Saturday 25 November 2023

"The Truth is No Defence"

There is a new show on Richplanet TV about some new information regarding two of the supposed victims of the Manchester Arena bombing of 2017. This is all very interesting, but the most significant part of the programme, as well as disturbing, is the prologue. Richard D Hall reveals an update in his legal battle; see the background links for details. Richard continues to defend himself defiantly against the accusations of the plaintiffs who contest that Richard's publications about the incident in Manchester are a form of harassment. The obvious response from anybody in that situation is simply to plead fair comment. This is a common defence in a libel case, but the plaintiffs are applying to have all Richard's evidence excluded. If they have their way, the trial will proceed under the assumnption that the official story is true. Source: It reminds me of another similar trial, that of the researcher Ernst Zündel. Zündel was convicted several times in Canada of expressing opinions about a subject specifically prohibited by Canadian law. When he went to court he tried to defend himself by saying "Look, I can prove what I'm saying about this subject is true." He was not permitted to table this testimony in court or even subject it to an open debate. The judge did not dispute Zündel's assertions; he simply stated that the opinion was prohibted, regardless of whether it was true or false and so, to coin an infamous catchphrase: the truth is no defence. I understand why many people will find Zündel's views offensive, but surely you realize that if we allow the state to silence people for expressing a viewpoint because it offends us then we enter a very dark place indeed. Something similar happened when Ian R Crane tried to defend Tony Farrell at his police disciplinary. The boss said "You might be right, but it doesn't matter." Source: What kind of law is this where what is true or false doesn't matter!? How can Richard successfully defend himself in this case when the very basis of his reasons for publishing his material is struck from the record? Hopefully Richard will be able to prevent this application. I'm not a solicitor, but I would say his evidence is totally relevent because it concerns whether the Hibberts were actually there, which is central to their claim against him. I'm pleased to say that the community has rallied round Richard and stood up against this obvious injustice. Richard has raised most of the money he needs for his legal costs, but he will need as much as possible so please do send him some more if you can, see:
See here for background:


Anonymous said...

I would imagine this is all a show, espionage theatre for the gullible.
There are no grounds for a court action against Hall, any case would have to consider evidence so the whole thing is unlikely & easy to get dismissed.

Hall hasnt done hardly any public works in 4 years, he has almost nothing to say anymore- he's washed up & sick of playing the controlled opposition game- he wants out & this is a lever & veil for that?

The Hibberts are overt liars, no-one could believe them after even a casual cross-examination. Just look at the images of his daughter & what he said in the inquest, or compare his wounds with the claimed damage he received.

SIA is the initials for Hibberts charity- SIA is also the security industry over-seeing body.
Hall's brother is a policeman. Hall was always considered a controlled opponent among long time/experienced conspiracy researches, along with the insipid Andrew Johnson and the now overt SAUNDERS.

Hall promotes the space scam, ufos, animal mutilations and other topics- he never addresses the real catalysts of the social control system, world finance & influence.
Hall overtly promotes the GLOBE Earth scam, and has never had the guts to confront the FE ideas or proofs.

Now Hall is begging for funds from his viewers, for a court case that is ludicrious & a direct contravention of the legal system. I wouldnt trust anything you here from him- just like ALex Jones and the Sandy Hook SHOW TRIAL, this is a devised event to try and scare/silence disenting voices.

Ben Emlyn-Jones said...

Hi Anon. I agree with what you said about the court case, but for legal reasons I would say that the Hibberts are as entitled to their own defence as Richard is to state what he has found out about the Arena incident.

I think you're being unfair to Richard. He's one of the best people in this field in terms of information. I don't agree with everything he says and am one of the few people in the Conspirasphere not scared to criticize him. Also he and I have personal disputes that might need to be resolved with a healthy dose of fresh air, if you know what I mean ;-) But he does NOT deserve THIS!

As for Andrew Johnson, he is also an excellent researcher and communicator of vital information, but my personal issues with him are well known and we will need to stay out of each other's way. I don't care what RDH's brother is. I've only ever met his sister. Who is "SAUNDERS"? Do you mean Colin Saunders, the UFO witness?

In my opinion, space exists as do UFO's mutes etc, but I also think social and financial control system is a serious danger. Omitting those topics does not mean he does not care about them. I personally think the earth is a globe and it is not a scam. I am happy to debate that subject and do not shun away from FE advocates.

Of course this is a devised event to try and scare/silence dissenting voices. all the more reason for us to try and put a stop to it. RDH has asked for help with his legal costs and I think that's fair enough. He is being treated unjustly and his fate will be shared by us all if the BBC has its way. We must stand by him and stand together!

Anonymous said...

Hi Ben! With regards to Anon #1's comments about RDH's limited productivity of late, I think Richard's been 'out of the limelight' for the last few years due to a) It's been a pretty mad few years for everyone b) He relocated and built an eco-home-lifestyle which I think took a lot of time, effort and money, c) the broadcasting 'watch-dog' net has been tightening in on him generally over the last, I would say 6-7 years, hence his significantly reduced out-put, etc.

Like you, I do not agree with him on everything, but I'm of the opinion that anyone who puts themselves on the line like he has and produced valuable content/research, deserves some serious kudos!

But anyway, I agree with your comments re; Hibbert. Something really doesn't add up. What I'd like to see is him analyzed by that 'lie detector' bloke Peter Hyatt?

Lastly, I think commenter Anon#1 meant (Neil) Sanders - not Saunders. I might be wrong, But I think it was probably a typo. I'm sure if I am wrong he/she will correct me! Hopefully not too censoriously!!! LOL

p.s. For clarity, and to avoid confusion, it might be easier if I refer to myself as Calpestavo68 when I post comments. (I also corresponded with you recently re; the woman on a plane blog!) :-)

Ben Emlyn-Jones said...

Hi Calpestavo68. Sorry for the delay in replying. Neil Sanders, of course. That makes sense. Neil has taken his own path. I don't feel any resentment. I've grown a thick skin from my encounters with "Team Droike". I think Neil has made a huge mistake, but that doesn't make me angry. I wish he had not gone on the BBC though. He complains about how he was portrayed, well what does he expect!?

frogscotch said...

what is 'team droike' please ?

Ben Emlyn-Jones said...

Hi Frogscotch, a gang of trolls who have been obsessed with me for over twenty years.

Anonymous said...

I have followed RDH since the beginning and met him a couple of times. Seems a canny bloke just think it would have been better to show patience and avoid upsetting anyone with family members involved in whatever happened

Ben Emlyn-Jones said...

Hi Anon, I've also followed his work for long time, but on the subject of "patience", it is important not to let the defenders of of the official position not to monopolize the ethical argument. The moment somebody makes the assertion that it is somehow immoral to doubt the official story of a public atrocity, we ringfence the entire issue from any revision. That is a fallacy, pure and simple. It's like what I said in my "Show Some Respect" poem, see:

Anonymous said...

I think your comments about Richard are fair and balanced,Ben,it’s important to acknowledge disputes but then to agree to disagree. Richard D comes across as one of the most honest and diligent seekers of truth and I have always been impressed by the depth of his research and his comments. When he doubts something or doesn’t know ,he says so,unlike many others. His analytical take on things stems I would have thought from his engineering background. If he is not allowed to present his evidence then justice will not be done. Keep up the great work Richard, you have some fans in very high places who are watching events closely…

Ben Emlyn-Jones said...

Thanks, Anon. And I totally agree. Despite my personal dispute with Richard, I feel sorry for his predicament and really oppose what is being done to him. He really is one of the best people in the business; open-minded, yet level-headed. He's also totally dedicated, as I said in the background posts. I really hope things go his way and I'll do anything I can to help.

Anonymous said...

Worth a listen. Enjoy an impartial, critical analysis.

Ben Emlyn-Jones said...

Thanks, Anon. I always listen to Brent and Neil's opinion, although I usually disagree with them. This episode is currently behind a paywall, but it will probably end up a freebie soon.