News

Former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s wife Carrie Johnson has been exposed an occult Satanist who worships Aleister Crowley, the unabashed occultist and self-described “wickedest man in the world.” The revelations comes days after Vladimir […]

The post Former British PM Boris Johnson’s Wife Exposed as Aleister Crowley Worshiping Occult Satanist appeared first on The People’s Voice.

“When I say red flags, meaning people that are here in this country that are wanting to do harm to us.”

The Biden administration’s radical southern border policies have led to the greatest invasion of migrants this nation has ever seen, including a significant number of military-aged men from around the world. This situation has raised alarm bells within the FBI, prompting the head of the federal agency to alert local law enforcement agencies across the US in a meeting last week.  

On Wednesday, Ohio Sheriff Richard K. Jones held a press conference where he shared details about a meeting in Washington, DC, that he attended alongside sheriffs from across the nation. The meeting featured discussions with Christopher Wray, the director of the FBI.

Jones explained the president has refused to meet with the 3,300 sheriffs and police chiefs across the US amid the border crisis and eruption in violent crime nationwide. 

“We were also told by Mr. Ray, the FBI director, that there are more red flags going off now than before 9-11,” Jones said. 

Here’s part of the transcript of the sheriff’s press conference where he explains Wray’s warning for America (transcript courtesy of Wall Street Apes): 

“China has safe houses in every state in the United States.” 

“They’re bringing something here to cause us harm. You have to believe that. China has safe houses in every state in the United States. My name is Rick Jones. I’m the Butler County Sheriff, Butler County, Ohio. I just came back from the National Sheriff’s Training in DC three days ago, two days ago. We were briefed by the FBI director Ray, the director of the FBI, and several federal agencies. There’s 3,300 sheriffs in the United States. 

The President of the United States refuses to meet with the sheriffs of the 3,300. We have a hierarchy. We have a president. We have a vice president. The President of the United States refuses to meet with the sheriffs. 

He also refuses to meet with the police chiefs of the United States. They have a hierarchy also. He refuses to meet with them to talk about border issues or talk about crime that’s going on because of the border issue. We were also told by Mr. Ray, the FBI director, that there are more red flags going off now than before 9-11. Okay? 

When I say red flags, meaning people that are here in this country that are wanting to do harm to us. We were also explained we’re bombing two countries right now. Two countries. These people do not like us before this started. There’s thousands of people here from other countries, 160 different countries. They’re here not to be our friends. 

Some of them are coming because they’re wanting to come here to the best country in the world, the way we see it. Some are coming here to do harm to us. And we were told by the FBI director, it’s not a matter of if, it’s a matter of when. We were also told five sheriffs went to Israel five weeks after the attack. The only thing that saved the Israelis, their government was the local police. They were outgunned, outmanned. They came over. The Palestinians did. They came over. They killed, raped. The sheriffs were there. They talked to the police. The local police are what saved that country. You can’t just call, even in Israel, you can’t just call the military up, and they’re going to be there, okay? They went house to house, raping, killing. The Israeli police. 

When our guys got there, the sheriffs said, they just don’t hate us. They hate you guys equally. And the same people that train them are the same people that train people to hate us. 

The FBI director said when 9-11 hit, there’s more red flags now than then. So, and he said, these are people that want to kill us and do harm to us. Now, so you’re wondering, I want everybody to know what I know. 

I can’t tell you everything, but I want the public to know that we are in a terrible way right now. The United States, and I’m going to get to the local. 

The United States, we’re on the defense. You can’t be just defense and not have an offense. We have no offense. We’re just defense. We’re absorbing these attacks. We’re in other countries. We’re supplying them with weapons. We’re supplying them with our treasure, our money. And we’re not doing much back home. So. 

With that in mind, we were also told that they’re going, this is from the federal government, three days ago. They’re going to attack our elections.” 

Ohio Sheriff Richard K. Jones Warning The Amercian People

After Meeting With Director Of The FBI Christopher Wray, Sheriff Says The Illegal Immigrants Entering America Will Do Us Harm “It’s not a matter of if, it’s a matter of when”

“China has safe houses in every state in the… pic.twitter.com/SJ9DJlk8sY

— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) February 9, 2024

The sheriff also noted, “We’re going to start training civilians – we’ve offered uh classes to train civilians.” 

This planned border invasion (via open southern border policies and shadowy networks of NGOs) by the radicals in the White House is happening in an election year.

---

30 Years of Russia Seeking Peace with the West

---

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has told the bloc’s members that they must urgently increase defense production in anticipation of “a confrontation” with Russia “that could last decades.” Stoltenberg, who has repeatedly warned that Western economies […]

The post NATO Chief Warns That War With Russia Could Last Decades appeared first on The People’s Voice.

After a report from special counsel Robert Hur revealed that President Biden can’t remember basic facts about his own life and career, doctors have stepped up calls for the 81 year old to take a […]

The post Doctors Call For Biden To Take Mental Competency Test: ‘Something Isn’t Right’ appeared first on The People’s Voice.

Former UK PM has invoked Hitler in denouncing the journalist’s sit-down with the Russian leader as an “unholy charade”

Former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson has denounced journalist Tucker Carlson as a “traitor” for failing to antagonize President Vladimir Putin during his interview with the Russian leader in a video posted on X (formerly Twitter) on Friday.

“We must not fall for this tissue of lies, above all the notion that Putin is somehow fated to succeed in Ukraine,” Johnson said. “On the contrary, he is doomed to fail.”

The British politician, who resigned in disgrace in 2022 amid mounting scandals regarding his government’s flouting of its own Covid-19 rules, implored his followers to read the lengthy condemnation of Carlson’s sit-down with the Russian leader he penned for the Daily Mail.

Johnson’s op-ed repeatedly invoked Adolf Hitler, insisting that Carlson was being “a traitor to journalism” by playing “Dictaphone to the dictator.”

The Russian president’s extended explanation of the history of Ukraine was merely a “mixture of semi-masticated Wikipedia and outright falsehood” – insisting Putin “demolished his own thesis” by “reckless and criminal violence” against Ukraine.

Carlson had fallen down on the job by not asking “tough questions” or taking him to task “for the torture, the rapes, the blowing up of kindergartens” supposedly committed by the Russian military – atrocities often invoked by Ukraine’s supporters in the West in the absence of evidence.

Johnson especially took issue with what he called the “ludicrous suggestion that the UK government persuaded the Ukrainians to fight on, rather than surrender to Putin’s tender mercies, in the spring of 2022,” claiming that “every member of the Ukrainian government will confirm” that it was Kiev that made the decision to tear up the peace treaty.

“Nothing and no one could have stopped those lion-hearted Ukrainians from fighting for their country – and nothing will,” he wrote.

He likened Carlson’s interview to the American newspapers that published sympathetic interviews with Hitler, insisting Putin was “exactly like” the Nazi bogeyman because he discoursed at length about “the alleged injustices suffered by speakers of his native tongue.” 

Johnson infamously pressured Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky not to accept what he called a “bad peace deal” in May of 2022, insisting that negotiating with Putin was the equivalent of reasoning with “a crocodile when it’s got your leg in its jaws,” given the Russians’ advances through Ukrainian territory. 

After successfully scuttling the negotiations, the British leader declared through a spokesperson that “the world must avoid any outcome where Putin’s unwarranted aggression appears to have paid off.” 

The 15-point peace deal negotiated between Russia and Ukraine in Istanbul would have involved Kiev renouncing its efforts to join NATO and committing to neutrality in exchange for a withdrawal of Russian troops from parts of the country.

---

30 Years of Russia Seeking Peace with the West

---

UK independent journalist, researcher and documentary filmmaker Richard D. Hall faces conviction, sizable damages and an injunction that could potentially end his career and his livelihood. Hall has been denied the opportunity to present any kind of meaningful defence. This travesty of justice has potential implication, not just for Hall, but for any journalist who dares to question power.

Hall was attempting to defend himself in a civil case for harassment brought against him by two of the reported survivors of the alleged Manchester Arena bombing. The original claim stated:

The Claimants seek damages, an injunction and other remedies against the Defendant [Richard D. Hall] under the Protection From Harassment Act 1997, the Data Protection Act 2018 and in misuse of private information. The Claimants’ claims are based upon conduct by the Defendant, including publication by him, related to the Claimants’ status as victims of the bombing of Manchester Arena in May 2017.

In response, Richard D. Hall submitted his Defence. As the Claimants’ claim averred that Richard D. Hall’s publication of his investigation into the Manchester Arena Bombing constituted harassment, Hall cited Section 1(3)(c) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 [PfH 97] which states that a claim of harassment cannot be upheld if the Defendant can show “that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.”

Further, Hall cited PfH 97 1(3)(a) which states that a claim for harassment cannot stand if the Defendant can show that their actions were “pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime.” Hall noted that it was an offence under Section 35 (2) and/or (3) of the Inquiries Act 2005 to distort or otherwise alter any evidence to an inquiry, to prevent evidence being submitted or to intentionally suppress or conceal documents that should be available to an inquiry.

Therefore, Hall’s defence was quite straightforward.

As the Claimants’ claim was based almost entirely upon his published work on the reported Manchester Arena bombing, under Section 1(3)(c) of PfH 97, Hall’s defence argument contended, by conducting investigative journalism, his “course of conduct was reasonable.” He also offered a defence, under Section 1(3)(a) of PfH 97, that his work was “pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime.”

In order to demonstrate this, Hall intended to show the High Court the Manchester Arena evidence he had uncovered. This would show that his investigative journalism was, indeed, “reasonable” and that his research was conducted for the legitimate journalistic purpose of “preventing or detecting crime.” If proven to the Court’s satisfaction, the Claimant’s claim of harassment would necessarily be denied.

Subsequently, on the 9^th November 2023 the Claimants legal team applied to the High Court of Justice for a “summary judgment.” They were seeking a High Court of Justice ruling to strike out Richard D. Hall’s defence completely.

This would enable the High Court of Justice to “dispose of all or part of a case without a trial.” The application for the “summary judgment” was based upon the Claimants’ claim that Richard D. Hall’s defence had “no real prospect of success.”

On the 29^th of January, in the High Court of Justice, Richard D. Hall offered a brief outline of the extensive Manchester Arena evidence he has investigated and reported to the public. He argued that the Court could not rule on the harassment claim unless it considered all of the evidence surrounding the Manchester Arena bombing. Essentially, Hall offered the evidence he had uncovered to prove he was an investigative journalist acting reasonably and endeavoring to expose a crime. He contended that the evidence he could present would give him every “prospect of success” in denying the Claimants’ claim.

Following the hearing on the 29^th of January, High Court of Justice Master Davison issued his ruling on the 8th of February. Davison identified “the Issues” which were disputed by Hall:

i) On 22 May 2017 22 innocent people were murdered in a bomb explosion carried out by a terrorist at the Manchester Arena at the conclusion of a concert performed by Ariana Grande;

ii) The claimants were present at the Manchester Arena at the time of the bombing;

iii)They were severely injured rendering Martin Hibbert [claimant] paralysed from the waist down and Eve Hibbert [claimant] brain damaged; and

iv) The cause of these injuries was the explosion of the bomb.

On all of “the Issues” the High Court of Justice effectively rejected Hall’s evidence outright and ruled all of it inadmissible and worthless. Master Davison’s legal reasoning was offered, in which he ultimately determined:

I find that the defendant [Richard D. Hall] has not discharged the evidential burden which rests on him. He has no real prospect, indeed no prospect at all, of success on the Issues and I will resolve them in the claimants’ favour. [. . .] I will list the case for a further hearing to decide consequential orders, costs and directions to take the claim forward to a final determination.

The trial is now virtually a fait accompli for the Claimants. Richard D. Hall cannot offer a meaningful defence. The only remaining matter is to settle damages and define the terms of the likely injunction.

Richard D. Hall has been summarily judged without a trial by the British High Court of Justice. He could consequently lose his livelihood and be effectively barred from working as an investigative journalist.

Master Davison has ruled on the law, not on morality or on the crucial social requisite for justice. That such matters are for society to decide, not the judicial system, was emphasised by Judge Nicholas Lorraine-Smith during the appalling prosecution of David Noakes. Lorraine-Smith stated that the court was not a court of morality but rather a court of law.

For obvious reasons, in this litigious environment, I have to stress that I am not legally qualified to make any kind of criticism of the legal arguments informing Master Davison’s judgment and I make none. Nonetheless, if the “rule of law” is to mean anything at all, the wider, social issues of fairness and justice matter. That is the sole purview of this article. Excerpts from the ruling are cited only to provide context for the wider discussion.

As a society, we cannot passively allow a legal system to persist if it is neither fair nor just and serves only to protect and serve the government and other powerful interests. While Davison applied the letter of the law, his ruling, for all important social purposes, ultimately denied justice and simply protected a highly questionable government narrative that Richard D. Hall has thoroughly exposed with an overwhelming body of evidence.

This is not for one moment to suggest that Hall’s own findings and expressed opinions are beyond dispute. But, on the whole, he has provided more than enough evidence to cast significant doubt upon the official state narrative of the Manchester Arena bombing. It is beholding upon all of us to consider it.

Probably, like most people, Master Davison doesn’t know much about false flag terrorism. Perhaps he is unaware that government sponsored false flag terrorism is a historical fact and a relatively common occurrence. There is nothing implausible about suspecting that the Manchester Arena bombing may have been yet another State run false flag operation.

To imagine that the mere suspicion is “preposterous” is simply to be ignorant of history. Davison seemingly demonstrated his ignorance of the historical evidence when he said:

I have already referred to the inherent implausibility of the defendant’s “staged attack” hypothesis. Whilst acknowledging that issues as to the claimants’ presence at the attack and the attack itself are separate and distinct, once the defendant’s general hypothesis has been rejected (as I have rejected it) it is unrealistic to maintain that the claimants were not there and were either not severely injured at all or acquired their injuries earlier and by a different mechanism than the bombing. Indeed, the latter points are simply preposterous.

This goes to the crux of Hall’s defence. If his “staged attack”—false flag—hypothesis is accurate then all victim accounts, including the Claimants, are doubtful. By rejecting all of Hall’s evidence, Hall now has no possible way to contest “the Issues.”

Davison’s ruling relied upon other judicial findings. This is quite normal and perfectly appropriate in our legal system. But that doesn’t make it reasonable or just from a social perspective.

Davison cited the case of Hashem Abedi—the brother of the reported Manchester suicide bomber—as proof that “22 innocent people were murdered in a bomb explosion carried out by a terrorist at the Manchester Arena.” In light of the Hashem Abedi ruling, Davison felt confident to state:

[. . .] although his [Richard D. Hall’s] beliefs may be genuinely held, his theory that the Manchester bombing was an operation staged by government agencies in which no one was genuinely killed or injured is absurd and fantastical.

It is reasonable to question the veracity of Hashem Abedi’s conviction. This was another passage of British justice, and another associated with the Manchester Arena event, in which no defence was heard in the court. While this doesn’t necessarily undermine the ruling, once again we are asked to accept a verdict based solely on the evidence offered by the prosecution, absent any defence argumentation at all.

As Davison seemingly knows nothing about false flag terrorism, presumably he is also unfamiliar with the multinational companies, such as the UK based CrisisCast, who provide crisis actors to governments and other clients to simulate crisis events. Staged terrorist attacks are commonly practiced.

For example, almost a year to the day before the Manchester Arena event, a major terror attack was staged at the Manchester Old Trafford shopping centre. The media reported:

A mock terrorist attack has been carried out at one of the UK’s busiest shopping centres, in a marauding assault similar to the Paris and Brussels atrocities. More than 800 volunteers took part in the staged attack at the Trafford Centre in Manchester on Monday night. As part of the drill a fake suicide bomber detonated an explosive device in a packed food court at the shopping centre.

Pretty much the entire UK “mainstream media”—or legacy media—has reported on the ruling in Hall’s case. They have each run more or less the same story, highlighting Davison’s “absurd and fantastical” comments and calling Hall a ” conspiracy theorist” a troll, “Britain’s sickest man,” etc. The Metro honed in on another comment made by Davison:

He [Davison] added it was ‘fanciful’ to suggest Abedi did not die and ‘still more fanciful’ to argue the bomber was an intelligence asset.

It seems that Davison doesn’t know anything about Western governments, and their intelligence agencies, long history of manipulating and supporting Islamist extremist groups either. We can only assume he is equally unaware of the 2003 Overview and Recommendations Report of the Stevens Inquiries into possible British government collusion with loyalist terrorists in Northern Ireland.

Stevens concluded:

[. . .] there was collusion in both murders and the circumstances surrounding them. Collusion is evidenced in many ways. This ranges from the wilful failure to keep records, the absence of accountability, the withholding of intelligence and evidence, through to the extreme of agents being involved in murder. [. . .] The unlawful involvement of agents in murder implies that the security forces sanction killings. [. . .] Informants and agents were allowed to operate without effective control and to participate in terrorist crimes.

Evidently UK intelligence agencies have colluded with terrorists and some of those terrorists are, or have been, assets. To claim that Hall’s hypothesis was “fanciful” was contrary to all the salient historical facts and evidence.

While no one can expect a High Court Master to be an expert on everything, perhaps Davison would have been better advised to refrain from making so many unfounded pejorative comments with regard to Hall’s investigative work. They were unnecessary and simply revealed Davison’s unenlightened opinions.

From a broad historical perspective, Davison’s claims that Hall’s “hypothesis” were “implausible” and “absurd and fantastical” were all unreservedly wrong. The only way to know if Halls’ specific claims about Manchester are accurate is to examine the evidence he has presented.

This evidence will not be examined in the High Court of Justice. We have a “summary judgment” instead and almost the entire legacy media is steering us toward accepting it without question, largely by highlighting Davison’s ill-informed views and subjecting Hall to a stream of puerile personal attacks.

Richard D. Hall has thoroughly investigated, examined and catalogued the evidence surrounding the Manchester Arena attack. He has gone much further and far deeper into that evidence than any other journalist.

He has published a book of his findings and broadcast numerous videos on the subject. Hall signs off from his videos by advising his audience to “believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see.” He never asks his audience to simply “believe” what he says and consistently encourages them to examine the evidence themselves.

Virtually none of the evidence Hall has uncovered was included in the Manchester Arena “Saunders Inquiry.” Despite numerous articles written and news pieces broadcast about him, accusing him of all manner of abuses and failings, not one them has broached any of the evidence Hall has unearthed.

None of us, including High Court Masters, can possibly know if Hall is correct, or not, unless we examine that evidence. Court rulings denying that possibility should not deter anyone from seeking the truth. We, the people, have every right to question the pronouncements of the government and its compliant “mainstream media.”

So let’s look at just one, tiny scrap of evidence, among the reams Hall has reported, that casts significant doubt on the official account of the Manchester Arena event.

One of the reported victims, Ruth Murrell, whose friend Michelle was among those who reportedly died in the blast, had a bolt blown through her right thigh by the bomb. She sustained “serious injuries,” according to mainstream media reports.

Ruth is one of the best known victims of the Manchester Arena bombing and her story was widely reported. Following her serious injury and the trauma she suffered, Ruth met the Queen at Manchester Royal infirmary who was said to have been almost moved to tears by the harrowing accounts she heard from Ruth Murrell.

Here is a video of Ruth walking around, just 4 minutes after the devastating Manchester Arena explosion. The video shows the City Room, which is the precise location in the Arena where the bomb had been detonated just moments earlier, reportedly killing 22 people and injuring more than 1,000.

 

 

You will note the people stood around, amiably chatting and virtually no sign of any notable emergency response. You will also note the complete lack of any sign of structural damage or debris. Without wishing to dwell on the gory details you would reasonably expect to see, this video is not consistent with the immediate aftermath of a bombing that blew the bomber to pieces, killed 22 and injured hundreds just a few minutes earlier.

Reportedly, Ruth had just lost her friend who was standing right next to her when she died instantly from head wounds caused by blast shrapnel. Ruth’s daughter was also lying somewhere off-camera, having also sustained “serious injuries” similar to Ruth’s.

As you can see, the “serious injury” didn’t give Ruth cause to limp. She does not show any signs of either physical or emotional distress following the horror she has just experienced. Only 4 minutes after a bolt from a bomb blast reportedly punctured her right thigh, passed through her leg and caused massive tissue damage and blood loss, Ruth was strolling around seemingly unaffected. Nor, indeed, did the bolt apparently make any kind of entry or exit hole in her jeans.

Quite obviously, the video utterly contradicts the widely reported photographic “evidence” of the injuries reportedly sustained by Ruth Murrell in the 2017 Manchester Arena terrorist bombing. This evidence alone, reported by Richard D. Hall, is sufficient to cast immense doubt on the official narrative and it requires explanation. Given Ruth Murrell’s published “story” and the corresponding video evidence, it isn’t unreasonable to question if any aspect of the reported Manchester Arena bombing is true.

As revealed through Hall’s investigative journalism, this video was shot on the phone of John Barr. Like any good journalist unafraid to question power, Hall contacted Mr. Barr and asked for an interview. Mr Barr agreed and Hall published the interview in his book “the Night of the Bang” which you can download for free from his website.

Hall asked Barr when the footage was shot. Barr said:

That was around err …after the explosion erm… probably about 2 or 3 minutes after the explosion. [. . .] the explosion was about erm …10.32 so that was probably about 4 minutes after that.

According to Mr. Barr, this footage (above) was taken in the immediate moments following a massive, deadly terrorist attack. Despite evidently being a key witness in possession of vital video evidence, Mr Barr was not invited to provide any sort of testimony at the official inquiry and his video evidence was excluded from the proceedings.

In his ruling, Master Davison frequently cited the Saunders Inquiry into the Manchester Arena bombing as evidence substantiating the Claimants’ account. The fact that Barr’s video, which was published on social media, was not included in that Inquiry, suggests the strong possibility that it was “intentionally suppressed.” This would potentially constitute a State crime under Section 35 (2) and/or (3) of the Inquiries Act 2005.

At the very least, its absence from the Saunders Inquiry highlights the clear possibility that the Inquiry findings were tantamount to meaningless. That virtually none of evidence revealed by Hall was examined at the Inquiry only adds to suspicion that the so-called Inquiry had a predetermined outcome.

Master Davison was clearly satisfied with the totality of the evidence considered at the Saunders Inquiry. Claims made by the Claimants, along with some ticket receipts entered into evidence by the Claimants, were sufficient to for Davison to conclude that the Claimants were at the Arena on the night in question.

This was clarified in Davison’s ruling:

In relation to their presence at the Arena, the claimants have provided a witness statement from the first claimant, Martin Hibbert, that confirms that they were, indeed, there. [. . .] Mr Terry Wilcox, a solicitor who was instructed on behalf of two victims’ families, and who was able to review the CCTV footage on terms of strict confidentiality (because the footage was too graphic for public release) has provided a witness statement in which he confirms from the CCTV that Martin and Eve Hibbert were both present at the Arena on 22 May 2017 and were observed both before and after the detonation of the explosive device.

To be clear: only heavily redacted still images were presented at the Saunders Inquiry. Richard D. Hall has examined every single one of those images and the Claimants cannot be identified in any of them. None of the CCTV video footage or images featuring the Claimants was shown at the Saunders Inquiry. To date, the only person to have reportedly seen the Claimants in this footage is Mr Terry Wilcox, the Claimants and an un-named family liaison officer.

While, in this civil matter, Master Davison was only concerned with the balance of probability—“beyond reasonable doubt” is not required in such claims—given that the CCTV evidence has not been made public or seen by the Court, and in light of Hall’s high level of doubt that the Claimants were present, some aspects of the High Court proceedings seem inexplicable.

Davison denied Hall’s request to submit into evidence the “CCTV moving images showing” the Claimants in the Arena. This is the same footage seen by Mr Wilcox. It would have been very inexpensive and easy to simply provide the relevant clips. Doing so would prove the Claimants’ claim beyond all reasonable doubt,” far beyond the balance of probability.

So why Davison chose not to allow Hall’s application and requested court order to obtain this evidence seems rather odd. What is stranger still is that it was Hall, and not the Claimants’ legal team, who made the request for the CCTV video. Surely the Claimants’ would have wanted to submit it into evidence themselves, thereby proving “beyond all reasonable doubt” that Hall’s opinions are completely unfounded?

Hall has also reported evidence that indicates the claim against him was potentially instigated by the BBC. If so, it can certainly be considered part of a wider drive by the government to censor all dissenting opinion. While the case has already taken a massive toll on Richard D. Hall, and threatens to ruin his life, the broader potential implications for investigative journalism cannot be overstated.

It seems likely that an injunction granted against Hall will necessitate that all of his evidence is taken down and years of his painstaking research expunged from the public record. Any such decision will be nothing short of book burning.

In many respects, this case, and specifically the “summary judgment,” has ramification as damaging for journalism as those the Assange case portend. It appears that High Court of Justice Master Davison has set a precedent, based upon his appraisal of the “balance of probability,” that will have a crushing impact upon journalism and anyone’s ability to question power.

Despite the known fact that governments perpetrate acts of false flag terrorism, both at home and abroad, there is now virtually no scope for any investigative journalist to question the official narrative of any future false flag terrorist attack. All the State needs to do is convince a purported victim to launch a similar claim and the court can cite Richard D. Hall’s summary judgment to deliver the same brand of “justice” to them.

The potential exists for this ruling to be applied to the broader questioning of State narratives. A civil court action, claiming some sort of harassment or harm caused, may well be sufficient for any published criticism to be silenced. Journalists hoping to emulate the great questioners of power, such as Gary Webb or the late John Pilger, could face penury and ruin if they ever dare to express doubt about official, Sate claims.

Ultimately the public will suffer the consequences. No longer able to access dissenting opinion, their views will be controlled by an effective Ministry of Truth.

 

Please note: Due to publication constraints my usual editor has not had an opportunity to edit this article. Any typos or other grammatical errors are the sole responsibility of the author.

The post Richard D. Hall – A Travesty of Justice appeared first on Iain Davis.