I'm sorry to report that Richard D Hall has had his appeal
rejected in the latest court hearing. I was not able to attend court and support
Richard this time. This judgement is not the trial itself, it is about
establishing the rules of the upcoming trial. Richard will publish more
documents, if he can, about what was actually said at the hearing. My own
opinion, as I have said before, is that Richard should not be prevented from
tabling his "skeleton argument", the detail of the defendant's
evidence. What actually happened in Manchester
See here for background: https://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.com/2024/03/rdh-in-court-day-2.html.
And: https://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.com/2024/01/rdh-in-court-day-one.html.
See here for background: https://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.com/2024/03/rdh-in-court-day-2.html.
And: https://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.com/2024/01/rdh-in-court-day-one.html.
4 comments:
"What actually happened in Manchester on that fateful night is totally relevant because it relates to the general truthfulness of the claimants and also because it shows that what Richard did was in the public interest".
Herein lies the problem. Richard is fully entitled to his beliefs but he isn't entitled to cause harm to others in trying prove his beliefs when they are demonstrably provable as incorrect (according to the sitting judge based on the evidence of the Manchester bombing in the public domain)
https://www.hudgellsolicitors.co.uk/client-stories/judge-prevents-claim-that-manchester-bombing-didnt-happen-from-being-used-as-a-defence-against-survivors-harassment-case-for-damages
The case isn't a platform for him to try and prove a conspiracy theory, it's about him harassing and stalking innocent people (their truthfulness has been established at this point in relation to being victims of the Manchester bombing and suffering the life changing injuries they now have) in an attempt to prove the conspiracy. He has to prove he didn't harass and stalk these people regardless of whether anyone considers it 'in the public interest' because it's illegal.
Well, Anon, as you will know if you've read my reports on this, I disagreed with that then and still do. I do not believe it is demonstrably provable that Richard is incorrect. Richard makes a solid case that all is not as it seems with the Manchester incident and the reticence of the authorities when they are not trying to shut down dissent by force supports this. That is 100% relevant to this case. If not then it means I can accuse YOU of harassment and defamation because you say I stole your invisible pink unicorn. And them I'm not allowed to question the existence of invisible pink unicorns in court.
I don't think Richard caused harm to others. I don't consider his actions stalking or harassing. He used some high risk but perfectly acceptable and commonly practiced journalistic methods.
As I understood it to be (Ludicrous Official Inquiry into the Manchester incident aside, AFAIK Hall only attempted to knock ON
the MOTHER AND DAUGHTERS DOOR ONCE AND GOT NO REPLY, THAT'S HARDLY HARRASSMENT AND IF IT IS I can sue the Jehovah Witnessess, and any Party Political agents for knocking on my door.
Harrassment surely happens only AFTER you have said Please stop trying to contact me.
The thought of suing those annoying idiots from Labour and the Tories who interrupt us at home to ask "do we have your support?" is an appealing one!
Exactly, Anon. This is why the case against Richard is 100% bogus.
Post a Comment