnt so far and our gut feelings.
You cite News Benders as being an example of state propaganda and I am inclined to agree. However, my interpretation of it is different to yours as I think it is an example of ‘hidden in plain sight’, since I am currently of the opinion that the Apollo moon landings were faked.
2. You say RDH is promoting an interpretation of the Manchester event that is only partially true. I am assuming you are saying this because you have come to the conclusion that this event was nothing more than a drill and that nobody dies in a drill? Even if this is true, the fact that RDH may not think this is not proof that he is controlled, he may be expressing his genuine opinion based on his interpretation of the evidence. I think we can all agree that one of the primary aims of the lawsuit was to scare others into concern about speaking the truth or even expressing an unpopular opinion.
3. I agree that there are strong parallels between the AJ/Sandy Hook trial and the RDH/Manchester Arena trial. However, I don’t think this is conclusive proof that RDH is a controlled asset. I still think he could have genuinely thought he had no option but to defend himself in court and, perhaps in conjunction with some bad legal advice, thought there could be a different outcome.
4. Why was RDH taken to court rather than UKCT? Perhaps because as Miri points out, you cannot be sued for expressing an opinion. RDH could be made an example of because it was possible to (rightly or wrongly) accuse him of harassment. Also, if Miri’s theory that RDH is (either wittingly or unwittingly) playing a role in the ‘Madeline McCann psyop.’, then it would be necessary for RDH to be brought to the attention of the public at large in order to further cement in people’s minds that independent journalism cannot be trusted.
5. As with point 2 above, the fact that RDH is considering the possibility that there may have been actual deaths involved does not prove that he is a controlled asset. I too can only speculate on the logistics involved in these ‘false, false flag events’ or ‘staged events’ and the motivations of the people involved. There certainly seems to be evidence that people with pre-existing injuries are recruited. So I don’t think that it’s much of a stretch to speculate that in some circumstances people who have already died in a pre-event incident could also be recruited.
6. Regarding analysis of the interview of SR’s parents. Again I can only speculate on the logistics involved when it comes to the recruitment and coaching of these event participants. I suspect that anyone who is not either naturally gifted or has received extensive training in acting would be able to pull off a convincing performance if handed a script to learn. I think this is why so many of these interviews feel like there is something that is not right about them. I am not sure of the point you are making regarding the fact that RDH decided to talk to someone, who claims to be a expert in witness statement analysis, as part of his research into the Manchester arena event.
I'm not sure where you people get your ideas from but it's blatantly false to claim that RDH was/is well known in the MSM. Yes, the fact that the BBC gave him any attention at all is suspicious but that's one flaw in an otherwise spotless career.
The rest of your response is just nonsense and the fact that MiriAF thought it was noteworthy is beyond comprehension.
Needs clarification. RDH is not well known in the MSM generally but his case is currently receiving publicity in it. In the case of say Alex Jones he is reasonably well known generally.
Curious to know what nonsense you identify in my response.
Because a lot of people on our side (sensibly) don't consume MSM, they're often not fully aware of just how high-profile a certain individual has become. RDH certainly isn't as famous as AJ as you say, but has enjoyed a great deal of publicity over many months including the Daily Mail labelling him "Britain's sickest man" - ! To get that kind of accolade from the country's second biggest circulation newspaper is really rather phenomenal publicity - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13065107/Meet-Britains-sickest-man-Youtuber-doorstepped-Manchester-bomb.html
Richie has also enjoyed extensive publicity in The Sun, The Guardian, Sky, ITV, Reuters, and even The New York Times - one of the highest circulation publications in the world.
(And I too wait to be enlightened as to what "nonsense" you shared!)
1. You wrote a treatise on controlled opposition. Yeah, we know about CO.
2. You say that RDH rejected the official narrative with a hypothesis that is only partially true. According to whom? Who is the recognised arbiter of truth on this matter?
3. Spying on people? Was any trespass involved? Any unlawful or illegal act?
4. "NO ONE is putting forth suspicious deaths" SO WHAT? As you admit, it doesn't mean that RDH is wrong so why bring it up?
You "infer" that it was a setup to ensnare (unwary conspiracy theorists?) NO ONE was putting forth setups to ensnare so - how dare you!
5. Successful charges will scare people - duh! That's why they do these lawsuits.
6. UK Critical Thinker v RDH? Who even knew that UKCT even existed? RDH has built up a following over decades of work no thanks to any big money sponsors. Of course, the conspirators are going to go after RDH.
7. Lumping RDH with AJ? AJ has been a big platform distraction for decades while RDH remained in relative obscurity. The real mystery is why so many supposed champions of truth have so eagerly jumped up to bash him. It's hardly slow news day but maybe it's gotten too dangerous to talk about the real stories.
1. Controlled opposition (CO) is a very sophisticated phenomenon ... as it needs to be for it to be effective. If all those willing to disbelieve the false narratives they drown us in who are familiar with the concept were able to easily recognise it, it wouldn't work for those in power. How many people, for example, recognise The News-Benders as a work of propaganda? Understanding the basics of a phenomenon is not the same as really understanding it. So yes, a treatise, but I don't think inappropriate.
2. Truth doesn't have arbiters, arbiters occur in court rooms which are not about truth. All of us can put forward our case for truth and others either accept our case or not. My case for RDH's "suspicious deaths" not being true is made in my Point 6. I see now I put my points in the wrong order - should have made Point 6 before saying RDH's claim is only partially true.
3. I'm only putting forward the reasons given for the civil claims against RDH. Like Miri, I think it's all staged.
4. I bring up the fact that no one else is putting forth suspicious deaths because it raises the question of why not? I've made claims that no one else has AFAIK, eg, The News-Benders, Operation Northwoods and Collateral Murder are works of propaganda, however, we can see why they aren't detected by others because, as I say in Point 1, controlled opposition is a sophisticated phenomenon. Similarly, Miri seems to be the only one making the case that RDH's case is all staged ... but we can see why she's the only one - being like-minded though I would certainly suspect it even before reading her articles. In RDH's case though I'd make the claim that the reason he's the only one making the claim of "suspicious deaths" is that there is no good reason to make that claim.
5. Yes, I know it's obvious but I'm simply including all items to make my case. I think Miri has made the case admirably herself but, as she said, she got a lot of pushback when she put her case forward initially.
6. The authorities' concern isn't how much money people have to take them to court. If people have committed a crime they will be charged by the authorities. The point being made is that there is no crime in calling out hoaxes which UK CT has done, the alleged defamatory matter et al are of a different nature.
7. Controlled opposition is an incredibly effective weapon against those of us interested in the truth and anytime it's detected it should be exposed. Miri has done a great job and the way I see it a job of great importance.
Yep. Thanks for writing another great article that shares my opinions.
In 2023 I saw Jacqui Deevoy on Twitter, asking for crowdfunding to sue Anna Brees for libel. As a true conspiracy nut, I knew it would never happen.
I'm too cynical to fund anyone anyway tbh. And there's so many asking for money.
I confess that during CONVID I used to fund 'the sick note', Richie Allen but he went on an all out attack on people like me who don't believe the ball earth theory or other 'extreme' beliefs.
Similarly, Richard D Hall had a big globe earth projected on the wall of his show set 😂🤡🌏
Thank you, John, and I agree.. I just don't see there is a need for libel / slander laws these days. If someone says something about you you don't like, you have three options:
1. Ignore it (usually the best and most effective option - hence why the MSM keeps ignoring me!)
2. Contact the person privately and explain you think they've made a mistake and would they mind correcting it
3. Write your own defence of yourself and share it on your Substack, blog, etc
Those options are perfectly sufficient in an age where everyone has a public platform available to them. I can see there might have been a need for some sort of defamation legislation before the internet when only the MSM could make public pronouncements about people. But now we all can. I like Jacqui D but did not think her libel case was a good idea! And as you say, these things often don't go ahead anyway.
And yes, interesting point about RDH...
It has been a long held burning desire of mine to spend lottery proceeds on JC DeCaux-style advertisement boards - having engaged a clever PR ad agency / person - with truth bombs galore.
As a side note, it becomes interesting when (in the absence of clear harm) courts can decide what is best for kids in contradiction of the child’s parents; specially in the taxpayer funded NHS it should be a legal minefield. I am thinking of the personal sovereignty aspect in terms of “delivering” children (and placentas) and birth certificates bearing names in capitals and, it would seem, the parents handing “ownership” of kids to the government. A pandora’s box of a rabbit hole I am yet to conquer.
Yes, it's quite the rabbit hole. I haven't conquered it yet myself. I don't know if it's true that if children aren't registered at birth, then the state has no power over seizing them (i.e., social services etc), or how such an unregistered person would function in society as an adult - bank accounts, mortgages and so on. But it's certainly a very interesting subject.
Miri, the wealthier middle classes don't play the lottery, but they do play 'the stock market' ('cause they so smart y'see). And that's why they are called 'the dumb money' by the upper echelons of the finance industry.
Disclaimer: Always manage your risk, and always be aware that the value of your investments can go down as well as down.
A friend once brutally summed up the National Lottery as - A TAX on the thick!
Unfortunately he is spot on, just like your article.
Very good, Miri. I totally agree. No money to fund raisers unless you’re very very sure about the end recipient!
That story about the peado who has managed to wangle his way into another family is nothing short of depressing.
I can remember donating to the Simon Dolan case because I think I felt so traumatised by the lockdowns that at that time I was inclined to support anyone who appeared to be doing something proactive to stand up against the nonsense. Then for a while I thought that Andrew Bridgen had genuinely come to see the light regards to the death shots, especially because he appeared to have been injured himself, so I chucked him a bit of money as well. I no longer think AB is the people's hero I once assumed him to be but I'm not going to give myself a hard time for wanting to give people the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.
Likewise, I am not at the stage where I can feel confident to throw Richard D Hall under the bus because I cannot feel certain he is not a sincere investigative journalist who has just been stitched up by our thoroughly corrupt legal system and now faces potential bankruptcy as a result. If that proves to be naive on my part and I change my mind further down the road then so be it. I think I would still rather be the kind of person who thinks the best towards an individual until such time I have sufficient evidence to convince me that they are not what they seem.
With regards to the fact that much of the financial penalty RDH is ordered to pay will go to the Hibberts, I have found myself wondering what motivates people to end up in the situation where they get to be crisis actors for the shadowy cabal and I can't help but wonder whether it is more stick than carrot. Who knows what they've been through to have ended up in that situation so I am not even sure I begrudge them getting a few quid. I personally would not want to live a life of deception for any amount of money.
Thanks Lynne, I totally sympathise with this perspective and I was there once, too (I also donated to Mr. Dolan - and encouraged others too - as well as, as I have related before and to my considerable embarrassment, financially supported Laurence Fox!).
Since then I have learned that we, unfortunately, can't ever give people in the public eye the benefit of the doubt, because the establishment is very, very careful about who it promotes and gives mainstream media publicity to, and it's only ever to its own assets.
Any PR boss or newspaper editor knows the absolute veracity of the phrase "there's no such thing as bad publicity" and so they NEVER heavily publicise anyone unless it's because that person is in the club (just look at the extraordinary amount of international MSM media attention RDH has received, with detailed articles in all the big media vehicles in this country and abroad).
To publicise (and to reiterate, "to publicise" does not mean "to be nice about", it simply means drawing attention to) anyone gives them huge potential power and influence. Thusly, every time the MSM does a "hit piece" on a supposed anti-establishment figure like Russell Brand, Donald Trump, or Richard D Hall, that person's star - and therefore star power - rises exponentially.
The predictable effect of the MSM saying "look at this crazy, evil conspiracy theorist" (the Daily Mail literally called RDH "Britain's sickest man") is for those of a conspiratorially-minded nature to become outraged, and want to passionately defend and support this person - e.g., donate to their court case, subscribe to their channel, or in some other way financially support them.
MSM knows this. It admits it. (It ran an article admitting how it had helped Russell Brand become vastly wealthier by running so many "hit pieces" on him.)
So if they wanted to financially ruin anyone, the LAST thing they would do is give them this kind of attention. Instead, they would ignore them (starving them of vital publicity all operations need to make money) and cut them off at source by e.g., taking their PayPal, as they took mine in 2022 and that of many other activists.
RDH still has his.
This is all a sophisticated psy-op carried out for the purposes covered in my articles (this one, 'Controlled Freaks' and 'Richard D's Hall of Mirrors?'), and as is elaborated on in Petra Liverani's excellent reply to your other comment.
Thanks Miri, I appreciate you taking the time to reply. I did read your previous articles concerning RDH and I left a comment on ‘Controlled Freaks’ asking if you would be willing to have a face to face conversation with Iain Davis because, as you know, he has a very different perspective on this and I am sure I can’t be the only one who would be very interested to hear you both have a discussion about this.
I am open to the possibility that RDH is a state sponsored asset because I am open to consider all kinds of possibilities in a reality where I am increasingly coming to appreciate the saying “wheels within wheels”. However, I am not currently convinced by any of the evidence I have been offered.
Whilst I appreciate there is some truth in the axiom; “there’s no such thing as bad publicity”, I also think that MSM will run stories with the sole aim of ruining a person’s reputation if they are being perceived as a threat to the system. As evidence of this I would cite the case of Andrew Wakefield, who I believe was totally pilloried by the press (and still continues to be) in order to make it nearly impossible for anyone to present any evidence which might be critical of the V-word. So with that in mind, I think it could be possible that RDH is being similarly portrayed in the press as public enemy number as a warning to anyone else who questions official narratives.
I don’t think the fact that he still has an active Paypal account is strong evidence that he is CO. In fact, the opposite could be argued. If he is CO, surely his PP account would have been suspended to give the impression that the establishment are trying to shut him down? I don’t think the fact that he asks people to donate directly to his bank account is particularly incriminating. Both PP and crowdfunding sites take commission so this could be a perfectly valid reason, in fact it’s the reason he states on his website. As to whether he will become fabulously wealthy due to donations from ‘gullible’ conspiracy theorists, that’s impossible to know at this stage.
I’ll reply to Petra’s comments separately. I very much hope you are able to have a discussion with Iain about this. Personally, I am starting to find wading through these comment threads a daunting task and it is only going to get worse with a seemingly ever increasing number of trolls and AI bots. Nothing beats a genuine human conversation.
Objection m' lady!
Firstly, Richard D Hall didn't sue the Hibbards, it was the other way round. What option did RDH have besides defending himself in court?
Second, why did you repeat the nonsense about RDH hiding in the bushes? Either you knew it was a false claim or should have known better. Which is it?
Offer to settle out of court, as he knew he could not possibly win and his defeat would be used to set case law precedent and thus make it much harder for others to speak out.
To "hide in the bushes" in a turn of phrase, not to be taken literally (just like to say a gay person is "in the closet" does not literally mean they have locked themselves in a wardrobe). The phrase implies: to behave in a way meant to camouflage or conceal oneself.
Richard D. Hall, a middle-aged man, acted to loiter around the house of a sixteen-year-old schoolgirl, who he acknowledges is disabled, and furtively film her. Nobody in their right mind would find that acceptable behaviour, let alone "investigative journalism". It's so obviously dodgy that it appears deliberately contrived to get him into trouble.
"Hide in the bushes" was an actual false claim made against RDH as I suspect you know and I believe that you used it intentionally for that reason.
"Nobody in their right mind?" I disagree. The results may have been inconclusive but fishing for evidence is always hit or miss.
Settling out of court was probably the smarter option but professional pride can be a curse. I know now that offering to pay for harm on receipt of an itemised bill for any injuries would've sorted out any false claims but does RDH know that?
No, I really did not know this, but have since learned it was alleged Rich "hid a camera in plant foliage" which he denies and says "no, I hid it in my van" - ah well that's alright then! Fine to secretly film disabled schoolgirls from your van rather than a bush... this is a completely irrelevant detail and makes no difference to anything.
Bush / van, doesn't matter - everybody knows middle-aged men shouldn't be secretly filming young girls for any reason, including Rich himself, because he admits that Eve is disabled, and yet he still maintains the bombing was a hoax.
To be clear, he claimed he was filming her to "prove her injuries were fake". His filming led him to conclude that they weren't.
But he still says the bombing was a hoax.
So, by his own admission, whether Eve's injuries were or were not real had no bearing on the veracity of whether the bombing was a hoax. Therefore, his own defence that he was filming her as part of his investigation into whether the bombing was a hoax, doesn't stand up.
If any of this was legitimate and real, his counsel would have told him to admit his culpability in harassment and settle out of court. To do this is not conceding any ground on whether the bombing was or was not a hoax, it's simply dealing with the actual charge, which was harassment.
He should have admitted to harassing vulnerable youngsters, paid the slap on the wrist fine, and got on with his life continuing to expose hoaxes or whatever else he wants to do.
Martin Hibbert claimed he escalated to court, not because of what Rich said about him ("he can say what he wants about me", he said), but for involving his young disabled daughter, a position that will obviously get huge public sympathy.
If Martin had therefore refused to settle out of court, Rich would have him over a barrel, and be able to say, "but I thought this was about stopping your daughter getting unwanted attention? If this goes to trial she will get far, far more attention than if we just settle out of court and draw a line under this now".
So as I say, if Martin Hibbert had refused this offer, it would have massively exposed him, and enormously increased Rich's credibility too, insofar as he can admit when he's wrong and that he should never have involved Eve (a vulnerable child who should be considered out of bounds).
But instead he doubled down, took this to court, inevitably lost, and thus set case law precedent, meaning that now "Eve's Law" is going to be passed, tightening up free speech and making it much harder for genuine activists to speak out.
Job done, Agent Hall. And if it comes to light, as I strongly suspect it will (and have written about in below linked article), that Madeleine McCann has been alive all along, Rich will lose even more credibility and conspiracy theorists will be vilified even more. It's all planned.
https://miriaf.co.uk/nobody-wants-to-find-a-dead-cat/
Irrelevant details? If so, why did you bring it up?
Do you have any first hand knowledge of RDH's work or are you getting all of this second hand? If you'd read his book on Manchester, you'd know that he was investigating all victims reported in the inquiry. This wasn't a schoolgirl. It was an alleged participant in a hoaxed attack therefore a valid subject for investigation.
As for the McCann case, it was a matter of huge public interest and RDH did excellent work pulling various threads together. I had already read Amaral's book and Richard's shows added extra context. It's funny that Amaral could still have his job and the rest of us could have used our time and energy elsewhere if you'd been there to tell us it was just a big hoax to discredit RDH far in the future.
Apologies if my words seem a bit sharp but I hold you in high regard and I find this attack on a decent bloke most unbecoming off you.
Do you follow Lynn Ertell on FakeOtube?
No, but I shall check her out!
I am cautious about Tommy Robinson but he interviewed well with Jordan Peterson. His strident tactics about the ROP were only going to inflame some injudicious people. Interesting about his fund raiser not being in a more bona fide fund. Cause for concern. However he has appeared to suffer for his cause (more than Messrs Hall and Bridgen) being in solitary confinement for periods legally defined as torture, as well as losing teeth. The Reform party has distanced itself from him, thereby damaging their credibility. Maybe both are in some way controlled opposition??
…as is Mr Peterson.
I am cautious about him too! But TR gave many facts.
Aka Juden Peterstein and “Mossad” Tommy…
Delingpole did a good analysis of JP a year or so ago… https://jamesdelingpole.locals.com/post/3191840/put-not-your-trust-in-jordan-peterson
J P Dismantled is a popular takedown…
https://youtu.be/WXYuqrO8LLo
As is Vox Day’s Jordanetics…
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/42507205-jordanetics
Here’s Vox years later:
https://voxday.net/2024/07/23/right-from-day-one/
Thanks for this Brian. I subscribe to JD substack and will endeavour to watch his video or one of the others.