May as well add Richard's latest video. I did listen to it. It's a bit all over the place and I'm always suss with people who use the child abuse angle. Towards the end, around 1 hour 15 minutes, Richard talks about
The Light Newspaper not publishing an interview they did with him, and he didn't think there was any good reason.
Yep, I personally wouldn't trust The Light, I can be somewhat sure no matter how independent they claim to be, they are part of a chain that includes
Red Pepper Magazine. And that magazine is Labour Left supporting, somewhat Marxist, absolutely social justice and anti-capitalist, and when I used to read it, 'the late' Jeremy Hardy had a column in it, you know, the 'I get to park under the BBC Jeremy Hardy' -
quoting here.
GEMMA O'DOHERTY JOINS RICHARD D HALL - LAWFARE ON JOURNALISM
https://www.richplanet.net/richp_genre. ... t=1&gen=99
Award winning journalist, Gemma O'Doherty joins Richard to talk about her career in Ireland and how she parted company with her employer, who demanded that she cease reporting on corruption within the Irish state. Since leaving mainstream journalism she has continued to lead her field as a fully independent 'proper' investigative journalist, uncovering many serious injustices in Ireland. In recent years she has suffered, what appear to be orchestrated legal attacks, which are being supported by the mainstream media. "Lawfare" seems to the be price that investigative journalists are now paying, for searching for and reporting on uncomfortable truths. The parallels with Richard D. Hall's case in the UK are striking. Click here to watch Gemma's documentary about Mary Boyle.
Might as well throw up a link to that article The Light decided not to publish.
https://www.richplanet.net/article.php
Interview with Richard D. Hall - 11.8.2023
When I woke up ten years ago, you were already well-established as a top investigative journalist. What’s your story?
It started in the 1990s, as an engineer I am interested in how things work, and I heard an interview with an American whistleblower called Bob Lazar on a local radio programme. He claimed he’d worked on recovered flying saucers at a secret base in the Nevada desert, and the way he described the physics of the craft fascinated me. The UFO mystery and alleged secret technology which may have been gleaned from recovered UFOs is what first triggered my interest in government cover ups and opened my eyes to a degree.
Of course many of the unexplained craft in the sky may well be man made advanced aerial vehicles whose technology has not yet been disclosed to the public. The best example of that is the TR3B, a triangular silent craft, which has been used in secret since at least the early 90s (yet the technology is still not disclosed), it has capabilities way beyond a jet or a conventional aircraft and uses a completely different method of propulsion. These craft do not rely on Newtonian physics to produce the effects of acceleration, rather the craft is interacting with the fabric of the vacuum (or space/ether), using a field effect . They can accelerate without having to throw out mass like a rocket has to, and the effects of the resulting acceleration are not felt inside the craft. In the 1990s Belgian fighter jets were scrambled to chase flying triangle UFOs over their airspace and were comprehensively outmaneuvered. The radar data recorded by the fighter jets was given to radar expert Professor Emile Schweitzer to examine. A rare interview with Schweitzer is featured in my film “Almost Identified Flying Objects”, when Schweitzer came to the UK to show his findings to the MOD in a secret meeting, but incredibly he also agreed to do an unofficial off the cuff interview with an independent researcher while he was here. In the interview Schweitzer explains how the massive triangular craft turned a corner which would have resulted in a force of 30G! He was unable to explain how this could be achieved. I suspect the triangles were TR3B or similar type craft being flight tested over a NATO country (Belgium), but without informing the Belgian air force, who were mystified by the craft!
In the 1990s, before I ‘woke up’ – as you describe it, I used to read the Observer every Sunday, and was a fan of one journalist in particular called John Naughton. Naughton wrote a book in 1999 called “A Brief History of the Future – The origins of the internet”. The book describes the history of how the internet came to exist in its present form. Naughton was an advocate of allowing people the right to communicate privately, and was highly critical of the governments 2000 RIPA (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act). The Act made it possible for the government to impose a prison sentence if somebody refused to hand over their encryption keys to their private messages, thus allowing the government to decipher their private communications. It appears now that things are about to get much worse, with further clamp down on the freedom to communicate being proposed in the current Online Harms Bill. I think John Naughton’s work taught me a lot about the importance of freedom of information and also about why the internet would become such an important part of our lives, and now, it seems an information battlefield.
In 2008 I set up a website, richplanet.net, to publicise my interest in UFOs, and the site initially covered famous UFO incidents and the work of UFO researchers. I was approached by a new TV channel, Edge Media Television who had seen the website, and asked me if I would produce a series of weekly half hour TV shows to be aired on the Sky and Freesat platforms, I duly obliged. I met people through Edge Media Television who were talking about 9/11 and other cover-ups. When I started looking at 9/11 – I hadn’t questioned the official story up until around 2008-9 and didn’t realise there were alternatives to the official narrative. I became aware of the work of Dr. Judy Wood and met 9/11 researcher Andrew Johnson for the first time at a conference in 2009. Their investigation into 9/11 was thorough and highly scientific, and in my opinion their conclusions provide the best explanation about what happened on 9/11, which is presented in the book “Where Did the Towers Go”. Finding out about 9/11 was the biggest influence on me becoming ‘awake’.
From 2009 I started producing investigative films covering a range of high profile subjects and cases that appeared to me to involve high level cover up or deception. All the films are free to watch from this link.
Are they going to use the tech to sell the great reset?
Yes, although not necessarily secret tech. The technology that they are using to bring about the ‘great reset’ is all standard technologies which are being used to bring in global technocracy. CBDC (Central Bank Digital Currency) is slowly being rolled out across the world. If they succeed in implementing CBDC and manage to phase out cash aswell, the world will become a very different place. People should consider the capabilities of CBDC, not the immediate intent, because the intent will change, and the capabilities are so Orwellian it’s almost unimaginable what the world would be like. I recently made a short 15 minute film warning about the possibilities which can be watched at this link. It is imperative that we keep using cash, because having the alternative of cash instead of CBDC, would mean that there is always another choice, a safeguard if you will, that people can use if and when CBDC becomes too restrictive.
What is your criteria for investigating stories?
I usually choose a case where I believe the cover up or lie is at a very high level. I’ve not really been interested in stories which are personal tragedies or even organised crime. I’m more interested in cases where I suspect there is government agency malfaisance. ie, cover ups that go right to the top.
You can generally tell by the way a story is presented in the mainstream media, if it’s covering something up or it even may be a completely fabricated story. An alarm bell will go off because of a certain aspect of a story, so I will look a bit closer at it. If I think there’s nothing to it I’ll leave it. If you look at my films, the reason I’ve made them, it’s obvious there’s something else going on. In mainstream media in general, there are very few stories that are told in a completely factual manner, most stories involve some degree of propaganda. Propaganda can be true information, it can be false information or manufactured information, but the key thing that makes something propaganda, is whether the person receiving the information understands why they are being fed it; if they don’t, that makes it propaganda. Cherry picked stories to push an agenda, even though the information may be true, can be propaganda.
Can you tell us about your work on the 2017 Manchester arena attack?
It’s difficult to summarise in a short article, if people want the full information they shoúld go to this page, where there is a free 435 page book, 2 films and further videos.
I’ll start by mentioning the public inquiry which I have studied in some depth. There are approximately 1,300-hours of video testimony; if you watched 8 hours a day it would take over 5 months to watch it all. I watched most of it at treble speed. The inquiry also produced 4,100 PDF documents and I’ve assessed every single one of them. Throughout the inquiry, it gets repeated over and over again, ‘we’re not going to show any image of injury or death’ – they often start the interviews or presentations with that excuse.
Their reasoning is they don’t want to offend or upset the families, so you have this completely sanitised inquiry which doesn’t provide any non verbal evidence to show what actually happened. They should have demonstrated to the public what happened, and they’ve done anything but that. They also censored what people were allowed to say, because it might upset people. The whole inquiry proceeded along those lines, even to the point where you had a police officer describing what’s going on in the CCTV images, talking through them, but without showing or publishing the image he is talking about. So he’s giving a running commentary of a blank screen and we’re expected to believe that what is happening is what he is saying! If you remove the witness testimony from the public inquiry, you’re left with nothing.
Witness testimony is all we have to go on to decide what happened at Manchester. This is why I employed the services of a statement analyst to look at many of the first hand witness statements. These are all published in my book, “Manchester – The Night of the Bang”. The conclusion/opinion of the analyst was that the majority of first hand witnesses were being deceptive in their account of what happened, and the remainder were either unreliable or inconclusive. It is my opinion, having considered a massive ammount of evidence and information, that the Manchester attack was a carefully constructed complex operation planned by various public sector agencies. I believe the alleged perpetrator was a controlled intelligence asset who played his role for some weeks before the attack being caught on CCTV gathering the materials for the device etc. I do not believe he was killed in the attack after fleeing the scene, then driving off in a grey audi vehicle. I believe a number of members of the public, arena staff and a small number of the emergency services were recruited to take part in a mock terrorist attack, which was reported as a real attack in the media.
If you compare the blast scene at Manchester with the 1998 Omagh bombing there really is no comparison. I’ve not seen any photographs located at the scene from the Manchester Arena incident showing any serious injury or death. No one took a photo showing an open flesh wound with someone’s bone sticking out. If you compare Manchester with the nail bomb in London’s Soho at the Admiral Duncan pub in 1999, you have photographs of clear flesh wound injuries, multiple photographs, at a time when mobile phones with cameras were not available.
You don’t have any of that with Manchester – why people can’t put two and two together and ask ‘hang on where are the images?’ – there are images available of ‘injured’ people, but none of those images are in the Arena at the scene, nor are there any images of dead people. I was stuck in traffic behind a car accident a few years ago, and the traffic coming in the other direction, every other car, people had their hands out of the window taking pictures of the accident with their mobile phones. People tend to think ‘we don’t do that kind of thing’ – but yes they do. If a major incident happens, not everyone, but many people get their phones out and start taking pictures; people want that evidence to show they’ve been involved in something – to show they were there. It doesn’t exist with Manchester. There’s one still photograph taken by Chris Parker in the foyer where the blast occurred, but that just shows people lying on the ground – it doesn’t show any evidence of a serious injury or a death.
People will say that the lack of evidence doesn’t mean it didn’t happen the way they say, but once you look at other things such as the first hand witness statements, the official narrative completely falls apart.
I sometimes show the Sun newspaper front page from 2010 featuring an image of PC David Rathband with his face blown off from a shotgun attack to illustrate this point. They want it both ways. They want to be able to show to the public a police officers face blown off, but they say they cannot show a single image of a real injury or death at the Manchester ‘bombing’ incident. The argument for not showing this evidence is so flimsy – because they could put an 18 warning on it, or put the images out in a restricted manner. They have not done this, because in my opinion the images don’t exist.
You’re being taken to court over this?
If people want to read the claim against me, they can follow this link, go and read the documents – the claim and defence, and form your own opinion.
I’m not being sued for defamation, but harassment and breach of GDPR rules. This is not ‘in-person’ harassment. They are saying the opinions in my book amount to harassment! My barrister writes: ‘The claims are denied and make very little reference to or reliance on any conduct or specific statements of opinion by the defendant made about either of the claimants. Instead, the claimants purport to bring a claim of harassment which is based almost entirely on general observations, other statements and published opinion of the journalist, about an alleged incident at Manchester Arena, and base most of their claim on what he believes to be untrue about the narrative which has been presented to the general public. In summary, they are seeking to bring a claim against the defendant for being an independent broadcaster who has advanced opinions which are different to the mainstream media’s, all under the guise of harassment against them personally. This amounts to censorship, is an abuse of process and should be struck out.’
The word ‘opinion’ appears in my book over 100 times, and there is a message at the front which makes it clear I’m expressing opinions throughout the book.
The intention of this legal action is to get an injunction against me and bankrupt me, and if that were to happen, it would have serious ramifications for my freedom of speech, and everyone’s. They’re trying to shut me down.
How can people help?
There’s no date set for a trial though it’s moving towards that, but there are case management hearings. If I’m allowed to present all the evidence, we’ve estimated it will be a 10 day trial. Those who are trying to sue me want to exclude all discussion of the actual events of Manchester from the trial, and have expressed their intention to have the trial ran on that basis! I believe I’m right over target, they don’t like it, and they’re trying to shut my work down.
Donations will help put us in a stronger position – Link here.
Go to article on Richard's site for embedded links.
