It would be fair to say that, as a consequence of my (massive) musings on this site, I am often in trouble.

Not, however, with the normies (I think they've concluded I'm so far gone, there's no longer any point even trying - even John Bye doesn't expose me any more, despite the fact I've specifically asked him to...).

Not, either, with "the authorities" - although they intermittently throw me off platforms, I have never had any type of formal legal challenge or threat from them, telling me to desist my activities "or else", and I have certainly never been summoned to court (more on that later).

No, the people I am in trouble with, by and large, are other conspiracists, and the primary reasons for their reprimands are my repeat declarations that the latest MSM-promoted anti-establishment hero is, in fact, controlled opposition. "If you know their name, they're in the game", as has become my slogan.

First of all, whenever I make such assertions, I get the inevitable rejoinder:

"But how do we know you're not controlled opposition?"

Well, you know this in the same way you know anything else: you do your due diligence and you come to your own conclusions. If you believe I'm controlled opposition, you're going to have to come up with a credible theory as to who or what is controlling me and to what ends.

I've never seen one even remotely credible theory about me in this regard... although several quite amusingly incredible ones exist, such as, people making much of my - allegedly - "shadowy links" to both Staffordshire and London, which, apparently, I attempt to conceal by pretending to be normal by living in Huddersfield... a place I'm not even from!

Yeah... so my dad is from London, moved to Staffordshire for work, met my mum, and had me. I grew up, met and married someone from Oldham, he got a job in Huddersfield, so we moved here.

Pretty subversive stuff! (Just wait until these dynamo detectives find out I've lived in Manchester and Liverpool too...)

As "they always have to tell you", I can confirm I am not controlled opposition, and that not a single other person has any editorial control whatsoever over the content of my articles (although, admittedly, aforementioned spouse sometimes tries to change my grammar and gets very annoyed about my allegedly inept use of semi;colons).

I have never accepted any money or other favours to endorse certain people or theories or to discredit certain people or theories (I don't even run advertisements, because I do not want to risk ever contemplating, "hm, better not say that in case it offends my sponsors").

Every article on my website represents my own original and organic thoughts, shared for no other reason than I believe them to be true, and if you don't like something I've said, that indicates you disagree with me, not that I'm "controlled".

Of course we're going to disagree on occasion: we're different people, with different backgrounds, perspectives, and experiences.

However, do you know how I would become controlled?

By refraining from writing critically about certain people or theories because I feared the response of my audience. The cabal are not, after all, the only people who attempt to control others: ordinary people do it all the time too, when, for example, they tell content creators they will no longer subscribe to them if they continue to share such-and-such a view. If the creator in question responds to this by censoring themselves to retain subscribers, then voila, they've become controlled.

So I don't do that: I say what I think, knowing certain subjects inevitably lose me support from certain quarters; and I don't tailor my content because so-and-so wrote me an angry message telling me why they've unsubscribed.

In fact, perhaps perversely (probably my Scorpio moon, supercharged at the moment of course), such things tend to make me want to write about the subject in question more...

This is not to say I'm not interested in legitimate feedback: I am, including and especially from my paid supporters, as they're the only ones who make any of this possible (thank you!), and you can see from my Substack comments that people do provide lots of feedback, including, not infrequently, disagreeing with me. This kind of lively debate and disagreement is to be expected on any controversial topic and can result in some most interesting discussions.

What I am not interested in or responsive to, however, is people who try to control what I say with threats - regardless of whether that person is a billionaire cabal member, or a random ranter on the internet.

As I said, the one thing I get these kind of ultimatums about far and away more often than anything else is sharing my opinion that the latest MSM-promoted hero-daddy-saviour of the moment, is not legit.

I've said it about Andrew Tate, Russell Brand, Donald Trump, RFK, Elon Musk, Laurence Fox, Andrew Bridgen, Tucker Carlson and more, and each and every time, the initial response from some quarters of my readership is to be absolutely furious with me.

And hey, I get it: we all need a hero at times, and I have not always been immune to the appeal of these people myself. Back in 2020, shortly after the Question Time race row that launched him from brooding Hathaway in 'Lewis' to trailblazing anti-woke political pundit (or something), I traversed the grim and grey backstreets of Leeds to attend a Laurence Fox gig. Not because I liked his, ahem, "music", but because I was so impressed by this brave principled hero standing up against the evil establishment and I wanted to support him.

I passionately defended Mr. Fox to detractors on Facebook, and recommended his CD to many.

I rather cringe to confess this, but it's true, and as such, I can certainly see how people can be initially bewitched by these characters.

At that time, I had yet to understand quite the level of control the establishment wields over the narrative: not just the mainstream narrative, but the alternative narrative, as well. I did not know then that "when the people need a hero, we shall supply him".

What I have learned since then is that, in any given scenario, you've got "the official story" (such as, Covid is a deadly dangerous pathogen that came from bats) and then "the official conspiracy theory" (Covid has been exaggerated as a threat and originated from a lab leak).

Both of these narratives are false (the truth being there is no Covid), and both are spun by the same people for the same reason - to have maximal control over the crowd.

People who believe the official story will take the vaccine; people who believe the official conspiracy theory will take ivermectin. So the establishment and pharmaceutical industry remains in control in both cases. It's the same for everything: the official conspiracy theory always allows the establishment to remain in control in some way, ultimately to benefit.

The "official story" is for those so deeply under hypnosis that they will believe any old nonsense (most people, unfortunately), whilst "the official conspiracy theory" is for those who have woken up to the first level of the control grid, but haven't yet seen how deeply it goes, so are still susceptible to media narrative control.

The bottom line is, if the mainstream media is giving it (whether "it" is a theory, a product, or a person) a lot of publicity then - regardless of whether this publicity is positive or negative - this narrative is there to trap and mislead you in some way.

And that leads us nicely on to what I would like to talk about today: Richard D. Hall and his recent defeat in court (boo... hiss... fetch the rotten fruit, etc).

I last wrote about Hall quite recently, in this piece (please do read if you haven't already), outlining my belief that he misleads people, whether intentionally or otherwise.

Does that mean I'm saying Manchester wasn't a hoax?

No, that's not what I'm saying, because that's not what Hall is in court for. Anybody can say anything they like about the veracity or otherwise of certain high-profile media events without any risk of winding up in court, as follows:

The Manchester bomb was a hoax.

The "victims" were crisis actors.

Saffie Roussos isn't really dead.

Am I going to get any lawyers' letters through my letterbox as a result of saying this?

No, I am not, and do you know how I know this?

Because Iain Davis has written a book saying all this too - all the same things Richard D. Hall has said - and Iain Davis is not in court. Iain is still perfectly able to freely air his views and sell his book on all the usual platforms.

So I ask again, why is Richard in court "for his views", and Iain isn't?

"Because Richard is more well-known than Iain," claim his supporters.

Bingo - and why is he so well-known?

Because the mainstream media has given him such extensive publicity.

And that's the only reason.

He would be just as obscure as anyone else if they hadn't, but they've intentionally made him famous, and as I have related time and again, the media never promotes someone in this way - sensationalist headline news over years - if they're not a controlled asset (they even made a Panorama documentary about him, for heaven's sake!).

So then comes the next objection:

"No, they're not promoting him, they're trying to ruin him financially!"

If they're trying to ruin him financially, please explain why they haven't...

Taken his PayPal (they've taken mine, and those of a lot of other far less high-profile researchers than Richard);

Banned his book from being sold (rather than banning it, they actually promote it and tell you where to buy it);

Banned his documentaries, merchandise etc (which they also promote and tell you where to buy).

Richard D. Hall is not being "ruined", he's being promoted: used to control the conspiracy crowd, by, in the first instance, scaring them out of sharing their beliefs.

Now Twitter is alight with people alleging we live in a police state where you can't say anything...

"Just look at what's happened to Richard D. Hall!", but as I have emphasised time and again: Richard D. Hall was not in court for saying the Manchester bombing was a hoax, nor for writing a book on the subject. We know this for an ineffable fact, since Iain Davis has done both of these things too, and he's not in court.

Hall was in court on harassment charges, and harassment is a crime, regardless of whether you believe the targets of your harassment are crisis actors or not.

Somebody said to me about this, "yeah but what about Marianna Spring harassing HIM!"

I have no idea whether she really did or not (reeks of 'pantomime' to me - a staged, acted "confrontation" for the cameras), but again, it's not relevant: somebody trespassing upon you does not invalidate your own trespasses, e.g., if you punch someone in the face, you're not vindicated of assault merely because at a different time, a different person punched you in the face.

The charges against Hall are that he harassed people, including a vulnerable young person, by secretly filming them without their permission at their home.

The judge in the case said:

"From the available information, it should have been readily apparent to any journalist - even if the individual journalist was highly sceptical of the 'official narrative' - that Eve should be treated as a vulnerable young person who had been caught up and severely injured in a traumatic incident."

Mrs Justice Steyn hit out at the 'furtive' way Hall filmed them.

"In addition to surreptitiously filming Eve, he sought to spring an interview upon her mother by knocking several times on her door (albeit unsuccessfully), and he spoke to three of her neighbours, ascertaining their lack of knowledge that a victim of the attack was living in their street, thereby disclosing information about Eve that her mother had sought to keep private," she said.

So you see, it is laid out explicitly: Hall was not in court for disbelieving the official narrative (as the judge confirms, that is a perfectly legitimate position for a journalist to hold): he was in court for using his beliefs as a basis for harassing people - going to their private homes, furtively filming them, and encroaching on their rights to privacy.

Iain Davis didn't do any of this.

That is why one is in court and the other is not: nothing to do with their opinions on the Manchester attacks.

If you read the case against Hall, his right to freedom of speech was fully taken into account in the judgement, but freedom of speech is not a defence against harassment, and nor should it be. You can, to a very large extent, say whatever you like about people online, you can write books about your beliefs and sell them for £50 on Amazon (yes, it's still there): but turning up at people's homes, which are private property, and secretly filming them, is a red line.

If you cross that line, you should expect to get into trouble, because people have a right to privacy in their own homes, even people you believe to be crisis actors, and the law will protect that right.

So that's why Hall was in court: harassment. It wasn't a witch-hunt against him over his beliefs.

Yet the establishment is cleverly conflating the two by using the media to report the case as if Hall was in court simply for his views ("Manchester Arena survivors win case against man who claimed there was no bomb"), which he was not.

However, reporting it in that way has the desired effect of frightening a lot of alternate thinkers out of sharing their views (very similar to the Alex Jones / Sandy Hook case in the USA, and you can read more about that smoke and mirrors, sleight of hand show trial here).

That's the first aim of this carefully coordinated psy-op: scaring people into silence.

And it's worked very well, but there's another angle to this that is even more sinister, which is presenting those with alternate views as actively dangerous, and inferring that they can pose a significant threat to the personal safety of others.

Although that's hinted at with Hall's behaviour over the Manchester event (going to people's houses and intimidating them), it's not as enhanced an aspect of this case as it will be about the Madeleine McCann one, when Madeleine turns up safe and well (something I've been predicting for years, please see my full theory here).

All eyes are currently on Richard D. Hall and his "crazy views", which are being weaponised to make the conspiracy crowd look pretty bad (that they secretly film tragic disabled bomb survivors in their homes etc.) - but that's nothing compared to accusing grieving parents of murdering their missing daughter, when she was alive all along.

That is what I believe the eventual conclusion of the sensationalist Madeleine McCann saga will be: that Madeleine will be discovered, alive and well, living in Europe somewhere under a different name (the stage for this having already been set by the Julia Wendell episode). It will therefore be irrefutably confirmed that "the parents killed her and covered it up" school of thought really was just a baseless, vile, and dangerous "conspiracy theory".

Most prominently promoted by none other than Mr. Richard D. Hall.

This is what I mean when I say the establishment spins both "an official story" (Madeleine was abducted whilst her parents were out to dinner) and "an official conspiracy theory" (the parents killed her and faked an abduction to cover it up).

Both of these theories are given huge exposure and encouragement in the mainstream media, very much including Richard D. Hall's thoughts on the matter, which means that both of these theories are wrong.

I personally am increasingly swayed by the theory Madeleine never existed at all (the child we saw being a combination of CGI images and a child actor), and that this has been an elaborate, acted-out hoax from the start.

The reason Gerry and Kate were seen so visibly happy and relaxed just days after their daughter "went missing" wasn't because they'd killed her (the last thing anyone would be in that situation is relaxed, they'd be terrified of getting caught), but because it hadn't really happened. They only had one daughter, Amelie, and she, along with twin brother Sean, was safe and well.

I believe the four McCanns live together as a family unit and Gerry is the biological father of Amelie and Sean (whether Kate is the biological mother is another matter), but there was no Madeleine. Of course, with the twins being just babies when she "went missing", they would be too young to confirm either way, so they're not "in on it" - they can simply truthfully say they don't remember.

At some point in the near future, Madeleine (i.e., an actress playing her) will be "found", and that will be used to fulfil a number of key agenda items, not least, completely and utterly demonising conspiracy theorists.

"The parents did it and covered it up" theory is one of the most famous and enduring conspiracy theories in the world, with Richard D. Hall one of its most renowned proponents.

Richard D. Hall has just been defeated in court in a way that the media is spinning as exposing the dangers of conspiracy theories.

So imagine the combustible effects if subsequently, his theory on Madeleine McCann, his most famous "conspiracy theory" of all, is revealed unequivocally as being completely untrue.

It's the perfect stitch-up...

Too perfect.

And that is why, in my view, it has all obviously been staged and engineered, just like everything else that gets a lot of media attention.

Hall is being aggressively promoted by the mainstream media (and has been for years) as the definitive crazy crank, who gets things so wrong, he not only harasses disabled youngsters in their homes, but actually accuses innocent parents of child murder, an accusation that could easily inspire vigilante mobs to seek justice.

At the moment, Hall isn't being widely criticised for his theories on Madeleine, because she still hasn't been found, and even most normies think at this point she's probably dead, and it wouldn't be a huge surprise if the parents were involved.

However, if and when she is found, can you imagine what the extraordinary media response will be then?

Every single headline around the world, from Hackney to Hong Kong, will be slamming the "evil cranks" and "vile ghouls" who so persecuted her innocent, grieving parents when she was alive all along!

"This is exactly why we need to crack down on so-called free speech online and stop these despicable lunatics putting another innocent family through the same!"

(It's also why we need to chip all the kids, to ensure this never happens again...)

When I've made these arguments in the past, a lot of people seem to go into a sort of NLP trance, and start repeating mantras, like:

"She died in apartment 5A."

"Dogs don't lie."

"The scent of death was in the apartment."

But how do you know any of this is real, and isn't merely sculpted psychodrama set up and staged like any other edge-of-your-seat crime thriller?

Remember, always, in these sort of TV productions, the "obvious" suspect is never really the villain. Skilful writers masterfully weave the narrative to keep your eyes on certain suspects who turn out to be red herrings, when the story is suddenly flipped right at the end - plot twist! - and we see the "obviously guilty" scapegoat was actually innocent all along.

That's what's going to happen with Madeleine McCann and her parents, too.

And Richard D. Hall is right there at the centre of it all.

I know you may like Richard - feel like you know him, even - and therefore feel personally affronted by my saying this about him, but please ask yourself honestly:

Why does he get so much media attention?

Just do a news' search for his name and see prominent coverage in all the mainstream vehicles going back years. He has received extensive coverage in The Sun, The Daily Mail, The New York Times, The BBC, Sky, ITV, and Reuters, to name just a few.

There really is no such thing as bad publicity (what struggling author wouldn't kill for a shout-out from just one of these vehicles, never mind all of them multiple times?). Just imagine how many sales of his book, and donations to his legal fund, this extraordinary coverage has helped achieve for him, from people who would otherwise never have heard of him.

(And on the subject of Richard D. Hall's legal fund - which lacks any transparency at all, as all donations go straight to his bank account rather than being raised via a public and legitimate legal fees platform like Crowdjustice - please be aware of this fact: given that Hall has just lost in a civil case, rather than a criminal one, his penalty will not be prison, but giving the Hibbert family money. Your money, if you ever donated to his appeal, just as Andrew Bridgen gave Matt Hancock your money if you ever donated to him.)

As the media has confirmed, whenever it does these kind of high-profile "exposés" on conspiracy theorists, the conspiracist in question always ends up vastly more wealthy as a result. That's why they don't do such exposés on legitimate researchers (even when said researchers very politely ask them to, and even write the exposé themselves!).

Now try a news' search for Iain Davis.

Nothing.

Not so much as a single, solitary sentence in the back pages of the Swindon Observer, never mind detailed international coverage in all the world's biggest media vehicles.

So, please ask yourself:

Why is Richard so famous? Why isn't Iain famous at all?

Sorry folks, but I'm afraid it's always true:

If you know their name, they're in the game.

Thanks for reading! This site is entirely reader-powered, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, making it truly independent. Your support is therefore crucial to ensuring this site's continued existence. If you'd like to make a contribution to help this site keep going, please consider...

1. Subscribing monthly via Patreon or Substack (where paid subscribers can comment on posts)

2. Making a one-off contribution via BuyMeACoffee

3. Contributing in either way via bank transfer to Nat West account number 30835984, sort code 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA (please use your email address as a reference if you'd like me to acknowledge receipt).

Your support is what allows this site to continue to exist and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.