...Building upon Richard’s investigative journalism, I have found additional damning evidence which further corroborates Hall’s conclusion that there was no bomb and, therefore, it is not possible that anyone was killed or harmed inside the City Room—the foyer of the Manchester Arena—as claimed in the official account.
Most people familiar with the state’s narrative about the Manchester Arena bombing will understandably baulk at the assertion there was no bomb. The notion that the state or elements within the state hoaxed the Manchester Arena bombing sounds and appears preposterous. All any of us can do is look at the evidence we have available. Incredulity is not evidence of anything.
To give you an idea of what the physical evidence shows and how it refutes the official account of the bombing I will briefly mention the “merchandise stall.” As reported by Richard D. Hall, an alleged Manchester Arena “survivor” Josie Howarth, who was reportedly severely injured by shrapnel from Salman Abedi’s suicide bomb and spent five weeks in hospital as a result, said the following:
"We’d been sat waiting for the concert to end on some steps near the entrance. When the music stopped we stood up and went towards the foyer. Then the next thing I know, there was an explosion and the merchandise stand blew to pieces."
Below is a still image of the merchandise stall (stand) captured inside the City Room (foyer) of the Arena around four minutes after the bomb is said to have detonated. As you can see the merchandise “stand”—supposedly six to eight metres away from the epicentre of a massive TATP shrapnel bomb—is entirely intact, undamaged, and even undisturbed. As are the posters hanging on the wall behind it.
I am not going to speculate why Josie Howarth’s account is evidently false. Possible motivation is explored in my book. These articles will be about the the trial and the evidence and arguments presented at the trial.
The trial was covered by, among other journalists, ITV’s Granada Reports Correspondent Elaine Willcox. She makes some unsupported statements about alleged facts based upon her unquestioning acceptance of the state narrative. Nonetheless, Elaine Willcox did report some important aspects of the trial.
Following the conclusion of the trial one of the claimants—who it transpired was effectively the sole claimant—Mr Martin Hibbert read out a prepared statement:
"We live in a society where free speech and the right to express a genuinely held opinion must be protected, but when those beliefs and actions are inaccurate, offensive and damaging, and cause harm to those who have already suffered so badly, people must be challenged. [. . .] Actions that in this case have led to further anxiety and distress."
To a great extent I agree with Mr Hibbert. Freedom of speech and the right to express a genuinely held opinion must be protected if we want to live in a so-called representative democratic society. I would go further than Mr Hibbert. In my view all “genuinely held opinion,” no matter who holds or expresses it, “must be challenged.”
It is the middle clause of Mr Hibbert’s statement where my own doubts start to creep in. Inaccuracy can only be established by examining the evidence. To simply state something is either inaccurate or indeed accurate, without examining the evidence, is an opinion but only the evidence can substantiate or contradict it.
To be clear: the evidence that Hall reported and the subsequent evidence that I have added has never been examined or even acknowledged in any official investigation or inquiry into the Manchester Arena bombing. For instance, it was assumed that the merchandise stall must have been destroyed by a bomb. The observable physical evidence—which shows that it was not—has never been mentioned, let alone examined or explained, in any official report or account.
Sure, people are free to believe whatever they like but they cannot simply demand their opinion be believed, or taken as fact, by anyone else. Especially if the evidence contradicts their stated belief, opinion, or statement of alleged fact. Mr Hibbert’s assertion that Hall’s opinions are “inaccurate” is not supported by the observable, physical evidence. Mr Hall’s opinions and stated beliefs appear to be.
As we shall discuss over the next couple of articles, Mr Hibbert’s claim that the offence he has taken from Hall’s questioning of the official account is damaging and specifically that Hall’s reporting causes “harm” is evidently the crux of the prosecutions argument. It should be noted that this notion of “harm” caused by words or publications is a new concept that has been introduced through legislation such as the UK Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA) and the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA)...
