See here for
essential background: https://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.com/2024/07/rdh-lawsuit-mini-portal.html.
I'm once again sad to report that the judge has awarded £45,000 in damages to the claimants and ordered Richard to pay it. (I'm sure they were tempted to make it £22,000 but traded in their obsession with numerological symbolism for their wish not to be generous.) Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c86q0ypq7q0o. Regular readers will guess what an abomination I think this is. If I had the money I'd pay it for Richard. As it is, if Richard puts out another appeal for donations to help cover this penalty, I'll gladly contribute as much as I can afford. It will not end here. There is now a legal framework in place for "Eve's Law". Other people are going to follow Richard into the courts; maybe me, maybe you. The objective here is to make it lawfully impossible to express opinions on certain subjects that contradict the establishment consensus. What's more the criminal side of the law is adding "hate" and "offensive" regulations that have already led to people being jailed. We're entering a very dark place indeed. However, I'm a great believer in things coming out of left field. The political tide in most countries is ebbing towards something more positive. Possibly the people behind Richard's persecution know this, which is why they've taken such extreme action against him. But however much the cornered rat fights, it cannot win against the big black cat of freedom.
I'm once again sad to report that the judge has awarded £45,000 in damages to the claimants and ordered Richard to pay it. (I'm sure they were tempted to make it £22,000 but traded in their obsession with numerological symbolism for their wish not to be generous.) Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c86q0ypq7q0o. Regular readers will guess what an abomination I think this is. If I had the money I'd pay it for Richard. As it is, if Richard puts out another appeal for donations to help cover this penalty, I'll gladly contribute as much as I can afford. It will not end here. There is now a legal framework in place for "Eve's Law". Other people are going to follow Richard into the courts; maybe me, maybe you. The objective here is to make it lawfully impossible to express opinions on certain subjects that contradict the establishment consensus. What's more the criminal side of the law is adding "hate" and "offensive" regulations that have already led to people being jailed. We're entering a very dark place indeed. However, I'm a great believer in things coming out of left field. The political tide in most countries is ebbing towards something more positive. Possibly the people behind Richard's persecution know this, which is why they've taken such extreme action against him. But however much the cornered rat fights, it cannot win against the big black cat of freedom.
There's been enough ink spilled already over this case but would it be right to fund the costs when we know the dosh is effectively going straight to that...I won't say...Hibbert? It is such a travesty of justice it beggars belief.
ReplyDeleteAlso that photo the BBC used looks to me like they wanted to get you in the frame. What do you think? IMO, they know all about your work and took the opportunity to attach you vicariously to Richard's case?
P.S. They did get the 22 in after all, as it was £22,500 for each 'claimant'.
Hi Anon. Could be. Marianna Spring blocked me when I replied to her on X. I wasn't rude, just a bit sarcastic. She must know who I am and be turning her Eye of Sauron towards me. I just wish I'd tucked my shirt in! I look awful; perfect for the next Panorama! As for the damage payments, of course! What's half of 45,000? I certainly have no intention of throwing money at the claimants. I'd prefer to see it as helping Richard, and I'd never offer unless Richard asked.
ReplyDeleteThank you for reply Ben. Like you, I chipped in a couple of times for the court case but I have to admit to misgivings about funding the fine (going straight to that [expletive deleted] Hibbert. However, I'll go with your advice and wait for what Richard D. has to say in his next film. FYI, I've been following Richplanet since the satellite TV years and that's how I found your work, through your interview on the show.
ReplyDeleteYou were there and supported Richard Ben, that's all that counts, not what you wore, though not entirely sure why you went for their 'noose around the neck' stuff 😏 Just out of interest, what happens if the 'accused' has no money and is not able to pay the 'settlement'? Yes it does grate having to hand over money to these 'people' but end of day, it's only that, just money, I don't know how many 'fans' Rich has but it would be just over 20 quid for 2000 people and these ARE the times people have to stand up and support those doing the really hard work in the places of the devils, let us know what transpires and if Rich needs our help yeah x
ReplyDeleteI believe the question should be, "How do they treat cases like this, where the bankruptcy is imposed by the State?" A very different situation to a standard debt, surely.
DeleteIf you look on richplanet.net you'll see Richard has also had the claimants' costs awarded against him, to the tune of £239,000.
DeleteI'm really torn about whether to donate again. Maybe Richard should simply declare bankruptcy?
Anon, you're quite right in saying it's up to Richard himself. I'm just infuriated with what this system has done to him. He has done no harm at all while perverted newsreaders and paedo DJ's were allowed to run amuck. I just hate the society I was born into for reasons known only to my Daemon.
ReplyDeleteAnon, if I understand correctly, you are referring to an abuse of the legal system for unconstitutional punishment. That is probably how I would try to oppose such a sentence.
ReplyDeleteWould that apply in a Constitutional Monarchy, Ben? Rather, I don't understand how the British State could effectively impose insolvency on a Subject of the Monarch in behalf of another Subject. The situation, of course, would be different if either the Subject had the means to easily service the fine imposed or it was an unpaid debt for goods and services rendered.
DeleteI don't know, Anon. The Royal Prerogative has become a rather quaint concept. I don't see CRIII using his. His mother only did once and that was in Australia, the dismissal of Gough Whitlam, the prime minister.
ReplyDeleteHi Anon. I've just noticed. I'm shocked! The £45,000 was just the start! Poor Richard.
ReplyDelete