As regular consumers of conspira-content are likely aware, a few days ago, my friend Francis O'Neill wrote a rather controversial article, about someone named Ed The Techie, his relationship to Bob Moran, and, primarily, Ed's direct connections to the Lucy Connolly state psyop.

Nearly all conspiracies seem to lead to Connolly these days, but that's not actually the conspiracy I want to comment on today, but rather, on the couple of comments on Francis' article that didn't reference Ed The Techie or Lucy Connolly at all, but instead... Richard D. Hall.

Eh?

Francis' article had nothing to do with Mr Hall, not even peripherally, but nevertheless, two separate individuals brought him/his work up in the comments: one to say something to the general effect of "if you can see through this, why can't you see through Richard D. Hall and his lies about Manchester Arena?" (We'll return to this shortly.)

The other, rather randomly, referenced me (I was mentioned in Francis' article, but so were a lot of people, and it was far from centrally about me), in which the commentator stated they didn't trust me because my "early opening posts" had been scrutinising Richard D. Hall, and this, apparently, was "unconscionable".

It's true that I have written articles critical of Hall, but they certainly weren't part of my introductory oeuvre, and came a good four years after I started my miriaf.co.uk website, publishing regular pieces - and about a decade after I started publicly commenting on conspiracy matters. (Not that I'm looking for extra conspira-points or anything - well, maybe just a few - but I did not "awaken" in 2020, but rather, had been a conspiracist for about eight years by then, and was a regular contributor to online alternative communities, such as the Arnica natural health group. My main focus pre-2020 was vaccines, and my first website, STRIVE, launched in 2015, was an education resource for students regarding vaccination, following my nearly being kicked out of a university for refusing one.)

Anyway, back to Hall: when it was pointed out that my critiques of him were far from my "early opening posts", the individual making this claim responded by saying they meant that my articles on Hall were my first Substack articles.

I therefore undertook the tedious task of counting how many articles I had published on Substack before discussing Richard D. Hall, and got to 80-something (not including audios or interviews) before I stopped counting.

So, this begs the question of why someone would so brazenly lie about my approach to Richard D. Hall like this (it would have been very easy for them to verify what they were saying wasn't true before publicly smearing me), and on an article that in any case had absolutely nothing to do with Hall (and fairly little to do with me).

It appears to be because Mr Hall is, once again, set to take centre stage in the conspira-verse, and so an operation is now underway to smear and discredit his critics.

You can read my initial article about Hall here, but to sum, I believe this very high-profile man, who has received extensive press attention from the mainstream media, including the Daily Mail, the BBC, and the New York Times, is a fraud, inserted into the narrative to manipulate and mislead, with an ultimate aim of making "conspiracy theorists" look so terrible, that we need more anti-free speech laws to protect society from them.

Hence, Hall has been instrumental in setting the stage for "Eve's Law", legislation that is framed as the UK's first anti-conspiracy theory law.

Proposals for this law developed from Hall's coverage of the Manchester Arena bombing (or non-bombing), after he was accused of harassing the (alleged) victims.

Hall suggested the victims might be faking their injuries, but conceded eventually, after secretly filming them, that they were not. One of the people he secretly filmed was a teenage girl.

Obviously, the optics of middle-aged men secretly filming teenage girls are terrible, even if it's legal, and this behaviour did not make Hall a sympathetic character to the public, handing easy ammunition to the press to savage him. There was no particular reason for Hall to secretly film a schoolgirl when he could have focused solely on the adult victims - other than intentionally making himself look bad, which is exactly what I believe he did.

The Manchester Arena event was nearly a decade ago, and Hall's court case two years ago - that's a long time in the news cycle (tomorrow's fish paper etc.), so why is it/he being dragged up again now?

It appears to relate to a recent article by the journalist Nick Kollerstrom, delving into Hall's case. Interestingly, this is Mr Kollerstrom's first Substack article, so what was falsely ascribed to me (writing my first Substack article about Hall, and this being framed as suspicious) is actually true of Kollerstrom.

Kollerstrom's article was published on May 22nd, the nine-year anniversary of the Manchester event, and thus adding yet another Freemasonic '22' to the melee (Kollerstrom, as other commentators have, covers the many '22s' associated with the Manchester Arena event).

I've had a look into Kollerstrom, and I recommend reading his lengthy Wiki bio here, and coming to your own conclusions about him.

Kollerstrom's article is entirely supportive of Hall, and also other writers who have publicly endorsed Hall's theories, including Iain Davis and David A. Hughes.

Strange then that both men should so publicly distance themselves from it, using very formal and legal language.

Davis said in the comments section of Kollerstrom's article:

"Hi Nick, please make it clear that these are your own words and your own opinions and that I (Iain Davis) and the journalist Richard D. Hall neither authorised nor encouraged you in any way to write your article titled "The Maddest court case ever" published on Sub stack on 22nd May, 2026. Sorry to be a pain, but I'm sure you can appreciate why it is absolutely essential that you make this fact clear. I do not speak for David Hughes but I strongly suspect he will be of a similar view."

Hughes replied:

"I concur. 

I, too, neither authorised nor encouraged you to write “The Maddest Court Case Ever.”

These facts were brought to my attention by the writer Aisling O'Loughlin, and I want to be clear that I don't agree with Aisling's conclusions on Manchester - that it was real, there was a bomb, and the victims died the way the authorities told us they did. There are several other things I don't agree with Aisling on, too.

However, I do agree with her on the general illegitimacy of Richard D. Hall, and she and I concur that he is so heavily publicised by the establishment and mainstream media for a reason.

Regular readers of this site know what it means when someone or something is heavily publicised (whether positively or negatively) by the mainstream news, and to sum up by way of my two 'razors':

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

If it's headline news, it's a ruse.

(And, if you don't know how "the news" really works by now, this excellent short video by Alistair Williams explains it succinctly - and very entertainingly.)

So, to sum, I believe that Richard D. Hall took a real scandal (that the Manchester event was a staged hoax), and muddied the waters by making intentionally false claims about it, such as suggesting that Eve Hibbert wasn't really disabled and secretly filming her (thus giving the press reason to savage him), as well as conducting ludicrous "statement analyses" of people he himself says are actors (i.e., if they're actors, then they're reading from scripts, so Hall is analysing the personality of the scriptwriter, then ascribing it to the person reading the lines).

Hall's obfuscations and meanderings into silliness mean that, now, when people say "Manchester is a hoax" and attempt to explain why (as Francis O'Neill cogently did here and here), their arguments can immediately be conflated with Hall's nonsense, and, as such, dismissed.

It's the David Icke effect: Icke is right about a lot of things, including, for instance, the dangers of vaccines - but he has ensured that as soon as a person says something like, "vaccines aren't always safe for everyone", they can be dismissed with, "oh, been reading David Icke again, have you? I suppose you think the Queen's a lizard, too." Even if - as Icke claims - this is not the effect he intends, the effect is very real.

That is equivalent to Hall's role, in my opinion: to make critical thinkers, and those who legitimately question state narratives, look dangerous and deranged, by conflating truth (Manchester is a hoax) with nonsense (pseudoscientific "statement analysis"; secretly filming disabled teenagers; suggesting they aren't really disabled).

I also believe Hall has done something similar with Madeleine McCann, by promoting the least "covered-up" cover-up in history (i.e., that the parents did it), when this is, in fact, highly unlikely to be true. And it certainly isn't "covered up" - this theory is one of the most well-known, and widely promoted, "conspiracy theories" in the world.

Hence, if and when Madeleine is discovered alive and well (which is what I suspect will eventually happen), imagine the global public outcry that will erupt regarding all these evil conspiracists - led by Hall - who so persecuted her innocent, grieving parents. Even more reason for muzzling legislation such as 'Eve's Law' to stop these dangerous, vile ghouls from harassing innocent people.

We are being given an inkling that something like this is on the way, by both Iain Davis and David A. Hughes publicly and formally distancing themselves from Nick Kollerstrom's article on Hall, despite it being wholly supportive of them and their views. Their statements read very much as if they know legal trouble is coming, and they're trying to preemptively limit the damage.

It also appears that Iain Davis' book on Manchester has been pulled from circulation.

Why? What do Davis and Hughes know? What are they suddenly so scared of?

Aisling O'Loughlin has publicly asked Iain Davis about this, but he has not responded. This is inconsistent with his previous stance, where he has happily engaged with O'Loughlin and appeared on her podcast to debate their differing views.

Hence, we can only speculate upon the reasons for his silence now.

It's important to note that I - and anyone who has ever critically questioned the integrity of apparent sacred cow, Hall - always gets absolutely ambushed afterwards, so what we can expect in response to my writing this article is a variety of dubious characters trying to smear me, without actually engaging critically with my arguments. They will say all sorts of nonsense about me, like "she is in the intelligence services because her name begins Mi" (yes, people have seriously said this - 'cos MI5 begins that way too, geddit?).

I am not in the intelligence services, nor in service to the/any government in any way, nor have I ever been in any secret society - neither the Freemasons nor any other such group (it may also be worth noting that I have never been funded by Marcel Jahnke).

I am completely independent, solely reader-funded, and I have written a detailed biographical history of myself here, because I understand why people are sceptical of anyone with any kind of a platform in a movement so riddled with infiltrators and deceivers. So I wanted to set the record straight about myself. If, having read that, there's still anything about me that seems anomalous to you, you can ask me about it and I'll explain, because the truth really does not fear investigation.

So, if anyone tries to deal with my article about Richard D. Hall by attacking and lying about me, rather than directly engaging with the content of what I've written about him, you can draw your own conclusions about why they're doing that.

This article is not about me. It's about Richard D. Hall, and whether he is - as I and an increasingly large number of other commentators strongly suspect - a pied piper plant, leading critical thinkers out of the proverbial Hamelin, and towards a far darker destination altogether.

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.