Richard Hall v The BBC - (Manchester Arena Bombing, 22 May 2017)

Integrated Capstone Events - ICE - are where fusion centers/merged law enforcement come together to conduct a DHS led event - and portray it as real.
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3861
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1354 times
Been thanked: 1634 times

Re: Richard Hall v The BBC - (Manchester Arena Bombing, 22 May 2017)

Unread post by rachel »

Here's Iain Davis' latest article on the Richard Hall court case.

Richard D. Hall – A Travesty of Justice
https://iaindavis.com/richard-d-hall-a- ... f-justice/

@xileffilex, what's your opinion of Richard and this whole court case? Do you think it is all staged with Hall a willing participant. Or do you think there are two sides, it's just neither side is our side?
xileffilex
Posts: 663
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 12:57 pm
Has thanked: 80 times
Been thanked: 360 times

Re: Richard Hall v The BBC - (Manchester Arena Bombing, 22 May 2017)

Unread post by xileffilex »

I honestly don't know, Rachel.

I am ignoring RDH's earlier comments on 9/11 etc. I'm judging him on Manchester. He's one of the very few publicly to suggest NDNDG. I don't dismiss everyone who is not at the NDNGH stage either. But I am suspicious of those who ought to be considering such matters.

I'm not sure what "our side" is either. There's no grey area for me in the fake death operation, be it a celeb checking out into retirement or the Witness Protection escape of the crisis actors in HRDPARs to a new life. To use an analogy, you're either pregnant or not, there's no in between, you can't be slightly pregnant. [whether you're female or male....] And "They" certainly don't kill their own species as Iain Davis suggests.

I'm very interested to see how this plays out, unique in the world I think.
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3861
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1354 times
Been thanked: 1634 times

Re: Richard Hall v The BBC - (Manchester Arena Bombing, 22 May 2017)

Unread post by rachel »

As soon as I put our side, I did think what do I mean by that. I guess people who end up being on the receiving end of the bollocks all this stuff apparently justifies. Indeed it is interesting where this is going, I would say it's a continuation of what the phone hacking scandal.

The point of that seemed to be to Ofcom the media and create a differentiation between the regulated media and independents. From that, only regulated media gets invites to government press briefings. Do you remember Call me Dave and his "crossing the Rubicon" speech.


Leveson report: David Cameron refuses to 'cross Rubicon' and write press law
29 November 2012, The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/ ... -press-law
David Cameron found himself accused of betrayal by the victims of phone hacking and isolated from his coalition partners when he took the gamble of opposing Lord Justice Leveson's proposal to underpin a new independent press regulator with legislation.

Unveiling his 2,000-page report, the judge insisted the move was an essential to end "a culture of reckless and outrageous journalism".

But after agonising for 24 hours since he received the report of the inquiry set up by him 16 months ago, Cameron said he had "serious concerns and misgivings" in principle to any statutory interference in the media. He warned: "It would mean for the first time we have crossed the Rubicon of writing elements of press regulation into law of the land."

Cameron argued: "We should think very very carefully before crossing this line," warning that parliament for centuries had seen its role as a bulwark of democracy. "We should be wary of any legislation that has the potential to infringe free speech and the free press."

And now we have with the Online Safety Act.

UK’s “Online Safety Act” OFFICIALLY grants MSM permission to publish lies
2 February 2024, Off-Guardian
https://off-guardian.org/2024/02/02/uks ... lish-lies/
Welcome to the UK where it’s now official government policy that you CAN’T publish “misinformation”, but The Guardian, the BBC, Disney and Netflix CAN.

Yes, it’s true – the recently signed “Online Safety Act” brands the publication of “false information” a criminal offense punishable by up to a year in prison…

…unless you’re an MSM outlet, when it’s totally fine.

Think even the corrupt & bloated criminal class that rules over us would never dare be that blatant?

Take a look at section 179 making it illegal to publish false information with intent to cause harm:

online-safety-act-s179.jpg

…and then look at section 180, which exempts all MSM outlets from this new law:

online-safety-act-s180.jpg

…and that’s without even getting into OfCom’s “select committee”, or how they choose to define “misinformation” (s. 152)

Welcome to the modern definition of “freedom of speech”, where the MSM are directly and explicitly permitted to “knowingly publish false information with intent to cause non-trivial harm”, and you can be sent to jail for a year for calling out their lies.

Oh, and it looks like our friends across the pond might not be far behind. The Big Tech Senate hearings started yesterday, and social media executives are already throwing their support behind the new “Kids Online Safety Act”.

With the EU’s own Digital Services Act coming into force later this month, and all the focus on “misinformation and disinformation” at Davos two weeks ago, we can see the real crackdown on internet free speech is about to kick into gear.

Good times.

In a sense, this might capture Richard D Hall, because I get the feeling he is there to create an alternative narrative that still leads to the same conclusions as the 'official story'. That way if the official story gets trashed, they could just switch to his '911 energy weapons' version, etc. But it might be that the controllers now feel they can dispense with the likes of Richard altogether.
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3861
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1354 times
Been thanked: 1634 times

Re: Richard Hall v The BBC - (Manchester Arena Bombing, 22 May 2017)

Unread post by rachel »

UK Column clip prior to the judgement.

Short Interview with Richard D Hall after the Court Hearing on Monday 29th January 2024
3 Feb 2024
Comment from Richard Hall(taken from his website)
I (Richard D. Hall) appeared at a High Court hearing on Monday 29th January 2024. The hearing was to determine the outcome of the Claimant's application to accept without question the official narrative of the Manchester bombing, and thus prevent me from presenting any evidence which challanges the official narrative at a trial.

I was expecting a decision at the end of the 2 1/2 hour hearing, but the judge has reserved judgment and will give a judgment in due course.

I did a short interview with Ben Rubin of UK Column after the hearing which I suspect will be broadcast at 1pm on UK Column News on Wednesday 31/1/2024.
napoleon
Posts: 3885
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2021 3:23 pm
Has thanked: 1693 times
Been thanked: 685 times

Re: Richard Hall v The BBC - (Manchester Arena Bombing, 22 May 2017)

Unread post by napoleon »

xulk mentions grey area in a prior post ,and i understand your position and i also take this stance with researchers like hall and simon shack and others

but i also feel and see this dystopian society will be full of people researchers who got to a certain point then just stopped for whatever reason ,ive seen it so so many times ,where an avenue of thinking gets ignored

that to me is how they sear and cortorise peoples thinking and eventually it becomes a conformity experiment ,so i just call them nerdowells for thinking they had it solved and moved on to new conspiracies

hey you can hate me or love me ,but i am honest
napoleon
Posts: 3885
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2021 3:23 pm
Has thanked: 1693 times
Been thanked: 685 times

Re: Richard Hall v The BBC - (Manchester Arena Bombing, 22 May 2017)

Unread post by napoleon »

i can give examples with hall where my fakeologist brain takes over ,specifically with the mcann case and its much the same as jfk and fetzer years of skipping over stagecraft.

when i got to a certain point in his research where i said hang on theres too many bbc connections or alarm bells and richard hasn't even gone down the story made up for bringing in laws or just spinning more tales

and i a was aware of the bbc also being tavistock born or vice versa ,so when he didnt say hang on a minute is this little girl made up i lost interest

same with his support for judy wood ,there comes a time when you gotta ask yourself how would i fake 911 with all the magic available on or behind the counter ,and then its only a week or two to work out the trick


remember when the fakeologist were getting giddy about ips ,now i like ips and listen to his ragmanroll hes top class ,but fakeologists i did say ooh when 2017 2018 he won't get the star wars gig ,not because im psychic is it ? no it's because there are limits to what peoples scope or boundaries are

i cant call any of em gatekeepers ,they aint stopping me from posting what 911 was or offending me with their research or findings .i will quite happily filter their research ,so just to say i dont disregard anyone whos s limitations are below mine ,but i do tell you in advance
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3861
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1354 times
Been thanked: 1634 times

Re: Richard Hall v The BBC - (Manchester Arena Bombing, 22 May 2017)

Unread post by rachel »

I am the very definition of a norman normie, so I was trying to remember how I actually started watching Richard D Hall, and then I remembered, the first thing I knew about him was via money creation. I used to read Michael Meacher MP's blog and actually follow him on twitter. When he "died" his twitter account was taken down within about a day. It was gone by the time I'd heard the news and gone to look up his last tweet. I assumed it was the protocol surrounding MP's social media accounts. But, that turned out to be a big fat no.

9:00 am on the nose, so looks like Jo's last tweet was scheduled.




Anyway, when Jeremy Corbyn became leader of the Opposition in September 2015, ex-banker Mark Cocking was asked to write a paper suggesting ways to reform the banking sector and financing. And this was on the back of Positive Money's campaigning, an apparent grassroots organisation designed to highlight money creation.

UK PARLIAMENT DEBATED MONEY CREATION FOR FIRST TIME IN 170 YEARS
London, 21st November 2014
https://positivemoney.org/press-release ... 170-years/
Cross-party support came for a proposal to set up a monetary commission:

Michael Meacher MP, Labour MP for Oldham West and Royton ended by calling on “the Government to set up a commission on money and credit, with particular reference to the potential benefits of sovereign money, which offers a way out of the continuing and worsening financial crises that have blighted this country and the whole international economy for decades.”

Zac Goldsmith MP Conservative MP for Richmond Park stated that “The time has come to establish a monetary commission and for Parliament to become much more engaged [in this issue].”

Additionally Steve Baker MP outlined his support for “proposals from the Bank’s chief economist, Andy Haldane, [to] commission ‘anti-orthodox research”

This was supported by the Government Treasury Minister Andrea Leadsom MP, who stated that “Andy Haldane has said the Bank itself will be looking at, and encouraging, the exploration of alternative views.”

Positive Money applauds the MPs willing to attend the debate and speak on money creation and society. Executive Director Fran Boait stated, “Thousands of our supporters have put in time to ensure that this important debate was a success. We don’t expect MPs to fully understand how the money and banking system works, but we do expect them to be concerned about it. It was fantastic to see the MPs engage in the conversation, and acknowledge that the current system is causing more problems than it is solving.”

See it says "alternative views", one of these was Mark Cocking's. Then looking up Mark Cocking, I found out he's actually a Druid and talks about the occult. I'm pretty sure this is the video set that introduced me to Richard D Hall. Now at the time I wasn't a follower of Jesus, so just having a rewatch is quite interesting. It looks like it was published around the 12th April 2010 as Richard talks about the Smolensk plane crash at the start.

THE RICHPLANET STARSHIP - MARK COCKING INTERVIEW


PART 2


PART 3



In the second video Mark tells us about "the law a threes" and that it comes from Christianity and the Trinity. Well the Trinity is not Christian in origin, it's Pagan, so his suggestion it originates from the Book of the Dead is therefore probably reasonable. He then goes on to discuss octaves and rainbows, worth a listen. The last video he discusses the banking system as it stood directly after the 2009 financial crash.
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3861
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1354 times
Been thanked: 1634 times

Re: Richard Hall v The BBC - (Manchester Arena Bombing, 22 May 2017)

Unread post by rachel »

If Global Warming was real, then the easiest way for the UK to cut its carbon dioxide emissions is to close down most of our television channels. There is no diversity of opinion, so they are a waste of resources. Keep the BBC and sacrifice ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5, and Sky TV to the Sun God they worship.

Anyway, here's the link to Richard's latest video. He highlights some interesting law facts worth committing to memory.


Richard D. Hall appeared at a High Court Hearing on Monday 29th January 2024. The Hearing was to determine the outcome of the Claimant's Application to accept without question the official narrative of the Manchester bombing, and thus prevent him from presenting any evidence which challenges the official narrative at a trial. An article by Iain Davis can be found here. The Judgment can be found here. At the Hearing, video evidence was presented which was filmed at the scene of the Manchester incident, in the City Room, filmed 4 minutes after the blast. It showed a woman, Ruth Murrell, walking without impairment or any visual injury - who it was claimed had a nut or bolt travel all the way through her leg (15cm), and out of the other side. Also shown was a still image of the merchandise stall completely in tact, which was just yards from the blast and in direct line of sight of the blast. This evidence is not specifically referred to in this Judgment, and was not shown at the Public Inquiry. Images were also shown at the Hearing, of the City Room shortly after the blast, showing that no visible building damage was caused, and no blood is visible on the floor, and windows were not broken etc. This evidence is also not specifically mentioned in the Judgment. The evidence is first hand video and CCTV evidence from the crime scene.

None of the CCTV evidence which is relied upon by the Claimants, which would demonstrate they were present at the Arena, has been released by the Public Inquiry, and has not been seen by the Court. An Application to the Court to have this CCTV evidence released was submitted and a second Application was submitted to have the 2017 medical records of the Claimants released for a surgeon to view. Both of the Applications have been rejected in this Judgment. With regards the CCTV evidence, what was relied upon, were statements made by two people who claim to have seen the CCTV evidence, but no footage or images have been provided.

Many other evidential points were covered at the hearing which are presented In this video, and also the BBC's actions against Richard in relation to the timing of the Claim.
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3861
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1354 times
Been thanked: 1634 times

Re: Richard Hall v The BBC - (Manchester Arena Bombing, 22 May 2017)

Unread post by rachel »

The thing that tires me beyond belief. I have no interest in watching the dickheads on Good Morning Britain, or any of the muppets they drag on to fill the space. But then we have the second line in the army, people like Richard and Alastair who try to make sure we watch the Punch and Judy show that would otherwise pass us by.

Meanwhile, let's remind ourselves, Richard was trying to sell the idea of a self-assembling bioweapon that built itself in the bodies of people who were injected with the COVID-19 vaccine. That was his claim, and yet as soon as the people behind the UK Government and their friends in Russia pulled their Ukraine invasion stunt to get themselves out of the COVID-19 hole, suddenly Richard had fuck-all to say on the matter of COVID-19. Has the vaccine programme been brought to an end in the UK? Yet, like every other part of the bought-and-paid-for media, he's silent on the subject, Manchester conveniently coming along to take up his time.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/pr ... -campaign/
Preparing for a successful spring 2024 COVID-19 vaccination campaign

Dear colleagues,

Preparing for a successful spring 2024 COVID-19 vaccination campaign
Thank you for your support and commitment to delivering the 2023 autumn COVID-19 and flu vaccination campaigns. We achieved 12 million COVID-19 and 18 million flu vaccinations alongside our routine immunisation programmes. Your efforts continue to save lives.

The NHS should now plan for a seasonal dose of COVID-19 vaccine in spring 2024, following the government’s acceptance of advice from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation’s (JCVI).

NHS England’s Shaping the future delivery of NHS vaccination and immunisation services (13 December 2023) sets out the NHS’s vision for these services over the coming years.

In line with this strategy, regions and ICBs should consider how they integrate their COVID-19 vaccination programmes with other seasonal, life course and outbreak programmes, while keeping their focus on increasing uptake and reducing inequalities.

Eligible cohorts in spring 2024
  • adults aged 75 years and over
  • residents in care homes for older adults
  • individuals aged 6 months and over who are immunosuppressed (as defined in the Green Book, chapter 14a; tables 3 and 4)
This includes those who turn 75 years old by 30 June 2024. These people will be eligible for a vaccination at any point in the campaign. People who are admitted to an older adult care home or become immunosuppressed by 30 June are also eligible.

The Green Book has been updated to reflect the JCVI advice and training materials and legal mechanisms will be updated in line with the JCVI advice before vaccinations start.

Regions and ICBs should work with providers to develop plans to deliver a spring 2024 COVID-19 campaign. This letter sets out key principles for systems when finalising plans.

Campaign start and end dates
Visits to older adult care homes and eligible housebound patients should begin 15 April 2024. For all other eligible cohorts, vaccinations should start by 22 April 2024 and end on 30 June 2024.

Vaccinations in care homes and for eligible housebound people
Primary care network (PCN) groupings and other commissioned COVID-19 vaccination sites should plan to start vaccinating residents in older adult care homes and eligible housebound individuals from Monday 15 April.

Invitations and bookings
The NHS will plan to invite and vaccinate those eligible for a spring dose by 30 June, via a combination of local and national invitations. Systems should work on the basis that sites will have access to the National Booking Service on Tuesday 9 April. Sites must load appointments so that invitations can start, allowing the public to book appointments from Monday 15 April.

Addressing variation
Systems must work across their partnerships to ensure equity of access and reduce unwarranted variations in uptake and outcomes across communities. This will require good communication, targeted interventions, and evidence-based engagement with underserved communities and groups. Monitoring and evaluation of activities based on robust data will be crucial.

All systems have been allocated dedicated funding to support activities that help build vaccine confidence and trust in their communities throughout the year, not just at the time of a campaign. Outreach funding should be used to improve access for those eligible for year-round vaccination and to further enhance the wider immunisations offer.

A guide to using access and inequalities funding, mandatory data recording, reporting, monitoring and evaluation is being produced and will be published as soon as possible.

Contracts
The end date of the current COVID-19 vaccination contracts will be extended from 31 March 2024 to 31 August 2024. Providers must let their local commissioner know by 22 February 2024 if they are able to continue delivering the COVID-19 vaccination service beyond 31 March to 31 August 2024. The enhanced service specifications and NHS standard contract schedules have been updated to cover this period have been published:
  • General Practice Enhanced Service Specification and PCN Grouping Collaboration Agreement
  • Community Pharmacy Enhanced Service Specification
  • Standard Contract Schedules
  • Standard Contract Schedule 2A – Detained Estates
This includes updated payment arrangements from 1 April 2024. A process will be announced shortly for the award of COVID-19 vaccination contracts from 1 September 2024 onwards. We will share further information about this soon.

Supply and deliveries
We will be using XBB.1.5 vaccines throughout the spring 2024 campaign, as deployed in the Autumn 2023. non-mRNA vaccines will not be supplied in the NHS programme.

Supply for spring will be delivered using the Targeted Deployment Model (TDM) as it was throughout the autumn campaign. More detailed information on supply and delivery will be released in February or March, once plans have been finalised.

We are grateful for your ongoing commitment to delivering the vaccination programme, which will ensure we are in the strongest possible position as we head into spring 2024.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Russell, Chief Delivery Officer and National Director for COVID-19 and flu vaccinations programmes, NHS England.

Date published: 21 February, 2024
Date last updated: 21 February, 2024
Post Reply