Richard D Hall is an electrical engineer and documentary maker. His journey outside the mainstream began in 2008, originally focusing on UFOs. He now produces twelve in depth shows annually covering subjects including mind control, terrorism, hidden history, state cover ups, space exploration and alternative energy. His shows are free to watch at his website RichplanetTV.com.
https://www.richplanet.net
Please note: some sections of this interview were removed for legal reasons due to an ongoing action against Richard D. Hall.
↓ ↓ ↓
Today's podcast is in association NutraHealth365 who manufacture a superb high potency Vitamin D3 supplement called ImmuneX365.
As we approach winter, your body's defences are under constant attack from flu, respiratory diseases and the common cold. So now, more than ever, is it essential that you have a robust immune system and as we all know, Vitamin D3 plays an essential role in this.
ImmuneX365 is an exclusive and unique formulation that combines effective levels of Vitamins D3, C, and K2, as well as Zinc and Quercetin.
This unique combination of nutrients ensures efficient bioavailability of D3, thereby giving your immune system an optimum boost.
Take back your health with just two capsules of ImmuneX365 every day.
For your peace of mind, all NutraHealth365 orders come with free two day tracked delivery, Go to
http://NutraHealth365.com
to get yours now."
https://nutrahealth365.com/
\ \ \ \ \ \
If you need silver and gold bullion - and who wouldn't in these dark times? - then the place to go is The Pure Gold Company. Either they can deliver worldwide to your door - or store it for you in vaults in London and Zurich. You even use it for your pension. Cash out of gold whenever you like: liquidate within 24 hours. https://bit.ly/James-Delingpole-Gold
/ / / / / /
Earn interest on Gold:
https://monetary-metals.com/delingpole/
/ / / / / /
Buy James a Coffee at: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jamesdelingpole
Support James’ Writing at:https://delingpole.substack.com/
Support James monthly at: https://locals.com/member/JamesDelingpole?community_id=7720
Welcome to The Delingpole with me, James Delingpole.
I know I always say I'm excited about this week's special guest, but before I introduce him, a quick word on behalf of our sponsors.
NutraHealth365.com A lot of you have been really enjoying their product and I think it's the perfect present to buy yourself to start the new year.
The gift of health.
NeutralHealth365.com do a vitamin D3 supplement with K2.
The two things, vitamin D3 and K2, work together and they really boost your immune system.
I've said before, and I'm not a doctor, but I think I'm right, If people had taken this stuff before the alleged pandemic, I think a lot fewer people would have got this COVID bug that is allegedly going around.
Anyway, the people behind neutrahealth365.com are our people.
They're completely onside.
They're completely awake.
And I really hope you can support their product.
Go to their website to read all up about vitamin D3 and K2 and all the benefits from it.
They also do a supplement to improve your creaky joints, which I'm quite interested to try as well.
I've been taking their vitamin D3 and K2 and so far it has protected me from all the nasty bugs going around, so I'm really happy with it.
They were offering at the moment they're offering a free two-day tracked delivery on all orders and you get up to 20% off if you buy any three.
It's also worth noting that if you were to buy each of the components individually from the high street they could cost you up to five times as much.
Anyway, their best-selling product is Immune X 365 High Strength Vitamin D Capsule which contains not just 4000 IU of Vitamin D3 but also Zinc, Quercetin and Vitamin K2.
You can get it all at NutraHealth365.com.
Please support them.
All our sponsors deserve your support and the product is good.
I've been taking it and I can vouch for it.
Welcome to the Delling Pod.
Richard D. Hall.
Richard!
Richard!
You are.
I mean, I know I always say I'm excited about this week's special guest and so on.
But actually, you are one of the most requested guests that I've yet to have on my podcast.
So I'm really, really pleased you finally made it.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay.
It's a pleasure.
Thank you.
The information that I, Richard D. Hall, put forward in this interview is my honestly held opinion based upon information and evidence that I have been able to verify as is reasonably practical.
Any assertions that I make are being made as a considered hypothesis, not as assertions of absolute fact.
Before we go into the main topic, I've just got to say about how I first came across you.
So about three years ago, when I just started to go down the rabbit hole, this family member He started turning me on to interesting stuff from the internet that I should look at.
And this person sent me your deep dive into the Joe Cox thing.
And I wasn't quite ready for it.
I watched it.
And I thought, well, this is amazing.
This is just like, he's obviously really done some extraordinary research and it kind of rings true, but come on, I mean, why would they do this?
Why would they fake this stuff?
And you can probably agree with me here that your research, the main barrier to it is not the accuracy of it.
To look at your stuff, you need a kind of initial comprehension that our governments, our authorities, are capable of doing unimaginably evil things.
And most people just still can't accept that.
Yes, I mean that is a barrier that if you give people the conclusions of much of my research, they will reject it out of hand because they haven't seen the detail and they don't want to know the detail because it's going to open up too many questions that they then have to look at, that they haven't got time for.
So yes, but I was going to, I've got some notes here on the cocks.
Alleged assassination, as I'll call it, which I was going to discuss later, and in particular, the reasons why it was done, which you just mentioned.
As you just said, that people, they think, well, why would they do that?
Why would they do that?
Well, I can explain some of that.
I mean, it is in my film, but I can explain some more on it as well a bit later on that.
That would be really interesting because I think you're the first person I've had on the podcast apart from Olay Damagard to really talk about the issue.
Oh, hang on, I'm hearing echo in my... Are you hearing echo at all?
Have you got the echo cancellation on?
Maybe you should put it on.
Yeah, that would have been really annoying if we'd had Echo.
I'm sorry, anyway, so you were saying?
Yeah, there's obviously a barrier, especially as people are mainly tuned in to mainstream news, and they see something for the first time, like the Joe Cox film, and don't bother to look carefully at the evidence, then it is very difficult for them.
And as you say, they don't understand why this would be done, or why the deception would occur.
And I can talk about that later with regards to the motives of the Joe Cox incident.
Yeah.
Which are quite interesting.
Yeah, that's right.
I was talking about... Are you a fan of Ole Damengard?
I've not watched a lot of his stuff, but I've listened to a few of his interviews, and yeah, he seems like a good guy.
And he seems to be looking at the much deeper picture.
He goes further than just looking at the evidence.
He looks at the occult and the sort of belief systems of those who are orchestrating this.
So he's looking into the minds of those who are doing it, rather than just their motives, I think, and their ideologies.
Which I don't spend a lot, too much time on.
I go more by the evidence and sort of forensically looking at the evidence.
Whereas he's more forensically examining their minds as well.
So yeah, I would like to say I'm not, I don't spend too much time looking at other researchers stuff, but I have listened to some of his interviews.
Yeah, the reason I mention him is because I noticed that even among awake audiences, there is an element which simply does not want to believe what he is saying.
For example, he talks about crisis actors.
Now, I really like the way, by the way, you start your video series on the Manchester Arena alleged bombing.
You show a video of this American company which specializes in faking disasters with people with hideous injuries and amputations and things, and it tells the story for you very well.
Yes, yeah I mean that's important for people to realize that they stage these things all the time and they admit to them and they use all of this Hollywood and military type dummy explosions to do it.
So it's just one step away from then doing the same but presenting it to the media as though it were real rather than an exercise.
It's the next sort of step up in reality if you like or fakery to then Get the media to say that it is real which is which is what they've done I mean my belief is that from around 2013 the fabricated terror using real deaths changed to fabricated terror using fake deaths.
I think there was some decision high up that, because both methods bring a number of problems.
So with the real deaths you've got relatives of the deceased who are looking for truth, who are not going to go away.
Whereas if you've got Relatives of people who are either still alive or who died in another scenario, and they've been paid, they are going to go away.
They're not going to bother you.
But then it's a higher level of fakery because if you are going to kill people in a staged attack, i.e.
a false flag attack where it's not the person that you've blamed it on, It's a lot less complicated, because you're just planting a bomb and you're going to kill people.
Whereas to stage the entire aftermath and fake the injuries, etc., etc., it's a lot more work involved, which is what I would suggest they've done in Manchester and a number of other incidents.
So it's more complicated, but I think the actual dealing with some of the problems afterwards, if they get it right, could be easier for them.
Yes, I see.
So the initial investment, the initial outlay, although greater than it would be for a real event, it pays dividends in the end because there's less fallout ultimately.
Yeah, unless you get people like me come along.
Yes, if it hadn't been for that pesky Richard D. Hall.
So, you said 2013.
Why was that the watershed year?
Well, they don't invite me to their tea parties, so I don't know why.
But that's, if you would just, if you just look at them and draw a table of the ones that appear to have had real deaths with the ones that don't, that's when it seemed to change.
With Sandy Hook I would say we've possibly been one of the earlier ones.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah, that'll get you in trouble.
Allegedly.
How much did Alex Jones get sued for?
Yeah, well there's a video on my website with a discussion about that with Nick Collistrom and, you know, still there.
They haven't come after me.
So does that mean... I'm just... I'm just trying to think of the ones that were real.
For example, the Madrid train bombing.
Does that... Yeah.
That's clearly real.
You can see the carriage with just a massive hole in it where the people were.
Yeah, obviously that was real.
Okay.
So, when was the sort of the last real one in your...
Oh, I've not researched that for this interview, but I would need to go and look at some data in order to ascertain that.
But obviously the London bombing, people really died.
9-11, people really died.
And as you say, Madrid, I think Madrid was 2006.
If I might be wrong on that but um yeah but they and then we had Boston in 2013 which is an obvious staged event and possibly Sandy Hook in my opinion uh in 2013, 2012, 2013 and a number of others in the UK.
It's interesting you say Boston, yes.
You know all the ones they've done on bridges I think they're all staged Do you think there's some kind of occult symbolism in the use of bridges?
No, I think, well I'll tell you why I think they used bridges is if you look at the The Boston bombing, right, what happened there was, there was at the end of the Boston Marathon, so it was in a built-up area with lots of tower blocks, right, and it just so happened that there were two people in two of those tower blocks who had mobile phones, and they took, two different people took sequences of high-definition images.
As soon as the blast happened, they started taking photographs.
Okay, so there's two sets of photographs from two different angles which show a lot of detail of what happened, and that was what enabled the guy to make the film to expose it all.
Without those photographs, it would probably not have been exposed as well as it was.
So, because there were buildings alongside of the marathon, that's exposed the whole hoax, right?
So, if you want to do your false flag in a city, like London, for example, Bridge is the only place that doesn't have buildings running alongside of it.
So all you have to do is close the bridge at each end very momentarily to stop the traffic that isn't part of the operation going along and there's no one can get a photograph of it.
So that's why they've done it on bridges.
I see.
And actually while we're on this subject, where are you on sort of Bataclan and The various French attacks.
I'm not one of these researchers who sort of looks at everything and tries to... I'll go into certain things and get my teeth into it and go into the level of detail.
I'm aware of it.
I don't know any of the details of it.
So I've not looked at it.
How did you get into this?
How did I get into it?
Well, it started with an interest in ufology, in the subject of UFOs, which sort of stemmed from my interest in engineering.
So I first got interested, there was a whistleblower called Bob Lazar who claimed to know how flying saucers worked, and claimed that he'd worked on them at Area 51, and he put forward this explanation of how the physics of how this craft worked.
And it just fascinated me.
So for several years, I was interested in that subject.
And then when I eventually got a slot at Edge Media Television, that's mainly what I was sort of discussing and reporting on UFO cases.
That's what Rich Planet was set up originally to look at.
And then having got involved with Edge Media in 2008, 2009,
I then started discovering other things such as 9-11 and that would be the first thing that really opened my eyes when I met Andrew Johnson and Dr. Judy Wood and from then I became interested in just the deception in general and high-level cover-ups, high-level crime that goes right to the top.
Crime which is not done by members of the public or Even organized crime, for example.
I'm not really interested in that.
I'm interested where the malfeasance is at the highest level.
At a government level.
And so if you look at the films that I've made, generally they are, they're not necessarily just looking at false flags or what have you.
They're just looking at cover-ups or anything where the perpetrators have been completely deceptive.
Uh, sometimes it's organized from the start, like Manchester, I reckon there was at least a year's planning went into that, whereas something like the Gildando assassination, that happened, that was unexpected, so that, in other words, the security services or whoever have organized the cover-up, they're just getting into gear, as soon as the event happens, similar with Madeleine McCann, that was another one, that wasn't planned in advance, that was a cover-up which happened after an unexpected event.
Yeah, so... It hasn't made you very popular with the powers that be, has it?
Yeah, well, we don't get born onto this planet to win popularity contests.
Well, I don't.
Same.
I think we have that in common.
I mean, to me it's like I feel such disgust that they would even try to fool me in that way.
That they've got the arrogance to think that with this trick they're going to fool me.
You're not going to fool me.
You're not going to get away with it.
I'm going to expose you.
Don't try and fool me.
Don't try and think you're cleverer than me.
Just stop this shit.
It's pathetic.
It's arrogant.
But people don't realise the reach that these security services have and the power that they have.
They have power over all of the emergency services, if they want to.
They're untouchable by the law.
They can set up fake companies.
They can set up fake websites.
They can infiltrate anyone.
You know, the reach and the scope of the intelligence agencies is something which your average man on the street has got no appreciation of.
The people working for them.
I mean, when I was at university, I felt very disappointed that they didn't try and recruit me to MI5 or MI6.
I thought it would be a kind of badge of honor because in those days I believed in all the kind of the James Bond narrative, you know, that these people worked for the country and that, you know, and I believed in the union flag and all that.
The people that they recruit, do you think that it's because they're psychopaths or is it because they are decent people who want to do good and then get corrupted?
They get sucked into the system and realize that in order to get on they have to do things that previously they would have Considered unethical.
Yeah, I think that well, the first thing that they look at is how intelligent someone is that's very important to them But after that, I think that the type of personality that they have would be then placed into particular projects or particular You know to do certain things.
I mean one interesting book you can look at is em.
Oh So my shelf Richard, um Richard Tomlinson, he started off as an MI6 agent, right?
Which he described in his book, normal work, spying on Iranians to see whether they're developing nuclear weapons and this sort of thing.
But gradually he got more and more disillusioned with it, so he was being asked to do more nefarious things, and eventually he ended up running away from them.
You know, I think they arrested him or they tried to arrest him.
So that book sort of gives you a picture as to how someone who starts working for them, how their career can pan out and then become.
The other thing you have to realize, I think, is that people who organize the Manchester incident probably don't think they've done anything wrong.
They would just say, look, These terrorist attacks may happen.
So if we test our security services with a dummy one and fool the media and fool the public, then we'll be better prepared for an actual one.
So it was a good exercise, even though we duped everyone.
That's the way they would look at it.
So if you notice what came out of the inquiry, they said, oh, this service wasn't fast enough to do this, and they failed here and they failed there.
Even though the emergency services were deliberately held back, they would say it was maybe a learning exercise in how to manage the media, a learning exercise in how to manage all different aspects for people who thought it was real.
But then that, to me, that's... it's not good enough.
It's not good enough to do something like that just for that purpose.
To try and dupe the entire population.
It's just morally completely wrong and they shouldn't be doing it.
Yes, I think we agree on that one.
I don't think they think, oh ha ha ha, I'm like an evil... I'm doing evil.
No, I don't think...
I don't think they think that.
I think they just think they're going to their job.
And bear in mind also that each one of them will have a very tightly defined part of that role.
You know, you'll have one person who might be transcribing someone's phone calls.
You might have one person who's just trying to recruit the actors.
You might have one person, you know what I mean?
So they're all just doing one tiny part of the project.
I mean, who's at the very top?
Because If you look at the numerology that was put into the Manchester incident, the number 22 is everywhere.
I don't think anyone can look at the data and not think that they've deliberately put that number in.
It's everywhere.
And you think, well, why would... if I was organizing such an event like that, right, I wouldn't lumber myself with having to place the number 22.
You know, all of the hearings and everything were always on the 22nd.
Every news release was on the 22nd.
There were 22 people arrested.
There was 22 pieces of shrapnel.
It's everywhere.
It's clearly obviously being put in there.
Now, why would you lumber yourself with the task of, not only is it so tricky to organize, but also insert that number for some sort of a cult reason?
So, it makes me think that the person who's ordered it, or the organization that has ordered it, has said, yeah, and by the way, you need to put this number in.
They're not getting their hands dirty with it.
Do you see what I mean?
It's sort of a requirement from outside.
We are occultists and we want this number throughout.
We want this message embedded within the whole thing.
I don't think the thing was hatched in the UK.
There's a lot of American influence in it, but that still doesn't mean it was hatched in America.
I mean, obviously the alleged terrorist was from Libya, so you have to suspect some possible Israeli involvement if they're trying to demonize Libya, a state that Israel would want to... Well, I don't think they were... They'd already removed Qaddafi.
And I don't think they were happy with the way it was going after they'd removed him.
So they still wanted more military activity and I think that was one of the motives for it.
Because drone strikes went up massively in Libya after the Manchester event.
So it was used as an excuse for further military activity in Libya.
But I don't think that was the only motive.
You have to suspect a possible Israeli involvement in the In requesting the operation, I think.
Right.
Or even though I think the US were involved as well.
Well, this seems to be the case, that there seems to be this sort of Israel, the US and the UK.
The sort of dirty triad, whatever you want to call them.
They've got their fingerprints over everything, haven't they?
Yeah.
And there was an argument that really, despite the sort of the rift in 1776, that really America is just continuation British deep state and also the City of London is the real controller of everything and that and that.
Yeah.
Yeah, I can mention that later in relation to Joe Cox actually.
Yeah.
Oh good.
I'm just on the number 22.
I mean, I'm familiar with 33 as one of their favorite numbers and obviously they love 666 as well.
Have you looked into what 22 means?
Not really.
I think it means the work ethic or, you know, the... in Freemasonry.
Somebody told me that.
But I don't... I haven't dwelled too long on it.
There's so much evidence to look at.
Yeah.
It's the sort of thing that Olly Damagard would look at, isn't it?
It probably is.
But this is why I'm grateful to you and Ole, because there's not many, as you know, down the rabbit hole, there are people with all manner of specialities.
Some people talk about flat Earth, some people talk about, I don't know, moon landings, you know, bartzibrel.com.
But there are very few Who are really looking into into false flags.
It's quite a niche area, and it is definitely one of those areas where people Even awake people cannot quite believe that this is actually happening.
They cannot believe, for example, that the CIA has whole villages or even towns full of crisis actors ready to be deployed for any given operation.
It just boggles the mind.
Yeah, I think people think that word maybe isn't the right word because Um, it's my opinion that when they use people, they're not actual actors.
You know, you can't find them listed on an actor's website or something like that.
You know, I do Shakespeare and I also do a bit of crisis work.
You know, they're not, they're just normal members of the public.
Who have agreed to pretend to lie down and play injured with a minimal amount of coaching.
Because that's all that's required.
They're not actual actors.
They're members of the public who, for either money or other methods of motivating people, have agreed to just take part and just be a member of the public in that situation.
That's my opinion on it, anyway.
Yeah, but you say that that's all they've got to do, they've just got to kind of act sort of semi-realistically for it.
But of course, beyond that, they then have to retreat from the public eye.
They've got to disappear, basically.
I mean, you analyse this on your documentary.
Well, you're talking about the ones that may have They've said her deceased, yeah?
Yes.
Obviously, that's a whole... They're not crisis actors.
That's a whole different, I would say, project in finding someone who... I mean, the security services do this all the time.
They give people new identities.
So, for example, Maxine Carr, you know, she got let out of prison.
The girlfriend of the guy who allegedly did the Sawn murders.
They give her a new identity.
No, I think they do this a lot more than people realise, and they do it for letting people out of prison.
So for example, you might have a paedophile who's been in prison, they can't put him anywhere, they can't name him in public otherwise he's going to get killed or whatever, so they'll put him in another country or another place that changes their identity, maybe even plastic surgery.
So they're already very well versed in how to remove someone from where they are, put them somewhere else, so no one realises who they used to be.
be.
That's something that they, so that's a different, that's not, they're not crisis actors, that's something that's planned in advance I think.
Yes.
Well, OK, so how many died?
Was it 22 by any chance?
Yeah, 22.
Yeah.
OK.
Funny that.
And they were each killed by 22 bits of shrapnel?
Well, no, one of them had 22 bits of shrapnel in his body.
Yeah.
But we haven't seen them all.
Yeah.
The one I remember, because the one that I was encouraged to remember by our lying media, was little Safi... whatever.
Yeah.
And she was the youngest victim, we were told.
So... Yeah.
Presumably, she is now living... what?
No.
No.
No, James.
No.
Okay.
Oh, that's... I suspect Safi Roussos died earlier.
That's my opinion, right?
Interesting.
A mother's hand injuries are consistent with injuries obtained from a car crash.
There you go.
That's my opinion, that a mother's hand injuries are consistent with a car crash.
Right.
Okay.
Okay.
Yeah, I mean, I could make a few points to ask you a few things, James, if that's alright?
Oh, I'd love it.
Love you too, yeah.
Yeah, okay.
Cos, uh, you might find this funny, actually.
You were writing for the Telegraph, wasn't it?
Yes.
Yeah, The Telegraph.
And, you know, people have sent me a few of your articles saying, and this is probably back in 2010, 2011, somewhere around that time, saying, you know, this guy's, you know, he's talking about certain things that, you know, that I would cover, and he seems to be trying to get the mainstream into more, you know, alternative thinking.
And I would look at them and I think, no, no.
He's just appeasing people and he's limited hangout, this guy.
And then what happened was you got interviewed by Alex G on the Edge.
Remember that?
You did an interview.
Right.
Edge Media Television.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Yeah.
So you did an interview on there, remember?
But I can't remember what I was talking about.
Well, I think it was just conspiracy theories in general.
Right.
And I remember emailing, Alex G was the presenter, and I emailed him, I sent him a snotty email, saying, why have you got that mainstream journalist on your show?
He's just come there to have a nose, and to look down on you, you know, so there you go.
But obviously, I can see the change, I can see the change, you know, which you often speak about.
I think that I was waking up unbeknownst to myself.
For example, I used to have this column on The Spectator where I could talk about anything I liked.
This went on for a long time and it was really popular.
And then I noticed something changed and they started being much more controlling about what, you know, much more critical about my chosen topics.
And I was thinking, but, but, but I'm me, I'm just, you know, James doing my James thing.
And they got more and more censorious and difficult until eventually they took my column away from me.
And at the time, I was mystified.
I was thinking, look, I'm really popular and what's wrong with me?
You're doing yourself a disservice here.
I'm one of your best writers, which I was.
I mean, I'm bloody good at what I do.
And looking back with three years hindsight, I now realize that I was starting to go in the direction that they really Could not cope with.
And I didn't realize I was going in that direction yet.
But here I am, like, talking to you.
But I can see, you see, this is a problem, isn't it?
That what I don't know what you want, you want to call the people who believe the stuff you believe, you know, the awake community or whatever.
But Well, number one, we are completely filled with infiltrators, limited hangout, controlled opposition, gatekeepers and stuff.
And half of us don't want to believe this.
They want to believe we're all happy family.
And the other half are so uber suspicious that they look at people like me and go, well, he's an asset.
There's no way that he can't be an asset because look at who his friends with at Oxford and stuff.
I mean, I think this paranoia needs to be our natural state because we are so happy.
So I don't blame you for suspecting me.
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah, you can never know with anybody, really.
And Dr. Judy Wood, she says, well, it doesn't matter whether they're an agent or an operative or not.
What matters is how they behave and what they're doing.
Because you can have someone who's not an operative who's just as damaging by their behavior.
So, obviously if someone is spying on you, that's not good.
But, yeah, it's... I had a go at Alex G. I said, you know... I actually tried to find the email the other day, but I don't have it.
It would have been quite funny to read that out.
But I was going to talk about the media... That's really funny.
Sorry, go on.
You're sorry?
I was gonna... I mean, have you ever been asked... No, I was thinking that... Sorry, James.
Go on.
I've lost you.
Have I ever been asked... Yeah, have you ever been asked to sort of take part in media hit pieces?
You know, when you... or take a particular biased view on a certain issue, or attack a particular person in a certain way?
Or were you left more to your own devices?
Do you know what?
Go on.
This is the really interesting thing.
I never was.
I mean, it's possible that my memory is deceiving me.
But I don't ever, in my time, and I was a journalist for what, like 30 years?
Getting on for 25 years, certainly.
I don't ever recall Being asked to do a piece that went against my ethics or where I was asked to say something I didn't believe in.
I mean, I remember, I remember, I remember that the male Once, because I used to do, I used to do features for the Mail, because they pay well.
But they tended to be on things like climate change and stuff.
But occasionally I'd do kind of pieces on sort of more general social issues.
So film and TV, for example.
And I remember once I was asked to do a hit job on, or you know, a sort of anti-piece on Jeremy Clarkson.
And at that time I was thinking, well, I'm in the market for a piece on why Jeremy's great and why he tells it like it is, but it's going to be a real, okay, even though you're going to pay me a thousand quid for this piece and it's going to take me a morning's work, so that's quite reasonable.
I mean, the mainstream pays quite well if you're a kind of a name writer.
I thought to myself, the problem about owning that thousand quid is that it's going to be really hard writing stuff that I don't really believe in, so I'm going to have to, you know, it's not worth the effort.
And I think maybe I got a reputation for being somebody who, it's a bit like your Tomlinson guy, that he doesn't want to do stuff that goes against his I don't know about principles, but is that the right word for using somebody who used to work for MI5?
I couldn't be arsed, basically, Richard.
I just thought, like, no, right?
And they're the ones who don't get bored.
Maybe that's why I never got to the next level.
I wouldn't play the game.
Well, I've had a few hit pieces written about me fairly recently, as you might know, and I look back at one of my older lectures and I actually talked about hit pieces in my lecture.
This was back in 2012, and what I thought I would do is I actually wrote a hit piece I thought, let's choose the nicest person in the country and see if we can do a hit piece on them, just to show people how easy it is to do a hit piece on somebody that everybody likes.
So I chose Bobby Charlton.
So I wrote the Bobby Charlton hit piece.
So I can read it out if you like.
Can I read it?
Yeah, go on then.
I didn't realise that I would be reading out hit pieces on myself ten years later, or twelve years later, so this is what I wrote.
So, the Bobby Charlton hit piece.
Aging ex-soccer player Bobby Charlton, 74, born in a north-east pit village to a family of peasant coal miners, is well known for his incomprehensible Geordie accent.
Having left his favourite pastime as a footballer at the age of 35, he hasn't done a day's work in his life, although some would question whether football can be considered work in the first place.
He tried football in 1973 with part-timers Preston Northend, who were soon relegated.
So poor was his record there, the following season he made himself play a manager, thinking he could sort out their problems on the pitch by reinstating his now ageing legs.
The following season he left, realising he couldn't manage a child's Christmas party, never mind a football team.
Totally unemployable and desperate, but wanting to continue to exploit football for money, he went begging back to the hugely rich Manchester United, where they took pity on him and made him a director.
A director of what, though, is not known, with him having so little to offer the club, although he seems to do well as a director of nothing with his five-bedroom detached house and top-of-the-range £30,000 Jag.
Last year Charlton was voted the fourth greatest Manchester United player of all time, but that's hardly an achievement when you consider the top three were adulterer Ryan Giggs, alcoholic George Best and karate-kick madman Eric Cantona.
Charlton has distanced himself from his wayward blood sport brother Jack who enjoys killing wild animals on a regular basis and was known for hacking players and occasionally breaking their legs.
So vain is Bobby Charlton that when he began to lose his hair in the early 1960s he refused to go bald gracefully sporting a style of stranded, isolated hairs which would often flop around when he was running before he would tug them back over his head.
This style is still known as the Bobby Charlton comb-over And is undoubtedly Charlton's only lasting contribution to society.
So that shows that you can that you can write negatively about anyone, really.
That's the risk.
Look, there is definitely a thing in in journalism that it's partly that You feel that if you're too nice about somebody, you're not doing your job.
Yeah.
So it's like, you don't want to be seen to be too credulous, too much of a suck up.
So there is maybe this instinct that leads you the other way.
I remember once I did a book review of a novel by Alan Titchmarsh.
And I mean, it wasn't a very good book.
I mean, you know, I mean, or rather, put it this way, it wasn't the kind of book that I like.
But then you see, the thing is, I like Russian, classic Russian literature, you know, I mean, I studied English literature at university.
So of course, if you give Alan Titchmarsh's sort of romantic slush novel to an Oxford English literature graduate, of course you're going to get an unfavorable review.
It wasn't like I wanted to get Titchmarsh.
It's just that I was responding to the book with irritation because I just wasted however many hours of my life reading this slush.
So you see how it works.
I have nothing against Alan Titchmarsh.
And since I've met him, and he was a lovely, lovely man.
He is a lovely man.
I'm sure he is.
And I really regret having done it.
Yeah, yeah.
I actually had a go at Alan Titchmarsh in one of my lectures, where, what it was, they were building a garden for a dead bloke, right, so this guy had died, right, and they said to this family, well, what, you know, what would you like to remember him by?
Let's build a beautiful garden.
So it had a hot tub in it, it had like a little house in it, and it had louvered blinds, and a 100-year-old olive tree.
Right, so this garden cost, you know, sort of 20 grand to build.
And my argument was, they're trying to encourage people to spend as much money on funerals as they do on weddings.
So this was a psyop, in my opinion.
To get people into debt, basically.
Because people who watch that program would feel really guilty that they didn't do that for their dead father.
Oh no, we need to... Dad's died, we need to build a garden like Alan Titchmarsh did and spend £20,000 or £30,000 on his funeral.
So to me, it was feeding materialism, this program with Titchmarsh.
Even though he probably didn't realize that that is a possible motive for that program.
And I remember underneath there was an article in the newspaper and underneath the article about this building of this dead person's garden was an advert for loans.
So I'm saying that there's another agenda to that program.
But yeah, I'm sure he's a nice guy and I'm sure he doesn't realize he's encouraging totally unnecessary levels of materialism.
It's very similar to what you said about the people involved in the charade.
Everything is so compartmentalized that everyone thinks that what they're doing makes sense and is reasonably okay.
If they saw the bigger picture I think they'd be horrified.
It kind of answers the question I was going to ask you, which is the journalists who are endorsing these lies by covering them in the news and critically in the newspapers.
But I think that a lot of them just don't simply don't know.
I never knew.
I never knew that the media was a lie machine when I was when I was involved in it.
I really didn't.
I mean, maybe I was incredibly naive.
But I think I think there are a lot of a lot of people in most most people in the media don't know how corrupt and mendacious the media actually is.
Yeah, yeah.
I mean, I think if you look at mainstream TV, there's certain key people who know, and they know what they're doing is quote-unquote evil, and is deceptive, and is manipulative, and sometimes they're the most cosy presenters.
People like, oh, what's her name, the Scottish one, I'm not very good at retaining names and information.
I've got quite a small hard drive in my brain.
I've got quite a good processor, but a small hard drive.
Unlike Alex Thompson, who's got a massive hard drive.
He amazes me, Alex Thompson, with the amount of knowledge that he has and how he uses his knowledge.
But I forget the woman's name.
Ah, let me think now.
Is this going to be edited?
I'm really just doing live stuff.
That's a name.
That's a name.
Yeah, or someone like... Or, you know, there's an army of them.
And a lot of them...
On the outside they look cuddly and completely unoffensive but they're just operatives in my opinion.
They're just serving the agenda and they know it.
That's my opinion.
But I think some of them not so much.
But I think the key front players on this daytime television and people who present political programs and that kind of thing They all know what they're doing.
They know exactly what they're doing.
They know they're not trying to present truth.
They realise that that's the last thing that they're seeking, really.
They're seeking to satisfy the agenda of the organisation that they're working for.
And they're very well paid for it.
Yeah, yeah.
Um, what I was going to do is just, because there's a hit piece, or a number of hit pieces being written on me, I was just going to highlight a few things in this, in this hit piece.
Is that okay for me to do that, James?
Yes, do.
I'm very interested in how they've tried to...
This was quite a long piece.
It was over 2,000 words.
It's a mail-on-line.
So it starts with the words, Britain's cruelest troll.
So that's me, Britain's cruelest troll.
But they put it in single quotes.
You know what that's for, don't you?
In single quotes, it's like, well, we didn't say that.
We didn't say that.
In other words, it's a quote from somewhere else.
So Britain's cruelest troll who has spread conspiracy theories about Maddy McCann 9-11 and the murder of MP Joe Cox could be made to pay for his lies.
So because they put it in single quotes, that means that it's not their statement.
If they hadn't put those quotes in, then they would be calling me Britain's cruelest troll, which is defamatory.
But because they've put it in single quotes, they say, oh, we got it from another publication, we put it in quotes.
And it says here that he has written a book.
I'm not going to read it all.
I'll just read a few bits and pieces.
He has written a book, made a film, given talks with over 16 million views and has 80,000 YouTube subscribers.
Now, I was very careful with YouTube.
I didn't put any Manchester material.
There was no Manchester material on YouTube because I knew that certain subjects, if I was to upload it, I would have the chance of my channel being removed.
But what happened was the BBC contacted YouTube.
and told them about my book and film etc and then YouTube just removed the whole channel even though there was nothing on there was nothing on my YouTube channel about Manchester.
What I was doing is using YouTube as a host to host some of the less controversial videos and using a different host or different hosts for the more controversial ones but the website Um, you know, it just shows the window there so it can get the video from any stream.
But, you know, I had a lot of subscribers and that would generate a lot of views, so it is quite annoying that they did that.
They had no right to do it, because I didn't break any community guidelines.
I'd only uploaded two videos in the last two previous years to YouTube.
I was using another host.
One of them was about smart money, and the other one was about British history.
So, yeah, that's just a comment on people having their YouTube channels removed, because obviously I'm not the only one.
And it says, step forward Richard D. Hall.
A man whose attempts to make a name and money out of Miss Bridget's predicament and that of others caught up in the bomb are almost impossible to comprehend.
So it's accusing me of making money out of journalism, which, you know, the person who's written this article will have been paid to write it, and journalists expect to get paid.
And I remember back in Sort of, yeah.
It would have been 2011 when I was making TV programs for Edge Media Television.
They weren't paying anyone.
Everyone was working voluntarily producing these TV programs.
But there was always a promise.
They would say, well, once our viewing figures get up, the advertising revenue, you will be able to get paid.
And it never came, you know, they didn't make any money.
And at one point I remember sitting down and thinking to myself, they're never going to pay me.
I'm never going to get paid for doing this.
So I thought, right, I need to generate income stream out of this if I want to do it professionally and do it absolutely full time.
So I identified the two areas.
One was to do public speaking tours and the other was to get a decent online shop together.
To sell merchandise which are linked to my program.
So whenever I get a guest on the program, I do always look to see if they've written any books or got anything that they can, and I will buy a box of books off them.
I'll say, right, I'll buy a box of books off you.
That goes on the site, and then it augments the show then.
So there's a selection of products which link to the different shows.
So all of the material is free.
There's over 300 videos on there.
Everything's completely free.
But if the person wants to purchase a product, they can.
And obviously if you're going to travel all around the country giving lectures people expect to come and pay you because you've got the expense of getting there and all the rest of it.
So that was another revenue stream that I took on board and I managed to make a full-time living from those revenue streams to then provide all of the videos for free.
I've never charged for a video.
When I make a new film what I would normally do is I would put the film out on DVD Sell it as a as a pre-sale so in other words people can buy it before it's produced for maybe two months and then they get the video delivered and Then it's for sale for six weeks after that and then after six weeks after it's been released It then goes online for free.
So, you know, that's not an unreasonable thing and that's not It's not attempting to make lots of money.
It's attempting to Make a living, so you don't have to go and work in another job, so you can do it professionally.
And, you know, you've got articles like this saying that I'm attempting to make money out of other people's misery and all the rest of it.
So, when Mariana Springs said that, I made my book free as a free download.
So you can get the Manchester book free now, because I've been accused of making money.
Sorry, James.
Can I interrupt you there, Richard?
Yes, yes.
You really, really, really don't even need to entertain for one fraction of a second the idea that what you're doing is remotely wrong.
And I personally, and I think a lot of people watching this will feel the same, think you should be earning ten times as much for what you do.
I think I was listening to, a few years ago, Listening to one of Bill Cooper's old chats and he was asking the question, why are newscasters like Walter Cronkite paid so much money?
How could it possibly be that these people who just read from a script into a camera Whatever why are they why are they earning you know i don't know how much he was paid probably millions of dollars even even then and he said it's very simple it's because.
They are part of the control mechanism.
That's the only reason that they're polluting people's brains with this false narrative.
What you're doing is the very opposite of this.
You're actually cleaning out people's systems.
You know, you're like a kind of antivirus software.
So really, you know, you should be worth whatever McAfee was worth before he He disappeared.
Yeah, I mean, you know, I'm not in this game to make money.
If I wanted to make more money, I could go back and become a professional engineer again and make three times or four times what I make doing this.
So that's never been the motive.
The motive, the frustration of not being able to do it full time, the frustration of then having to go and do other work, do web design work or whatever work I was doing at the time.
That was so frustrating to have to go and do other work in order to earn money to be able to do this work.
So, yeah, I've managed to be able to make a living, and no more than that.
The way that they write these articles, it's pathetic, really.
I'll read the next line.
These articles... Oh, yes, carry on.
It's not the next line, but I'm just picking out bits of this hit piece.
It says, the 55... Sorry, the 55-year-old son of a chicken farmer I'll come on to that.
Well, I never use the term deep state.
the Manchester bombing took place.
He believes it is a deep state plot and that many who claimed to have been injured were simply crisis actors playing a scripted role.
Well, I never use the term deep state.
That's not one of my terms.
My father graduated from Durham University in mining engineering.
He did a degree in mining engineering and became a pit under manager.
So he's in charge of the whole coal mine, you know.
And then he got a job in engineering managing a factory producing car clutches.
So he's a professional engineer.
The 55-year-old son of a chicken farmer.
You can see why they're using that language.
It's just sort of, well, this guy's just some hillbilly who's been brought up on a farm.
It's quite amusing, really.
It's how they roll.
He has written a book, made a film, and given talks on the subject.
As recently as mid-October, he had more than 16 million views, blah, blah, blah.
Sorry about that.
I'll have to nip off again in about 20 minutes, because I've got to turn it over.
Is that a codeword?
Is that an air by five codeword?
I've got to go and put a chicken in the oven.
Does it mean something else?
Yeah, I've got to put 22 chickens in the oven, Richard.
Yes, yes, then it would be a codeword, yeah.
Exactly.
What were we talking about?
Oh yeah, it was you.
Yeah.
Was this Mariana Spring, by the way?
Not that wrote this one.
This is written by some male online journalist.
Let me just read this, because you've got to bear in mind that they're criticizing me for knocking on someone's door and trying to just ask information.
Now, they said I was approaching victims, OK?
There was one victim for a specific reason that I went to try and see.
But this one, it was the mother of the victim I was trying to talk to, who didn't even answer the door.
So all I've done is gone and knocked on the door, That wasn't answered, right?
So, these journalists, these male online journalists, they've gone to my dead parents' street to try and dig up dirt on me from my dead parents' neighbours, right?
Now, I wouldn't stop them doing that.
They can knock on anyone's door, they want to.
They can ask anyone any question about me, I wouldn't stop them.
And I'm free to do the same, but this is what they said.
Raised in a village in County Durham, he was one of three children born to a poultry farmer and his wife.
So get the farmer in, just to try and create this image in the person's head.
The whole family is very well thought of here, a former neighbour of his now-deceased parents, told Mail last week.
Ellis and Maureen ran their farm for many years and were good, honest, hard-working people.
Nothing in his upbringing could have led Richard to the place where he is now.
Indeed, Hall's early years were full of promise.
Having graduated in 1990 with a degree in electrical engineering from Newcastle University, he worked as a design engineer, reportedly including stints with Rolls-Royce.
More recently, he has worked as a web designer.
I got a scholarship and a sponsorship with a good company called NEI, Northern Engineering Industries, and that company was bought by Rolls-Royce in 1989, and I worked there until 2000.
So I worked for Rolls-Royce for 11 years continuously.
I didn't have Stints with Rolls-Royce, so it's just little subtle things like that that they, and then the next sentence is, but at the same time he developed a fascination with UFOs, so they get the UFO tin hat thing in there, setting up a website dedicated to sightings and alien abductions.
So in doing so, he appears to have become convinced that the government and the media have covered up the truth about extraterrestrial encounters.
And then they go on about the question that I asked David Cameron in 2009, which is quite an interesting clip, where I challenged David Cameron on UFOs.
So they mention that as well.
So yeah, it's...
It's laughable.
Give me one second.
What was the point being that they went to my dead parents street to dig up dirt on me to write an article about me going to someone's house to try and speak to someone.
So they're doing exactly the same thing.
Yeah.
Although, to be fair, it's better than being assassinated.
I mean, basically, for people like you and me, they've got Two options, haven't they?
Either you off them, which I suppose they still could do, or you discredit them.
And it seems to me that the current fashion is for discrediting rather than for assassinating.
Well, certainly it doesn't seem to have worked with me, because if you go onto the BBC's own YouTube channel, where there's a 6 o'clock news item all about me and what I've done, and if you go and read the comments under there, there are about 2,500 comments, and 95% of them are all supporting me.
And that's on the BBC's own YouTube channel.
And on Twitter as well, Mariana Spring has been... She doesn't even go on Twitter now.
She can't go on Twitter because she just gets attacked straight away.
So, it hasn't worked in my opinion.
It might work for the person who doesn't look past Mail Online, but... Did Mariana Spring try to... She did something on you, didn't she?
Yeah, well initially she sent about 11 emails trying to get me to agree to go on Panorama and I made it clear that I didn't want to go on Panorama and in my emails I said please don't contact me again and then after me telling her not to contact me again she turned up at my market stall so she travelled all the way to Wales and I wouldn't stop anyone doing that and then she shoved a microphone in front of my face asking me questions but the point is I'd specifically told her not
That I did not want to speak to her again.
And so really, if someone said that to me, I wouldn't try and approach them again.
So again, she's doing exactly the same thing that she's trying to accuse me of, which is just approaching someone to try and find information.
You were very wise not to engage.
I mean, obviously, you know, they'll stitch you up like a kipper, because that's what they do.
And that's what the BBC does.
I mean, I had the experience of that a few years ago.
And also, I had an accompanying hit piece on me in The Guardian, not The Mail.
And I felt the same Exasperation, if that's the right word, as you did.
Reading these, seeing how words can be just on the right side of not being libelous, but saying things which are just simply not true.
I mean, and you feel awful, but you feel like you've been, well, you've been abused, but that of course is the point.
You're meant to feel Diminished.
You're meant to feel dispirited.
They're designed to hurt.
Yeah, well, in a way, it's a badge of honour if someone writes a hit piece on you, isn't it?
What?
Yeah, it doesn't feel that way at the time, but yeah, I agree with hindsight.
I mean, they're very unimaginative in as much as they use the same techniques again and again and again.
Yeah, I mean you said you feel bad about it when you read it.
The way I look at things is you mustn't think that way.
If you're playing chess and someone makes a move that you don't like, you're not going to start crying about it.
You're going to try and come up with a better move yourself.
And if you start getting emotional, You're not.
Your strategy is going to be affected.
And so I just look at this as a chess move.
OK, they've done a hit piece, right?
What's my next move?
You know, the emotions must be detached when you're in this information war.
This is what it is.
It's an information war.
And becoming upset over things is, you know, you've just got to brush it off and work on your next move.
Yeah, yeah.
It's very odd to think how... When was the Manchester...?
As an engineer, because I've been in situations as an engineer where, you know, it's pissing down with rain, and you've got some circuit that's not working, and you've been sent to fix it, or you've been sent to analyse it, and you just, you know, there's problems at home or whatever, You have to keep a clear head.
It's that system of thinking when you're an engineer that all emotion is just excluded while you're doing that job.
You can't let emotion come into it.
It has to be pure logic and facts and knowledge and apply that and then make the decision based on that, not based on your emotions.
Yeah, you're absolutely right.
And I think actually it's one of, as a, you know, just as sort of somebody who came, who saw you first when I wasn't so far down the rabbit hole, that anyone who is exposed to your research cannot but admire or at least respect how rigorous you are I mean I was going to say you're almost
you're almost normie friendly except you're not because what you're saying is it does not compute for those of a normie persuasion it's not that the facts that you present are not clear cut and well researched and neutrally stated You're very careful to describe things in the most matter-of-fact and yet rigorous way.
You don't sensationalize.
This is all great, but I've got I've got this phrase that you cannot truth bomb normies into awakeness.
No matter how compelling your evidence is, they'll always develop a coping mechanism in their head, which enables them to explain why what you're saying is plausible, but it can't be true.
Yeah, and not everyone's like that.
I think a good percentage of the population does have an open mind.
It's just that it's hard to reach them.
And this is what they're worried about.
They're worried about reach.
Uh, 80,000 YouTube subscribers.
Oh, right.
Right.
We'll take his channel down.
So that's highly concerning for them because if let's just say that you gave me the BBC channel for 24 hours to broadcast my stuff.
Could you imagine the, the change in society that would, that would ensue?
And they're worried that, that the people like myself and others are getting higher and higher reach online.
And this is why all of this new legislation is coming in.
With the online harms and what have you, so that they can regain control over the main lines of communication to the mass populace.
Yeah.
There was talk in that hit piece, I think, of sort of legal action against you, but It's not going to really come off, is it?
Because they'd have to rig the courts against you in order for them to have a case against you.
Yeah, there is legal action ongoing now, so I've got a hearing at the High Court on the 29th of January.
Alright, so they've brought a harassment case against me, and just to briefly summarize it, they're saying that my opinions amount to a harassment.
They're so far from the truth, according to them, that they amount to a harassment.
There's also a GDPR element to it as well.
Now, in order to defend my case, I need to present all my evidence about the Manchester incident.
And what they've done is they've applied for a summary judgment, which would mean that if they win that summary judgment, it means that I won't be allowed to present any of my evidence which shows what I believe happened at Manchester.
So that would be just banned from the actual trial.
And that's what they're trying to get now.
Can they do that?
Sorry?
It's in a case where they're trying to limit the time of the trial because they say, well, that argument that the defence is putting forward has no likelihood of success in a court and we don't think you've got any chance that that evidence is going to make any difference.
Therefore, it should be excluded from the trial.
And then a judge will make a decision as to whether that evidence should be allowed in the trial or not.
So, I mean, I probably have to let my barrister watch this interview to see what's okay to leave in or what's not.
So they're trying to get the case run without me presenting all of the evidence that I want to present.
And obviously, what they're going for, if I lose the case, it's an injunction, which would mean that certain things would probably have to come off the internet.
I wouldn't be able to say certain things, possibly, and there's a lot of money involved as well.
So it's £50,000 plus costs, which their costs are probably going to be quite high.
So if I was to lose, it would be a lot of money and a curtailment of my freedom of expression.
So, yeah, and I'm fighting it.
I've had a lot of donations and I feel well equipped to be able to defend it.
In a slightly different way from Alex Jones and Sandy Hook.
I mean, I think it's obvious to anyone who's looked into Sandy Hook that That case was designed to shut down discussion of false flags by the frightening figures involved.
I haven't looked too closely at the Alex Jones case, but I have my doubts about how real that is.
I mean, why would Jones concede that the thing wasn't a staged attack?
Why wouldn't he conduct his defence on that basis if that's what he thinks?
That doesn't make sense.
And the amount of money that they're talking about makes no sense as well.
I mean, it's 800 million.
That just seems ridiculous.
I don't, I have my doubts about whether that is a real trial.
Somebody actually said to me… I don't think... Yeah.
Somebody actually said to me that they thought that The whole Alex Jones thing was, it's not a real trial, there's something phony about it, in order to put the shits up everyone else, or in order to set an example that this is the kind of money you're talking about if you start questioning state narratives.
So that when a court looks at say my case, They'll be more influenced by the Jones case.
So they'll say, well, ah, there was a case in America where this guy said this event was staged, and look what happened to him.
He had to pay $800 million.
So they're trying to set a precedent with a phony case in order to influence cases in the future such as my own.
I'm not sure how genuine the... I'm not saying it isn't a genuine case, but certainly there are certain question marks in my head over it, and over Alex Jones.
I'm not saying he hasn't put out a lot of good information.
He has.
I think that analysis is on the money.
I mean, that's exactly what I... If you'd asked me about that case, that's the explanation I would have given.
I don't think Alex Jones is... He's an asset.
I mean, he's not... He's not you.
He's not real.
I think... Go back and look...
But, if you go back to 2000, when he was quite young, he was still in his mid-twenties then, when he was just starting out really, and he was fear-mongering about, can you remember the Millennium Bug?
Remember the Millennium?
So this was at the change over the Millennium people were worried that all sorts of computer systems were going to crash and he did a program about that in 1999 and he was fear-mongering about it all he was saying that there was going to be nuclear power plants were going to have problems and he was exaggerating it and Bill Cooper did a Did a piece on Alex Jones, calling him out, calling him as a CIA asset.
CIA asset.
And if you listen to that program that Bill Cooper did on Alex Jones back in 99, 2000 and make your own mind up.
Because he stayed around for a long time, Alex Jones, and I don't know whether he's compromised or not, but I don't even buy his voice.
I think he puts that on.
I think it discredits him, that silly voice that he puts on.
I don't think that's his real voice.
Well, by design... He just sounds like an idiot when he talks.
Well of course there is the Alex Jones is Bill Hicks rabbit hole which... I don't buy any of that.
Two different people.
But you're right, I don't think he's... everything about that case stinks and I think also
His recent rehabilitation by Twitter and via an interview with Tucker Carlson and I've got a lot of time for Tucker Carlson but I think he's an asset too in a different way and you look at... Yeah, there are some good things I've heard him say but... Alex Jones is obviously a very... Yeah, sorry, go on.
Yeah.
Alex Jones is obviously a very intelligent man.
I've heard him interviewed on German Warfare and he's thoughtful and he's informed.
He's not stupid.
But it's very interesting listening to what information he's giving out and what the slant is.
And the slant on his Tucker Carlson interview is China is the big threat and I've noticed this with quite a few of these more prominent people supposedly on our side in America particularly.
You'll hear them pointing the finger at China.
In other words, look away from what's going on with our own You know domestically domestically generated problems.
I mean, I do think that that sort of that power nexus between the UK the US and Israel is probably the most dangerous.
I don't feel threatened by China in nearly the same same way.
Yeah, but the thing the thing is they're all using the same tools to bring about technocracy.
So they're all you they're all the all sides want CBDC all sides.
agree on climate change.
All sides are manufacturing things with false terrorism.
All sides want global identity.
So they're all going in the same direction no matter which side you're on.
So it doesn't matter that you've got the BRICS, which is sort of the non-Western new banking system that's been set up.
People say, oh, it's going against the axis that you just described, but they're going in the same direction eventually.
I'll just make a point about investigations, James, if that's OK.
There's a genre that they call true crime and a lot of people are interested in true crime.
They're interested in how crimes are organized and how criminals are caught and the gory details of various criminals and what have you.
It's a very popular area.
But what a lot of people in true crime don't realize is that on some occasions the police are not trying to solve a crime.
They are prevented from solving a crime from above.
So you get these unsolved crimes which are not unsolved crimes.
And your true crime people will believe that they're just too hard to solve and the police haven't managed to solve them because the perpetrators were too clever or there isn't enough evidence or what have you.
But what happens in a cover-up?
And a few of my films can be characterized as this.
So the Madeline cover-up, the Jill Dando cover-up, the Joe Cox thing, and also I did a film about the Didcot murders.
All those cases, the police were not trying to solve those cases.
What happened there, there's a high-level cover-up above the level of the police.
So when you have a situation like that, that no one has actually tried to solve the case, and you go into it, right?
Sometimes it's very easy to solve, because no one's actually tried to solve it.
And there's evidence hanging around there which, if you care to go and get it, you can solve the case yourself.
So with the Madeleine case, the Portuguese police released their files five years after the incident, and all the answers were in there.
And with the Dando case, I just started looking through the Crimewatch videos and looked at the last video that she made, because I was convinced that it was most likely that her death was to do with her role on Crimewatch and something that she may have covered, and the answer just came straight out.
Straight out.
So, this is what the true crime people need to realise.
That not all crimes are in a category where they are even allowed to be addressed or solved.
And, you know, I've looked at some of these and they can be quite easy to solve because no one has been allowed to even look at the evidence.
And if you go on my website, just down the left-hand panel there, there's a section I've created called True Crimes.
True Crime.
Because I get a lot of emails from people who say, Richard, investigate this case.
It's dodgy because of this.
I think the government are involved.
And they'll write me an email.
I've kept all those emails.
And I've compiled them all into this database.
So you click on true crime you'll see hundreds of cases spanning the last 30 or 40 years of all cases that the public think there's been some sort of corruption either police corruption at a police level or at a higher government level where the case has been You know, the wrong conclusion has been reached in the case, and there's hundreds of them.
There's hundreds of dodgy cases that, on the crime writer's shelves, would be just described as an unsolved case.
But they're not unsolved, because no one's actually tried to solve them yet.
They are unaddressed cases, or cover-ups.
So they're not unsolved.
Okay.
No one's tried to solve them.
They've been run up the wrong avenue of evidence, or they've been run into a ditch.
And there's a lot more cases than people realise.
And the purpose of this is what?
Is it to keep the public in a state of fear that there are all these murderers out there that are on the loose?
Or is it because...
the...
Yeah, well, you'd have to look at each case individually.
There are different reasons why a crime might not be allowed to be solved.
So, in my opinion, in the Gildando case, it was because she found out some evidence, or was party to some evidence, connected to the London nail bombings, the David Copeland nail bombings.
So, I think she knew the identity of the bomber before he planted the second and third bomb.
And they were actually allowing him to plant those bombs, right?
So, with that one, that would be the reason, but with other cases, it's possibly just at a level of police corruption.
So, for example, there's another case in those files, I can't remember the girl's name, where she, her crime was unsolved, she was found murdered, but she'd been dating a high-ranking police officer.
And his name had been kept out of the story.
So that's probably a police corruption case, where the police themselves, internally, will run an investigation.
Or, for example, there was a guy in Wales who was alleged to have killed two children and a woman in a house fire.
Di Morris, his name is.
And he died in prison not long ago, right?
But he was in prison since, I think, 2000 or 2001.
And everyone says he's innocent, and all the evidence suggests that he's innocent, but they allege that it was a police officer who actually did that murder.
Right?
So, that's a low-level corruption case where a guy's ended up in prison for over 20 years and he had no involvement in it.
So, there's different reasons.
So, I mean, the Madeleine reason for that is very dark and I'd probably rather not go into it, but there are reasons why crimes aren't actually addressed or they're not trying to solve them, they're trying to do something else with them.
Yeah.
I mean, sometimes, you know, sometimes it's a psyop.
I mean, I believe, I suspect the Nicola Bully case.
I mean, I don't know what happened there, but it looks like a psyop to me.
It looks like it's been done to try and trap online investigators or armchair investigators into making the wrong conclusions so that they can then be discredited.
So, yeah.
Yes.
I mean, our newspapers do love a sort of murder, don't they?
A female murder victim, ideally, who becomes this sort of, the name du jour, and for weeks their name dominates the newspapers.
So, well maybe we can come on to Jo Cox now.
And it keeps the public in the right state of fear.
Perhaps we can mention Jo Cox then, because she was a female who was allegedly murdered, who I don't think the truth has been told about.
If we can just go to the motive of that, because a lot of people when that happened, It looked like they were trying to use it to sway the Brexit vote in favour of Remain.
And a lot of people said, well, yeah, you've just got this supposed far-right extremist who's killed this pretty Labour female politician, and she was one of the most pro-EU politicians, so they've done that just to garner sympathy and sway the vote.
So the whole operation was done for that purpose.
That's what you heard a lot of.
Now I think the case was used by the pro-Remain media for that purpose, to try and get their vote count up, because it happened just before Brexit.
And I think it did sway the Brexit vote a little bit, but not enough for them.
I don't think that was the original reason why she was removed.
I don't believe she was murdered, I believe she was removed.
So, if I can just go through some of that, James, which might take a few minutes to explain.
It is in my film, but you see, you need to understand what Brexit was about.
It was about two things broadly.
The first was immigration.
Right, which obviously, that's the sort of the man on the streets issue to get to get riled up about.
But it was more importantly for for wealthy people, let's say it was about taxation.
Because The City of London and all of its various tax havens is a racket.
It's a racket because they don't pay the amount of tax that they should pay.
People might think I'm going off on a tangent here, but I'm not.
This links directly to Joe Cox, so just stay with me for a minute.
Let's just say that Rishi Sunak stood up in Parliament and said, right, what we're going to do in Yorkshire We're going to change VAT to 5%.
So everyone in Yorkshire just pays 5% on their goods, right?
Now, if that were to happen, what would happen?
It just wouldn't get passed.
People would be up in arms, wouldn't they?
What, 5% VAT in Yorkshire?
We can't have that.
And everyone else is paying 20% tax.
That's ridiculous.
Well, that's what we got in Jersey.
Right?
So, Jersey, they only pay 5%.
They call it a different tax, but it's effectively VAT in Jersey, right?
So, these tax havens, they have lower tax rates.
If I said to you, well, every business in Hampshire now doesn't have to pay a corporation tax, right?
And they brought a law in to do that, so that anyone in a particular county, their business doesn't pay a corporation tax.
All the other businesses in all the other counties would be absolutely up in arms about it.
You know, this is a completely unlevel playing field.
It's ridiculous.
You can't have that.
Everyone has to pay the same amount of corporation tax.
But the City of London, in the way that it is organised, protects the business that goes on in the City of London, in the Square Mile, from visibility, so that the government can't see a lot of the money that's being made and the transactions that are being made, so the tax is avoided.
I mean, this is known and it's admitted to, right?
So it's a racket.
And that racket has been going on for hundreds of years.
So these agreements that the City of London has made with Parliament so that it doesn't have to pay as much tax as it should, They even have their own person embedded in Parliament called the Remembrance Act.
It's a guy who sits in Parliament in front of the Speaker and he's employed by the City of London Corporation.
And it's his job to make sure that Parliament is not allowed to ever repeal any of those laws.
To get the City of London to pay the proper level of taxation.
That's his job.
He's a rememberer.
I remember in 1600 and whatever when Parliament agreed not to charge this or that.
So that's all his job is, the remembrancer.
So we have a completely antiquated tax system where we've got the City of London.
It's a bit like, if you imagine a bucket full of water with a hole in it and the water is money.
London is the hole.
London attracts money into it, sucks money into it, because it doesn't pay the same amount of tax, and it has all of these offshore tax havens connected to it.
So the EU comes along, and it knows all about this, it knows all about the tax haven racket, and it says, This is ridiculous.
The UK needs to reform its tax laws.
We need a level playing field.
Everyone needs to pay.
All transactions need to be visible.
They need to be visible to the government so we know what we're going to tax.
And the tax levels need to be the same across the board.
And that's what the EU was saying to the UK just before Brexit.
And then in January 2016, they brought in new tax legislation, the EU, which was going to basically sort out this tax haven racket, which is what it is.
Now, there's no reason why the UK government shouldn't sort it out itself and get rid of all of this nonsense that they have with these tax havens.
But it can't because they've got the remembrance there.
And it goes back in history as to why all of this was put in place in the first place.
So you'd have to undo all of that history in order to get a fair tax system.
But the EU, which is a brand new government, comes along and says, no, no, once we get Britain in properly, we're going to get rid of all this tax haven racket, right?
And that's what Brexit was about for the elites and for the rich people.
People who've got businesses in the City of London and work in finance, they don't give a monkey's chuff about immigration.
They don't care who's going where or what.
They care about protecting their markets and about tax, and avoiding as much tax as they can.
Now, so how does that link to Joe Cox?
So really, the EU in that policy, in that regard, is right.
It's right about reforming Britain's tax laws, but that doesn't mean we should be in the EU.
We should be able to do it ourselves.
So, now if you remember there was this thing called the Panama Papers leak, and that happened about, I don't know, maybe six weeks, maybe longer, a few months before Brexit.
And what that was, was a leak of mainly British tax havens and all the people who had money and transactions hidden in tax havens, all wealthy British people.
And it was, people don't realise why that, why that Panama, why those Panama Papers were leaked.
They were leaked So, in order to try and sway the Brexit vote, they were leaked to say, look British public, The richest 1% of the 1% of your country aren't paying any tax, and here's where they've got their money.
This is why we are leaking this information, to show you that you need to sort your tax affairs out, and we the EU are going to come and rescue you and do it.
So the timing of the Panama Papers was released.
At that time, I think it was about three months before Brexit.
And it caused a massive panic in the government because they had an emergency debate on it in Parliament.
So the debate was basically, the question was, well, are we going to actually do anything about the fact that we've got this tax haven problem?
And they had a debate in Parliament and there was a vote on it.
And because there's a lot of Conservative voters who are in line with the City of London and what have you, they just voted not to do anything about it.
A lot of the more left-wing politicians voted to to look at the issue and try and sort out the tax haven issue.
So the Parliament's voted on it.
So this was a few months before Brexit.
So then what happens is Jo Cox is still banging on about it.
So she wrote articles in the press saying that well we've got this Panama Papers leak, Britain's tax system is completely antiquated, it needs reforming, and the EU are going to do it for us, right?
So this is threatening the livelihoods and the mega bucks of all those people in the City of London, what Jo Cox was doing, because she was probably one of, if not the most pro-EU MP, along with Stephen Kinnick.
Now I suspect that Jo Cox was probably an agent of Soros, of George Soros, because my belief, I suspect that Soros actually had those Panama Papers leaked, because in order to get something like that leaked, you need a lot of money in order to get a law firm, because it's a law firm you need a lot of money in order to get a law firm, because it's a law firm that reside over all To bribe someone in a law firm to get all that data released.
And it was all done through Soros' media.
There was a German newspaper that was writing about it and other Soros-linked organizations were promoting the whole Panama Paper thing.
And obviously we know that Soros is a completely pro-EU.
He wants Britain into the EU and he wants to do everything that I just explained to completely get rid of the tax havens and all the rest of it.
So you've got this one politician who isn't going along with the vote, who's standing up in Parliament making speeches, this is Jo Cox, making a quote-unquote nuisance of herself, still saying no, we've got to highlight this issue of the Panama Papers, we need something done about it.
Now I suspect that someone in the City of London has sort of said, "We're getting really pissed off about this." She's not working for the interests of her constituents.
She is working for some agency or some person in the EU and you're not playing cricket.
The Parliament have voted not to do anything about these tax havens.
We want rid of her, and if you don't get rid of her, we'll get rid of her.
That's... that's... something like that, I think, was... it was threatened, that she needed to go.
And the other thing is with Cox, I strongly suspect she was...
worked for MI6 as well.
If you look at her background, so she's got an allegiance, I think there's some sort of intelligence and I think she's got a massive allegiance to the EU.
She's working for them.
She wasn't working for her constituents.
She was working for the EU.
So I think that the pro, you know, the rich people who were trying to get Brexit, you know, the leave, who coincidentally are all connected to the city, aren't they?
You know, Farage, um, what's the other one, um, the Toff guy, uh, um, Rees-Mogg, they're all ex-city, ex-City of London people, aren't they?
So what that was for was to try and protect the City of London markets and make sure that the tax system is not reformed.
So I think there was a plan hatched to remove her from her position and I think it was instigated or demanded by
People who are connected to the City of London and Someone well if it has to be in the intelligence agencies organized The plot to remove her although I don't think they killed her, you know They've probably just assigned her as and given another identity and she's probably working as an intelligence agent somewhere else maybe in Israel who knows but so
But what's happened is the plot that they've come up with was then used by the Remain camp as propaganda.
Do you see where I'm going with it, James?
Yeah.
I think it's more complicated than simply, oh, the Remain side did it just to get votes.
That's far too simplistic.
I don't doubt it's more complicated than the narrative that we ascribed to it in the aftermath.
Just mention the event itself.
There's no doubt whatsoever that the perpetrator, the alleged perpetrator Thomas Mayer, was not on Market Street when it happened.
If you watch my film it's blatantly obvious that it's another guy.
So there was at least two actors involved as the perpetrator.
That's blatantly obvious.
I had all the CCTV analysed with that, with his walking pattern and the clothing as well.
But yeah, I think it's highly likely that she was killed.
Well, yeah, I'm going to come to that in a second, but I would say, if I were to find a flaw in your theory, I would say is that, at least publicly, the city was overwhelmingly anti-Brexit not pro-Brexit.
Now that could have been a maybe a ruse in itself but all the city people I know were very very anti-Brexit and I mean I live in the country... Did those people have billions invested in tax havens?
Well I don't know about that, because people tend not to tell you if they've got billions in tax havens.
I just know a lot of city people, whenever I meet city people, they tend to have been remainers rather than... I hate to use these terms because I think that's just part of the division anyway, but they were generally not Brexiteers.
But that's just my experience.
There could be something in your theory.
I'm kind of more interested in if Jo Cox is not dead, where is she and how do they hide something like that?
I mean... Well, I've touched on this before.
This is one of the functions of the intelligence agencies, reassigning people with new identities.
They do it in certain cases that they admit to, and I suspect they do it in cases that they don't admit to.
You see, there was, for example, she remained on the floor for an hour and wasn't taken to hospital, and then they took her to London, which was completely against the law.
The coroner shouldn't have allowed her body to leave the county where it was, and she was driven down to London.
And there's no images or even any decent testimony of her actual injuries, just a bit of blood on the floor, that's all we got.
And if you look at the people who were close around her when it happened, I think there's a question mark over them.
So I think it was acted out, it's my opinion, that it was acted out somewhere else on a previous date with the people who were going to be close by.
And yeah, I suspect it was hoaxed.
But definitely, Thomas May was not there.
That's proven in my film, I would say.
And the whole way that the trial was ran, where he didn't actually have any defence.
Is he still in prison?
There's no-one defending him.
He didn't present a defence and he didn't speak.
That's another clue that he wasn't the guy on trial.
He didn't say a word at his trial, not a single word.
Um, there's huge doubt over whether he was actually at his own trial.
Do you think he's been paid off, or what?
Say again?
Has he been paid off?
Is he in prison now, or what's the deal with him?
No, there was one thing that I found out, which was that on the day before the murder, alleged murder, he took a plastic bag full of all of his old childhood photographs round to his mother's house.
So that could suggest that he knew he was going away, and not never coming back.
So he may have been a witting accomplice in this, you know, offered a new life somewhere.
I mean, the official story is that he's in Durham Prison, and I have actually had a letter from him.
In fact, I've had quite a lot of letters off him.
I tried to go and see him in Durham Prison, but I did a whole program about us trying to find him in prison, and trying to get communication with him in prison, trying to get a prison visit.
And then letters started arriving from him, but if you read those letters, In my opinion it looks like he's just been told to write them.
Because no one managed to get to see him in prison that I know of.
I'm not convinced he's in prison.
Right.
Because there were people who I was written to by a couple of prison officers who were at that prison and they said they'd never seen him.
Or even knew he was there.
And then when I published that in one of my shows, I think there was prison officers that didn't think he was in Durham Prison.
And somebody pointed out that he wasn't on... there was a whole list of these Category A prisoners in Durham Prison, right, and his name wasn't on that list on Wikipedia.
And then the day after I pointed this out, the name, sure enough, had appeared on Wikipedia.
But there's a chap... See, you do make a difference.
I'm terrible at remembering names, but... that I've had on the show, and he went through all... he contacted the prison chaplain, he contacted the governor of prisons, he contacted the governor of that prison, he contacted everyone to try and get confirmation that Tommy Mayer was actually in Durham Prison, and we've got no evidence that he's in Durham Prison.
John Asprey, he's called.
I mean, he was very, very tenacious and diligent in just the amount of things that he did to try and determine whether Tommy Mayer was in Durham Prison or not.
And the conclusion was, well, he's not been able to find any proof of it.
So, Tommy Mayer could have been a witting participant.
Either that or he's... Right.
...a patsy.
But he certainly didn't have anything to do with the murder of Joe Cox, definitely not.
I agree with you.
I think it's more likely than not that she is still around.
One of the terrible consequences... I'm not decided on that, James.
She may have really been killed, but it means that... If that's the case, it means the state have killed her.
But I think it's... Right.
You know, in the culture of hoaxers that we have now, I think it's more likely that they've staged her death.
And people say, well, what about her children?
Would she not want to see her children?
Well... If you look at her life with Brendan Cox before all this, There's odd things in it.
For example, they said that they lived on a barge when she was an MP.
Living on a barge.
Now that gives you an excuse to not give a real address.
And, you know, the character of Brendan Cox, obviously we haven't got time to go into that, but I mean, he's a whole other can of worms, Brendan Cox.
And, you know, people have said, there's no images of Jo Cox when she's pregnant, or are they really her children?
You know, maybe that's a ridiculous thing to say.
I haven't looked into any of that.
I haven't looked.
I've not tried to delve into, well, where might she be, and is she still alive?
Just that there's no evidence that, from my mind, that she was killed.
It looks more like a hoax to me.
Yeah, yeah.
Where are... This is probably above your pay grade, but where are you on David Bowie?
David?
David Bowie.
David Bowie?
Do you think he's dead?
Yeah.
Well, I would certainly not be surprised if he was still alive.
With something like that, there's no evidence either way.
I don't think his body was put on shore.
And that album, that last album that he did was just so completely different to all of his other stuff and dark and sort of almost as if he'd done his job now, now got to get all of this sort of occultic, dark stuff that's been controlling them all these years into his final work and then, right, you've done your job David, now off you go to your You know, your island with whatever.
It wouldn't surprise me, but I wouldn't say definitely.
I'm not aware of any evidence either way.
But, uh, you know, somebody like David Bowie would have the means to get the best treatment if he had cancer, and also alternative, look at alternatives, such as Germany Medicine or what have you, and he's someone who probably would know about certain things, so did seem quite certain.
Maybe he did die of cancer, but he's someone who I would certainly would not be surprised if David Bowie is still alive.
Richard, I'm glad you said that.
I thought you were going to say it in your kind of responsible way.
I haven't researched this, so I don't... But you've seen the video, haven't you, of the guy purported to be a Bowie fan commenting on TV on his death.
Yeah, who looks quite like Bowie, yeah.
Quite like?
It looks... I don't think that's Bowie.
I don't think it's Bowie.
I did look at that.
But that doesn't mean that I don't think Bowie's alive.
That could be a red herring.
But... Do you know what I mean?
Because it might be discredited at a later date.
To put to bed those rumours.
The thing is... The straw man, in other words.
I'm with you.
I think, look, if there's one thing your research demonstrates, which is why I think you're so incredibly important, is that you lay out rigorously and pretty much unarguably The steps to which these people are prepared to go to deceive us.
I mean, you know, you mentioned the 22, you mentioned... I mean, what it would have... what it would have required to pull off the Manchester Arena Psy-Op or the Joe Cox operation or whatever, it sort of, it beggars, it beggars
belief and I I think that that until people are shown in in some detail just how our enemies I don't know what you do you have a name for enemies do you what do you call you don't call in the deep state what do you call them no I don't I don't really have a word Dr. Judy Wood just calls them the crew.
The crew!
I don't really have a word for them.
But just to interject there, if somebody... The question you've asked there, people need to see more evidence of how they've done it.
The best film to watch is the Boston Unbombing, which...
You can't watch that and not know that that bombing was staged.
So if you want evidence that they do do that, that they do do these things, that's the film to watch.
The Boston Unbombing.
Because it shows clearly the fabricated injuries.
Yes.
Which were caught on camera.
I would I'm gonna have to watch that and I mean look I in a way I think I I thought before we did this this chat that we were going to just go through stage by stage the what happened in Manchester but actually I think it's a it's kind of a waste of of energy and time of your time and my time actually because it'd be much better if people watched your
I got your book and watched your documentaries, so I think it's better if I ask you supplementary questions rather than going through every detail.
You sort of half mentioned it, that they wanted to extend the war with Libya.
Oh, by the way, what happened to the alleged... Was he supposed to be a suicide bomber, or was he supposed to be a...?
Yeah, yeah, that's what they've said.
But, um... I got hold of some police radio communications.
from someone in a position that had access to them which is in my film which showed that he that there was an Asian male with a rucksack got out of an Audi vehicle next to the arena not long before the blast happened and that I believe was a getaway getaway vehicle and that was chased by the police and the man was arrested so I believe that was a baity and plus you've got other you've got two eyewitnesses Reporting from members of the public saying that he put the bag down and ran out.
He ran out of the area after he put the device down.
So, um, I'm fairly convinced that there was no suicide and that the bomb was a, some sort of military type pyrotechnic thing to make, to, to simulate an explosion.
Um, but, but again, we don't know where Badie would be now.
Um, Well, I mean, look, to be fair... He's probably living in Libya somewhere.
Libya.
Yeah.
Libya's a big place, isn't it?
I mean, I imagine it's quite easy going undercover in Libya.
Yeah, yeah.
And he was probably quite well paid for it.
Well... I can't comment.
Yeah.
Well, no, I know, I know, I know.
I mean, is it...
Yeah.
Is Manchester kind of your least favourite topic because it's the one that's caused you most grief at the moment?
I wouldn't say that.
I've decided to focus on it obviously because of what's happened.
So them bringing this action against me has just made me discover more.
So if their intention was to stop information coming out on Manchester then they failed miserably.
Take me out of the equation.
If their intention was to suppress the truth about Manchester then they failed.
You know you could just enter this in a selfish way and just Back out and drop it all and just try and concentrate on winning the case and stuff like that.
Thing is, I think it's a foolish thing that they're doing.
They would have been best ignoring you.
That was when Mariana Springs started contacting me.
And the whole thing's been a progression from the Spring thing, the Panorama thing, Disaster Trolls, and then the legal action.
So, in my opinion it's all connected, although ostensibly we're led to believe that it's just two alleged victims taking legal action.
Even though it's taken a long time, it's now taken over a year now from that point.
Nearly a year and a half.
It's... I mean...
But in that time, I've made three new films about it.
Which are all, in my opinion, they're all perfectly legal and they're not libelous and they're not defamatory.
They're just spelling out facts and then giving my opinion.
Do you know who my favourite character in your documentary is?
See if you can guess.
In which documentary?
In the Manchester Arena story.
Nick Biggestuff?
It's... It is.
It's the one that goes round, and there are so many bodies, and I'm looking for my daughter, and I can't see her anywhere, and... It's just... It's just so shit.
I mean, you know, just imagine, you and I are both fathers.
Imagine if we'd lost our child in a potential Bomb incident.
What would be our first thought as we went to look for our child?
I know.
I'll turn on my iPhone camera and record myself.
It's just like... And yet people buy this shit.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Including Neil Sanders.
He bought it.
Which one was he?
Neil Sanders.
I think you should cut that out anyway.
Oh, OK.
He's a guest who used to appear on my show, who took part in the Panorama Programme.
He took part in the Panorama Programme, saying that he thought I was wrong about believing that Manchester wasn't what they said it was.
But I'm not going to talk about it.
No, I can see why you might feel let down by somebody like that.
People are easily bored.
I used to wonder.
There was a mafia trial in Sicily a few years ago and there were various sort of prosecutors who were put in charge of the case and they kind of knew that they were on the hit list.
I used to wonder why it was they carried on.
And now I know.
It's that you get so outraged at the lies being perpetrated and that the people who are endorsing these lies are involved in this conspiracy, for want of a better word, to deceive you and your loved ones and everybody.
And you sort of think, well, I will fight these people at whatever cost.
Because what they're doing is so wrong.
It's just... It's against everything I believe in.
Yeah.
What I was going to ask you, do you still do your talks and stuff?
I haven't done a lecture since 2020.
But I may well embark on some if... to generate some funds for my legal case.
But I don't have any plans just yet.
Certainly it's a possibility.
Right.
But I don't have any plan.
Just to mention my legal fund as well, before we go, just to mention, you know, if people want to support me and donate to help my legal defence, if you just go to richplanet.net, all the details are on there, richplanet.net forward slash legal, and you can read all about the case, you know, the claim that's been brought and the defence, and you know, I'd be grateful for any donations to my legal defence.
I'm glad you mentioned that.
I was going to give you the opportunity later on, but it's good to get it in earlier.
I don't know.
I mean, we should maybe try and do a live chat sometime before an audience.
I mean, I think we have quite a good rapport.
I think the issue would be, would there be any venue that wouldn't cancel us?
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah, I mean, as I say, it's not on my immediate radar doing something like that.
No, no, I'm just floating the idea.
But what I was going to ask you was, how do people, the people who turn up to your gigs, are they always completely on side?
Or do you ever get people who were normies up until that point and you've kind of opened their eyes?
Majority are on your side, the vast majority.
You might get people who bring someone, they'll say, Richard, I've brought my husband, or I've brought this friend who isn't sure about stuff.
They want, in order to meet you, and then they're sceptical.
But generally, after they've met you, And they interact with you, they can see that you're not trying to be deceptive, they can see that you've got an honest heart, and they generally, they will accept the information more readily because they've met you.
With some people, they've got a barrier up and it's just that extra... to meet the person and to see that they're a genuine person is enough to then take them further.
But it's very rare that you get hecklers in who are completely against you or anything like that.
Generally, if that happens, it's usually staged.
Is someone sent there to be deliberately disruptive?
Well, I'm going to wrap it up now.
Not that I particularly want to, because then we can go on for hours, but thank you for coming on the Dallying Pod.
Thanks for having me.
You may not be aware of this, but you've now enhanced my cover considerably.
I mean, people who doubted my credibility Even though I am, in fact, an intelligence asset.
They're going to see you as having given your endorsement to me by coming on my show.
And that's going to mean that lots of people are going to be fooled and believe that I'm now a credible figure.
So thank you for that.
Right, OK.
Well, that wasn't my intention.
I did look at some of your interviews and judged it on that.
Obviously, you used to be a mainstream media shill, but maybe you're not now.
Yeah, I think, I don't know, I think, I tell you what, if I am, if I am a deep cover agent.
Go on, sorry.
If I am a deep cover agent, you've got to admit I'm bloody good at it.
I mean I'm quite convincing.
But what would be the point, let's say you were a deep cover agent, you know.
Yeah.
You haven't learned anything from me that I wouldn't have said to Theo Chalmers.
No, I look, I think I did a separate chat with this on this subject with a guy called Alex from Thinking Slow.
That was my most recent podcast.
And it's one of those subjects where awake people, it's a really, it's the most divisive issue, even bigger than Flat Earth, which is that there's the element which goes Why can't we all get along?
Let's present a united front, which I think is, I call that the Pollyanna Kumbaya element.
And then there's where I am now, which is look, you've got to be suspicious, because there are so many people who've been planted.
And, and these plants serve different functions.
And often they remain in deep cover for a very long time.
And you only know that they're that they are Controlled opposition or gatekeepers, whatever, when they reveal themselves, whether they reveal their true colours.
So, I mean, the Alex Jones thing, I mean, that Sandy Hook thing, the court case for me was a massive tell.
People have allotted functions, you know, I think.
Yeah.
I mean, I think there are gatekeepers who, 90% of what they say they believe in, and they're being honest.
You know, it's just that... But they're still exercising another role for somebody else.
And by the way, I do not subscribe to the Flat Earth, so... No.
Ah.
Do you know what?
I didn't.
Until... No, no, no.
Seriously.
You wait.
Wait till you get there.
I mean, you haven't got time anyway.
You're doing other important stuff and you shouldn't... Well, who am I to give advice on careers?
I mean, you know, I've buggered up mine.
But I have to say, if Flat Earth is truth, and I think it might be, it is It's way better.
It makes David Bowie's Still Alive look like, you know, I don't know, just nothing.
If Flat Earth is right, and we are surrounded by this 200 foot ice wall, and beyond the ice wall are these lands which have only been explored by Admiral Byrd in that brief period when you were allowed to fly over the Antarctic, which you aren't anymore, I mean, come on, you've got to admit, it would be huge if true.
Look, basic astronomy, I can't even believe I'm debating this, but basic astronomy shows what the Earth is and how it moves.
When I was 13 years old I had a computer program which you would type in your position on the Earth and you would type into it the current day and time and it would draw a perfect replica of the sky.
Right, now the sky is different as you move around the globe.
As you move vertically and horizontally, the stars change completely as you go past the horizon, or as you go further north.
So the stars that you see on the North Pole are completely different to the stars you see on the South Pole, and that changes gradually as you move around the Earth.
So this computer program, you would type, as I say, the current date and the position on the Earth, and it would draw the sky perfectly and then get my telescope out and look at the stars.
So that software has been written on the assumption that the Earth is a rotating globe and that the stars are fixed in the sky.
There's also the seasons.
So because the Earth has a tilted axis as it goes around the sun, that's why you get summer and winter, and that's why the number of hours in a day changes by an exact number of minutes every day.
So you can't really explain the season's changing amount of daylight as the sun's going around the sun with the Earth being on a...
on an axis.
I mean, to suggest that that's all just been fabricated just to make it seem like it's a rotating ball on a tilted axis is... I'm sorry James, you're not gonna get me to change my mind.
Tread lightly.
You tread on my favourite new conspiracy theory.
You're probably right.
Look, I didn't come on the show to defend Flat Earth.
It was merely that my last podcast with somebody who was quite persuasive on the subject and I thought, yeah, I quite like this one.
It's even better than Paul is Dead.
Or Paul isn't dead.
Well, Paul isn't dead.
Oh, sorry, yes.
Which Paul do you mean?
Yeah.
Yeah.
I was getting mixed up with Bowie there.
Bowie isn't dead.
Bowie isn't dead, Paul is dead.
Yeah, exactly.
I've really enjoyed this.
Thank you so much for coming on the show.
Okay, tell everyone again where they can find your stuff and how they can support you.
It's richplanet.net and there's a menu system down the left-hand side of the page.
You'll find everything there.
Richplanet.net.
I once invested about at least three hours watching a documentary about Madeleine McCann on Netflix and I could have saved myself a lot of bother by just going straight to the Oracle.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I've not wasted time now.
Yeah, yeah.
Okay.
Um, well, thank you, Richard.
Um, and if you've enjoyed this podcast, like, you know, this is my living as well.
Um, please do support me.
Buy me a coffee.
I always like being bought a coffee or buy me 500 coffees if you want to, that's even better.
Support me on Substack is probably the best place.
I think Locals or Substack are the two best.
I've still got Patreons and Subscribestars and you can find my website which is jamesdellingpole.co.uk.
Splendid looking website.
You can find out all about me, why I'm who I am and what makes me tick and where you can Oh, and advertise.
I really appreciate the sponsorship.
It actually works because I think the audience I've got is loyal and committed, and they do buy your products if you've got a good product, and I don't advertise shit products, obviously.
So anyway, thank you for listening.
Thank you again, Richard D. Hall.
I really admire what you do.
It's been too long waiting for you, and here you are at last.
This will make lots of people's... If I release it over Christmas, this will be their best Christmas present ever.
Although it may be released after that.
Well, I hope so.
Good.
Alright, thanks James.
Thanks.
Thank you.
The information that I, Richard D. Hall, put forward in this interview is my honestly held opinion based upon information and evidence that I have been able to verify as is reasonably practical.
