Richard D Hall

[Nemuri Kyoshiro]

Sky is (tenuously)linking Richard's case with that of Alex Jones by stating that there are "similarities" between the two.

[factJack]

19 hours ago, Campion said:

 

Hi Jack, can you check that link it just brings me back to this page.  

 

Edit - I've got the link with copy and paste but I needed to change the h**ps at the start to https.  Thanks, it's an important story. 

 

my apologies I replaced the tt in http with ** as

It was used on another invision message board I used to be active on, so sites such as SLY NEWS wouldn't be able to track where the traffic was coming from. I don't know if this is geninely works as I was just copying others who did it and decided to use it here perhaps one of the geeks could let me know?

Here is the article

Quote

A conspiracy theorist being sued by two survivors of the Manchester Arena bombing is "perfectly entitled" to believe the deadly attack was an "elaborate hoax", his lawyer has told a court.

Martin Hibbert and his daughter Eve, then 14, were among the hundreds of people injured when 22-year-old Salman Abedi detonated a homemade bomb at an Ariana Grande concert in May 2017.

Mr Hibbert was paralysed from the waist down, while his daughter suffered a severe brain injury in the attack, which killed 22 people.

They are suing self-styled journalist Richard Hall for alleged harassment and breaches of data protection laws in a civil trial at the High Court in London.

Mr Hall has claimed that the attack was faked by government agencies using "crisis actors" and has published a book and videos claiming the bombing was a "hoax" - as well as "secretly filming" Miss Hibbert and her mother outside their house.

onathan Price, representing the Hibberts, said they were some of the closest to Abedi when he detonated his rucksack bomb and the attack had changed Mr Hibbert's life "in every conceivable way".

The court heard that Mr Hibbert suffered 22 wounds from shrapnel, while his daughter suffered a "catastrophic brain injury" after a bolt from the bomb struck her in the head - leading to her being presumed dead at the scene.

"Martin, paralysed, saw Eve lying next to him with a hole in her head and assumed he was watching her die, unable to help. He saw others lying dead or injured around him," Mr Price said.

"They have both suffered life-changing injuries from which they will never recover."

Mr Price said Mr Hall's theory is that "it is an elaborate hoax" and he has claimed Mr Hibbert is lying, and that Miss Hibbert was disabled before the bombing.

"Mr Hall says her parents are invoking their daughter's catastrophic disability as part of a huge fraud on the general public," he added.

Mr Price said the Hibberts were entitled to damages and an injunction to stop Mr Hall repeating his claims about the attack.

Read more:
Could MI5 have prevented Manchester Arena attack?
The missed opportunities to stop Salman Abedi
Police officers took two-hour break for kebabs on night of attack

Mr Hall is fighting the claim, arguing that an injunction would be a disproportionate interference with his right to free speech.

"However unpleasant Mr Hall's published views are considered to be, they are protected," his lawyer Paul Oakley said in court filings.

He said his client is "entirely entitled" to have his views, which were formed after he "scoured the public domain".

The barrister said Mr Hibbert had made a "positive choice" to co-operate with the media and while there was one incident of filming, it was from a public highway and the footage was never published.

"My client is perfectly entitled to hold his views and he is willing to amend them if he is made aware of evidence to the contrary," he said.

The trial is due to finish on Thursday, with a decision expected in writing at a later date.

It bears similarities to defamation lawsuits brought against US conspiracy theorist Alex Jones by relatives of victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting, which he claimed was a hoax.

 

[1velocity7]

looks like halls plan is "show the video footage and prove me wrong"

seeing as zero video evidence has ever been released by the swamp.

[Grumpy Owl]

23 hours ago, factJack said:

my apologies I replaced the tt in http with ** as

It was used on another invision message board I used to be active on, so sites such as SLY NEWS wouldn't be able to track where the traffic was coming from. I don't know if this is geninely works as I was just copying others who did it and decided to use it here perhaps one of the geeks could let me know?

 

That trick doesn't really work. Just paste the link as it is, without any additional 'tracking' elements tacked on, such as '?utm=' or '?fbcid' etc. Yes, the webmaster can see in the raw web logs who the 'referrer' is, ie the site from which the link came, but for monetary and harvesting purposes it is useless without the added tracking references.

[Nemuri Kyoshiro]

Does anyone know what has happened in Richard's trial? News is very scarce.

[Future9T3]

Iain Davis has been reporting from the trial, he has write ups on his blog.

 

https://substack.com/@iaindavis

[sock muppet]

This should cheer RDH up a bit, now where is marijuana sprog bucket, slag with bingo wings verified, that needs to stick its own head down the toilet bowl that s/he/other/whatever (can't tell the difference these daze) it works for, known as BrainwashBullshittingConspirators and do a bit of vilifying on its own doorstep.

 

The Podcast of The Lotus Eaters

Huw Edwards Pleads Guilty

Duration 00:15:30

https://old.bitchute.com/video/ulH_b-_bKMw/

 

 

[Pabloisawake]

Manchester event was a hoax. Nobody died.

[northern star]

Surely its up to the court to provide proof that it did happen, rather than dispute Richard's evidence that it didnt. He's done his bit.

They could easily do this by providing photographic proof and video surveillance and police material, collected from the night it happened, within the confines of the court.

They must have all of this evidence.

His whole case is that there isnt any.

[factJack]

On 8/3/2024 at 4:59 PM, Future9T3 said:

Iain Davis has been reporting from the trial, he has write ups on his blog.

 

https://substack.com/@iaindavis

The whole thing is a clown show if that guy's blog is accurate. One of the co-claimants admitted she had no knowldge that they were sueing hall or halls offer to settle out of court. Also the injured daughter suffered a bad flash back after seeing some split red paint, yet the parents insisted she watch panorama episode about hall. I mean ffs cheers for that dad. Total WTF?

[Occulus5]

Anyone know what's happened/happening with Richard?. Haven't heard anything from him for awhile now, last update was in early August. I miss his shows even if it's not about fabricated attacks, everytime he does a new show I immediately have to watch it. I'm sure he would've been all over the recent Southport stabbings and protests and riots, but it seems he's still tied up with the court appeal. 

[SimonTV]

On 8/6/2024 at 2:39 PM, Pabloisawake said:

Manchester event was a hoax. Nobody died.

 

Its like sandy hook. 

[Nemuri Kyoshiro]

On 9/10/2024 at 8:22 AM, Occulus5 said:

Anyone know what's happened/happening with Richard?. Haven't heard anything from him for awhile now, last update was in early August. I miss his shows even if it's not about fabricated attacks, everytime he does a new show I immediately have to watch it. I'm sure he would've been all over the recent Southport stabbings and protests and riots, but it seems he's still tied up with the court appeal. 

I assume the trial has concluded. There has been no decision yet that I'm aware of and maybe Richard has been ordered to say nothing until the decision issues from the court.

[Occulus5]

I know this is off topic but I did bring it up awhile back in relation to Richard's off grid living and that he doesn't have a TV license. I am trying to do the same as I haven't bothered with the license since my brother died, but now I have got a letter through written to "the occupier" of my address stating that I need to act by the 25th Sept or I may get a visit from a TV license enforcer officer checking if I I am watching TV illegally if my home remains unlicensed. I try to cancel the licence months ago and notify them that I no longer need a licence I don't watch live TV, but for some reason it wouldn't allow me to do this on their website as there was no option to choose cancel. If there was someone else in the household paying the lisense and they died then they will just go after the current occupier. I think they making it harder for people to opt out of it. Is there anything I need to be worry about, or should I just ignore it?.

[Dickwan]

12 hours ago, Occulus5 said:

I know this is off topic but I did bring it up awhile back in relation to Richard's off grid living and that he doesn't have a TV license. I am trying to do the same as I haven't bothered with the license since my brother died, but now I have got a letter through written to "the occupier" of my address stating that I need to act by the 25th Sept or I may get a visit from a TV license enforcer officer checking if I I am watching TV illegally if my home remains unlicensed. I try to cancel the licence months ago and notify them that I no longer need a licence I don't watch live TV, but for some reason it wouldn't allow me to do this on their website as there was no option to choose cancel. If there was someone else in the household paying the lisense and they died then they will just go after the current occupier. I think they making it harder for people to opt out of it. Is there anything I need to be worry about, or should I just ignore it?.

 

I don't know about the legal situation but I have been ignoring those letters for years. I don't even open them, just check the address on the back then put them through the shredder. The more demanding their letters become, the more like junk-mail they appear, so I feel justified in shredding them, unopened.

 

After about 5 years they tailed off for a while, but they've come back with a vengeance recently. 

 

Again, a personal decision - and not one based on any particular legal knowledge - I refuse to tell them anything or engage with their processes as I don't feel obliged to. My stance is to not engage with them on any level, so no filling in a 'no license needed declaration' online for me. I don't watch television because I don't own/possess a television, therefore I want to place the onus on them; if they catch me watching TV then it's a fair cop, but this would be impossible.... as I don't have one. 

 

I don't answer my door unless I'm expecting someone, so they can knock until their knuckles are raw and bloody, it doesn't bother me. 

 

Hope this helps Occulus5, just one approach you could try. I'm sure other folk will have alternative suggestions. 

[Occulus5]

1 hour ago, Dickwan said:

 

I don't know about the legal situation but I have been ignoring those letters for years. I don't even open them, just check the address on the back then put them through the shredder. The more demanding their letters become, the more like junk-mail they appear, so I feel justified in shredding them, unopened.

 

After about 5 years they tailed off for a while, but they've come back with a vengeance recently. 

 

Again, a personal decision - and not one based on any particular legal knowledge - I refuse to tell them anything or engage with their processes as I don't feel obliged to. My stance is to not engage with them on any level, so no filling in a 'no license needed declaration' online for me. I don't watch television because I don't own/possess a television, therefore I want to place the onus on them; if they catch me watching TV then it's a fair cop, but this would be impossible.... as I don't have one. 

 

I don't answer my door unless I'm expecting someone, so they can knock until their knuckles are raw and bloody, it doesn't bother me. 

 

Hope this helps Occulus5, just one approach you could try. I'm sure other folk will have alternative suggestions. 

Thanks for advice. Most people I know just laugh at me when I tell em I'm not bothering with the license, they say I will be fined if I don't pay. I think it's easy for people to say don't engage with them, but it's not always easy. In my situation all I did was cancel my brothers bank account which he was paying the license out of, so this is why they have sent a letter because they are wondering why the account was closed the direct debit had stopped. I never told them anything. Maybe if I informed them then they would've understood, but they still try and make you have the licence. I don't want letters telling me that I am going to court. 

[Dickwan]

2 hours ago, Occulus5 said:

Thanks for advice. Most people I know just laugh at me when I tell em I'm not bothering with the license, they say I will be fined if I don't pay. I think it's easy for people to say don't engage with them, but it's not always easy. In my situation all I did was cancel my brothers bank account which he was paying the license out of, so this is why they have sent a letter because they are wondering why the account was closed the direct debit had stopped. I never told them anything. Maybe if I informed them then they would've understood, but they still try and make you have the licence. I don't want letters telling me that I am going to court. 

 

I had a look online - and I'm paraphrasing a bit here - but the common letter they send says something like "it is against the law to watch TV without a license".

So the law says we need a license to watch TV, but you're not watching TV so (a) you don't need a license, and (b) you're not breaking the law.

 

It's not against the law to ignore the TV License scum, however. They can only take you to court if they can prove you were watching TV without a license. To prove this they would need hard evidence. Their letters are threatening and designed to intimidate, but they send these very same letters out en masse to everyone who isn't a TV license holder. If it's sent to 'Current Occupant' then they don't even know your name, so they would have a hard job prosecuting you. 

 

It sounds like ignoring them isn't an option for you. If the online 'I don't need a license' declaration form isn't working for you, and you want to stop the letters, then you could send them an email: 'enquiries [at] tvlicensing [dot] co [dot] uk' and explain your situation. Hope you can stop those threatening letters 

 

[Dickwan]

p.s. @Occulus5 if you're on Twitter/X then there's a good discussion about TV License heavy handedness. The replies to the main post should give you a bit of heart and confidence - you're not alone!

 

 

[Mazthehobo]

You don’t need a tv license to watch Netflix, Amazon prime, Disney, sky as long as what you are watching isn’t live.

So you can watch Dexter or breaking bad etc but you couldn’t watch live football on Amazon.

 

I don’t have a tv license. All I watch is the Netflix or Disney with the kids. 
 

Be mindful that live tv includes YouTube live streams (for example the football watch alongs) but non live YouTube content like the 1968 Doors concert would be fine.

 

 

[Occulus5]

5 hours ago, Dickwan said:

 

I had a look online - and I'm paraphrasing a bit here - but the common letter they send says something like "it is against the law to watch TV without a license".

So the law says we need a license to watch TV, but you're not watching TV so (a) you don't need a license, and (b) you're not breaking the law.

 

It's not against the law to ignore the TV License scum, however. They can only take you to court if they can prove you were watching TV without a license. To prove this they would need hard evidence. Their letters are threatening and designed to intimidate, but they send these very same letters out en masse to everyone who isn't a TV license holder. If it's sent to 'Current Occupant' then they don't even know your name, so they would have a hard job prosecuting you. 

 

It sounds like ignoring them isn't an option for you. If the online 'I don't need a license' declaration form isn't working for you, and you want to stop the letters, then you could send them an email: 'enquiries [at] tvlicensing [dot] co [dot] uk' and explain your situation. Hope you can stop those threatening letters 

 

I'm sure it's not hard for them to find out who is at that address regardless if it says "Current Occupier", I'm sure they have the resources to check who is living there, but I know you're gonna say "they can't do that". If I sent them an email explaining the situation then they will know who I am, and then they will send me more letters.

[Occulus5]

On 9/19/2024 at 5:33 PM, Mazthehobo said:

You don’t need a tv license to watch Netflix, Amazon prime, Disney, sky as long as what you are watching isn’t live.

So you can watch Dexter or breaking bad etc but you couldn’t watch live football on Amazon.

 

I don’t have a tv license. All I watch is the Netflix or Disney with the kids. 
 

Be mindful that live tv includes YouTube live streams (for example the football watch alongs) but non live YouTube content like the 1968 Doors concert would be fine.

 

 

But what I was saying, was that my brother was paying the license at the house before he died, after that I simply closed the account down and they sent a letter basically wondering what happened to the direct debit. So they are still going to think someone is still watching live TV without informing the TV license people. Like I said, I did try to cancel it online but it kept asking for a license number which I don't have. I didn't even know there was a license number. As I said, they are trying to make it harder for people to cancel or notify them that they no longer watch live TV or a have a TV.

[SimonTV]

On 9/19/2024 at 3:47 PM, Dickwan said:

p.s. @Occulus5 if you're on Twitter/X then there's a good discussion about TV License heavy handedness. The replies to the main post should give you a bit of heart and confidence - you're not alone!

 

 

 

I have received those letters for 20 years and I used to save them, I have about a 10cm wide stack of them some where but these days I just put them straight in to the recycling. 

[Mazthehobo]

9 hours ago, Occulus5 said:

But what I was saying, was that my brother was paying the license at the house before he died, after that I simply closed the account down and they sent a letter basically wondering what happened to the direct debit. So they are still going to think someone is still watching live TV without informing the TV license people. Like I said, I did try to cancel it online but it kept asking for a license number which I don't have. I didn't even know there was a license number. As I said, they are trying to make it harder for people to cancel or notify them that they no longer watch live TV or a have a TV.

Well in your case I would just ignore them. 
Any license number were issued to somebody other than yourself. Any direct debit was not in your name.

 

As long as you don’t watch it they can only start resending letters to ‘The Occupier.’

[Occulus5]

13 hours ago, Mazthehobo said:

Well in your case I would just ignore them. 
Any license number were issued to somebody other than yourself. Any direct debit was not in your name.

 

As long as you don’t watch it they can only start resending letters to ‘The Occupier.’

I would just ignore them. But why did the letter initially state my brothers name but then go to saying "the occupier"?. This suggests to me that they know he is now dead and so will send the letters to whomever lives there.

[Mazthehobo]

10 hours ago, Occulus5 said:

I would just ignore them. But why did the letter initially state my brothers name but then go to saying "the occupier"?. This suggests to me that they know he is now dead and so will send the letters to whomever lives there.

Probably because he was the occupier or they are just hedging their bets.

But either way it’s up to you what you do. You can either reply and state you don’t need a license or you can just ignore it.