Iain parks up to discuss Richard D. Hall’s court case and his own latest book about the alleged Manchester Arena bombing: ‘The Manchester Attack: An Independent Investigation’.
https://iaindavis.com
↓ ↓ ↓Monetary Metals is providing a true alternative to saving and earning in dollars by making it possible to save AND EARN in gold and silver.
Monetary Metals has been paying interest on gold and silver for over 8 years.
Right now, accredited investors can earn 12% annual interest on silver, paid in silver in their latest silver bond offering. For example, if you have 1,000 ounces of silver in the deal, you receive 120 ounces of silver interest paid to your account in the first year.
Go to the link in the description or head to https://monetary-metals.com/delingpole/ to learn more about how to participate and start earning a return on honest money again with Monetary Metals.↓ ↓ ↓
Buy James a Coffee at:https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jamesdelingpole
The official website of James Delingpole:https://jamesdelingpole.co.uk
x
Well, do the Denning Pod with me, James Denning Poe.
And I know I always say I'm excited about this week's special guest.
But before we meet him, a quick word from one of our superb, lovable sponsors.
Here's an ad from our old friends at Monetary Metals.
You may remember we've had the company CEO Keith Weiner on the podcast a couple of times talking about his product and it's amazing but true.
He enables you to hold gold and silver in physical form and get paid interest on it.
Monetary Metals is providing a true alternative to saving and earning in dollars by making it possible to save and earn in gold and silver.
Monetary Metals has been paying interest on gold and silver for over 8 years.
Right now, accredited investors can earn 12% annual interest on silver paid in silver in their latest silver bond offering.
For example, if you have 1,000 oz of silver in the deal, you receive 120 oz of silver interest paid to your account in the first year.
Go to the link in the description or head to monetary-metals.com forward slash dellingpole forward slash To learn about how to participate and start earning a return on honest money again with monetary metals.
I definitely give the silver a go.
I've got gold but I like silver because silver has the potential to go much much higher if you're of a A sort of more adventurous disposition, which I am.
Anyway, you should do both, gold and silver.
If you want interest on it, go to Monetary Metals at the link at the bottom of this podcast.
Welcome back to the Deling Pod, Ian Davis.
It's been too long.
Oh, well, thanks very much for having me, James.
It's great to be here.
Do you know one of the things I like about you?
No, tell me.
Well, you might consider this an insult, but it's not meant to be.
I think that you're quite normie friendly in that you can talk about the stuff that I talk about, but without the danger that your audience is just going to go, yeah, but he believes in flat earth, and yeah, he's way too into the Christian stuff, and yeah.
He's aware of the affairs.
Whereas it always seems to me that your research is a bit like Richard D. Hall's, which we're going to talk about in a moment.
It's grounded in old school rigour.
I mean, the sort of things journalists, in theory, ought to be able to do, in practice, don't.
And you and Richard D. Hall both do it.
And we're going to talk today about, again, about the Manchester Arena bombing.
Yeah I mean I appreciate that because I mean I do try to and certainly that you know the first part of the book that that you know we're going to discuss and the about the Manchester arena bombing has been written very much to try to overcome people's cognitive dissonance I mean I am I am a normie
You know, I'm just a normal bloke that's lived and worked in the UK all my life and I've come to write about the subjects that I write about, not because I've got any particular Yeah you know predisposition to to to look at these subjects but simply because that's where the evidence has led me.
I mean and I you know and I do I do think that um an important part of my work is to try to highlight to people that that that although these subjects may seem and contentious and feel very challenging as in you know the in in terms of discussing the Manchester arena bombing
um that doesn't change what the evidence shows you know we we have to sort of get to get to a point where we can and and maintain the ability to openly discuss the evidence yeah and i appreciated that when i was reading your book i haven't i haven't had time to finish it yet but but this is the book i imagine it's selling like hot case cakes at waterstones and all good
Yeah, the chance of me getting that published by a, you know, an established publisher is nil.
Yeah, I was going to say less than Jimmy Savile being discovered not to have been announced.
About the same.
About the same.
Yeah, I appreciated, as I read it, I was thinking if I were a normie, Because we're talking about very difficult subject matter for anyone to grasp.
The idea that this terrible event which seared itself on the nation's consciousness, as the cliche has it, for a period.
We can all remember the details.
Ariana Grande and the little girls who'd gone to see her concert, Little Safi Roussos, we can remember her name, we saw the photographs repeated again and again, you know, she was what, about eight, something like that, she was the youngest victim anyway, we knew that, Little Safi Roussos, and we knew about the people who'd discovered so-called life-changing injuries, we knew about the kind of the bits of
Bolt I think nuts and bolts found and you know we'd seen the x-rays and later on I remember because I was a normie at this stage I remember getting furious at the inquiry and discovering that ambulance, ambulance crews and fire crews had held back from going in for fear of this or that health and safety.
And I was furious and I and I really wanted MI6 and MI5 to spend more money on anti-terrorism because clearly there were lots of lots of terrorists in our midst trying to blow us up.
And clearly the health and safety procedure needed to change to enable victims of similar catastrophic.
On and on and on I went responding, as many people did, in the desired way to this story.
So for you to come in there as Richard D. Hall did and say, hang on a second, this doesn't stack up.
It's a very difficult and brave position, I might say, to adopt.
Well yeah, thanks for saying that.
I mean one of the reasons that I have come to this is because of the work of Richard D Hall but also because of what... I mean I probably wouldn't have looked at it either.
I would have probably been in exactly the same position that you were when you were seeing all this stuff being written in the newspapers and broadcast on the television.
You know I probably wouldn't have questioned it had it not been for the evidence cited and referenced in Hall's original book which when I read that I've had to check it out I had to check it out because I thought if if what he is saying is accurate then there are there are major major problems here and when I looked at that evidence myself
I can't fault the I mean I think there are some differences to the in his original work that he now himself would say you know that that's it turned out that that certain things like he very much examined what was called the EXIF data on
A man called the Parker photograph a guy called Chris Parker took this photograph and originally the EXIF data suggested that it was taken early in the morning but You know, following sort of considerable further investigation, I think Richard would say that that's not true.
That it actually was taken after the alleged bang occurred, and I say bang because it's important for people to appreciate that regardless of what we were told, the terribly sad stories about what we are told about, you know, what happened inside the City Room, which is the foyer of the Manchester Arena,
There is no observable physical evidence to substantiate any leg of that story.
We have observable physical evidence in the form of things like the Parker photo but also a piece of footage called the Barr footage which was taken by a man called Mr. John Barr Which shows the immediate aftermath of that purported bombing.
So this was footage that was taken inside the room where the bomb is said to have gone off, no more than four minutes after the bomb is said to have gone off.
So that should show us, you know, something that few of us could even begin to imagine or even want to imagine.
The aftermath of a shrapnel bomb, a massive TATP shrapnel bomb, which is the official narrative, exploding in a crowd of people.
Now, the kind of carnage and kind of injuries and destruction that that bomb should have caused is, you know, a few people could even start to imagine.
I mean, very sadly, I mean, if we're looking at some of the images that are coming out of Gaza at the moment, And we think about the horrific things that we are seeing in Gaza.
That is precisely the kind of thing that should be observable in the bar footage.
It simply is not there.
It is not observable.
We cannot see that evidence.
So therefore, We have to conclude and I've certainly concluded in the book that there is no evidence to support the idea that a massive TATP bomb exploded in a crowd of people in that room that night and so if we if we continue to look at that evidence there is much more evidence that the hall exposed and I've and I've exposed more evidence as well I've found further evidence
Which shows the fabrication of evidence for the public inquiry.
Simply put, there's no structural damage that's observable in that room.
All the lighting is intact.
There's a small merchandise stall, which eyewitnesses that purportedly were in the room at the time said blew up, which is clearly visible inside in the bar footage.
I mean, this is a merchandise stall that is a kind of framed aluminium sort of frame stand, With lightweight kind of cardboard presentation boards on it, with t-shirts and posters and things like that for sale.
You know, everybody knows what a merchandise stall is at a concert.
This is not a sturdy piece of construction.
It's a thing that can be quickly picked up and carried.
It is entirely undamaged and intact.
There it's supposedly within six because it's a few meters long so it's within six to eight meters of the epicenter of what we were told was a huge TATP shrapnel bomb and it is undamaged intact not a mark.
How do you?
Had there been part of you that wanted to prove that Richard D. Hall was wrong?
I mean, did it seem extraordinary to you at any point that such a thing could be faked?
Were you prepared for that possibility?
Yeah I was prepared for that possibility.
I mean I'm always prepared for that whenever I look at anything.
I mean I certainly don't go into anything thinking that I know what the evidence is gonna... I mean more often than not I start looking at something with an inkling that something isn't right only to find that I was wrong.
That, you know, that the, that actually, you know, the, the official account for want of a better expression is, is accurate.
You know, so, so, I mean, that happens.
Well, now watch.
Where, where, where's, where's that happened?
I, I haven't encountered that recently.
No well I often not because often not now because I mean I think over the years I was talking to somebody about this the other day over the years my kind of sense for sniffing out things has perhaps improved and I tend to you know look at things I've already got a fair inkling but I mean in the past I mean I've looked at events that I thought were were suspicious off the top of my head I'm trying to remember one now!
You're standing by 9-11.
That was definitely planned by a man in a coat.
Yeah, that was definitely planned by a man in a coat.
I mean, I think that, you know, one of the things that we can't assume, and I think one of the accusations that is often thrown at people that are talking about You know, things like false flag terror events is that every terrorist event is a false flag.
I mean, you know, lots of things happen around the world and lots of terror events happen where certainly, you know, terrorists were definitely involved.
I mean, certainly with Manchester, I think it's reasonable to say that Salman Abadi was a trained terrorist.
I, you know, I mean, I, you know, Salman Abadi was clearly involved.
You know, there's evidence of him being in that room carrying a big black rucksack.
And if we look at, you know, Salman Abadi's very close relationship to the intelligence services and the intelligence agencies, And his history of the community that he grew up in, in Fallowfield in Manchester, which was a well-known terrorist community.
I mean, you know, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group that his parents, his father in particular, was a member of, was a prescribed terrorist group that was invited to stay in the UK.
And he grew up in that community.
And, you know, at the trial of his brother Hashima Bedi, and at the public inquiry, it came up again.
There were members of that terrorist community who said they were trained by NATO.
Right.
The thing is, before you go on, I don't want to come over all BBC here, but I'm not sure that I like that use of the word terrorist, because what does it mean?
Terrorism seems to me, and I used to think very differently obviously, is a term that has been invented by Deeply corrupt Western intelligence agencies to blacken the names of people belonging to groups that they are probably manipulating but want to show us the bad guys.
So they use that, they will out the word terrorist and say, look, these are your enemy.
Not us, we're the good guys, we're protecting you.
These evil terrorists are doing this terrible terrorist stuff and so give us more money, give us more power, and we'll look after you, Governor, kind of thing.
Yeah, I mean I think that I would look at it another way and say that the definition of terrorist needs to be extended.
Because I think if you're saying, we tend to use terrorism purely to refer to what they call non-state actors.
In fact, one of the definitions of a major terrorist event is more than 10 people killed by non-state actors.
That's the EU's definition of a major terrorist event.
But, you know, the state, if you're talking about who kills most people, It's the state.
So if we're looking at a situation like Gaza, for example, although there was an attack by Hamas upon Israel, and I've got my own thoughts and feelings about how that was allowed to occur, you know, what's happening in terms of... It was a let it happen event.
I believe so, yeah.
If we also consider that the number of people, I think it stands at 40,000 people or more, that have now been killed in Gaza, clearly that is terror being inflicted upon a population by a state.
Now, so what I would suggest, if someone is prepared to kill innocent people by whatever means necessary in order to achieve whatever their political objective might be, I think it's reasonable to call that terrorism.
But I think we should also apply that not just to quote-unquote non-state actors, but also to nation-states that do the same thing.
So if what you and Richard Hall are saying is accurate, that there was no bomb in that foyer, and you're also saying that nobody was killed or injured, which we'll come to in a moment, What are your conclusions from that?
I mean, who is behind this and why?
Well, I think it's very difficult to say who precisely is behind it.
Clearly the intelligence agencies were involved.
They must have been involved in order to orchestrate the event and so must elements within the state.
Elements within the government must have been involved in order for it to have transpired as it did.
I mean one of the things that kind of gives us an indication of the people that must have been involved is if we look at an exercise that happened a year earlier in in the Trafford Centre in Manchester called Exercise Winter Accord which was a simulated terrorist bombing and mass shooting in a crowded shopping centre in this case.
All of the mistakes that occurred that night during Winter Accord in terms of the response, they all happened to exactly the same extent if not being worse.
In the same city in Manchester a year later.
So if the purpose of a training exercise is to ensure that future mistakes don't happen in response to things like terrorist attacks, then none of that was put into effect in the intervening period.
In fact, If we consider that what actually occurred following the the Winter Accord exercise was a botched response to a terrorist attack, then it's not unreasonable to think that if you were using that as a training exercise for a hoaxed terrorist attack, Winter Accord, far from being a failure, was absolutely perfect because they applied exactly the same botched response
Exactly almost exactly one year later, but this time in an attack that they claim to be real so There you know Richard has highlighted the presence in the room that night of a number of people with count with quite extensive counterterrorism experience one of whom was supposedly within a few meters of the epicenter of the bomb but didn't suffer any serious injuries because she was protected by a handbag and They're very good handbags.
Very good handbags.
But I mean, the point is, we also had testimony that was given at the soldiers' inquiry, which was the public inquiry into the Manchester Arena quote-unquote bombing.
In which a man called Professor Anthony Bull, I think it was Anthony Bull or Professor Bull anyway, explained what the physiological damage is when a shrapnel bomb explodes.
If you were stood within 10 meters in that initial 10 meter blast radius, it is not unreasonable to talk about physical obliteration.
The blast wind alone from the, this bomb was supposedly had 30 kilograms of shrapnel in it and was of an undisclosed kilogram amount of TATP.
We're talking about the kind of bomb that would have blown the walls out of that room.
I mean, this was a... Within, so 10 meters, that's 30 feet.
If you were 30 feet away, you would get obliterated.
Well obviously as you move away from the epicentre, the physical impact of the blast would reduce.
But if you were in that initial radius, the blast wind itself, as Professor Ball put it, shears tissue from bone.
So within that 10 metre radius, people would have had limbs blown off, people would have had heads blown off, people would have been blown apart.
And the closer that you got to that epicentre, the worse that blast injury would have caused.
But that is then accompanied by what he called the secondary injury, which is the shrapnel entering the body.
Well unlike being hit by a bullet a bullet is obviously designed to fly through the air it's you know it's like a rugby ball or it spins through the air and when it enters the body some bullets cause you know more damage than others they're designed to do that.
If they hit your ear apparently?
Yeah, they glance up your ear.
They don't do any damage at all.
It bleeds a bit, but then a few days later you can go on the campaign trail without even a plaster.
It's amazing how that happens.
Especially when you're about 130 feet away, you know, and you manage to hit the target, but just glance the ear, it's incredible.
It's great.
You know, within that sort of kind of blast radius, when the shrapnel enters the body, shrapnel isn't bullet shaped.
You know, the bombs supposedly contained nuts, screws, bolts and cross dowels.
These things are spinning around.
They've got rotational energy.
So when that enters the body, it is obviously propelled by this blast wind, which the blast wind enough on its own is enough to rip people's legs off.
But if it goes into the body, as the shrapnel enters the body and it's got this rotational tearing and ripping effect because it's spinning, it is accompanied by the blast wind, which also enters the wound.
and pulls the wound apart so we're talking horrendous horrendous physical injuries now in the bar footage which shows that as i said shows the immediate aftermath of the bombing there is no one Well for a start there aren't enough people there.
There should be 22 dead and dying people and 38 injured people.
Now we can't see seriously injured people.
Now we can't see the whole room but broadly speaking the bar footage is looking towards the epicentre of the blast.
So this is the part of the room and the part of the said bombing where the worst damage occurred.
There's just simply no injury that comports with that.
Nobody has got anything like that.
There's no significant blood splatter.
There's no missing limbs.
There's no disembodied tissue.
There's nothing.
There's just people lying on the floor.
Now, those people don't have injuries from a massive TATP bomb.
In the footage we can see that they don't have those injuries.
So there's nothing to substantiate the claim that those people were killed by a bomb.
Aside from the fact that there aren't enough of them according to the official account.
So there are major, major evidential inconsistencies with the state's account of what happened inside that room.
Now with regard to the terrible stories that we were told about what happened to people, and I think this is something that Richard would say as well, we don't know what did happen to those people.
We don't know where they are.
We can hazard an idea about where they may be, Or what might have happened to them, but all we can say is there's no evidence that anyone was killed inside that room by a TATP bomb.
There's simply no evidence.
So if there's no evidence for that, you know, what you're left with is speculation about what may have happened to those people.
They could be dead, who knows?
But they did not die in that room.
They were not killed in that room.
I mean, one of the most crucial bits of evidence You know, of the 22 people that died, a woman called Michelle Kiss was supposedly stood on some stairs leading down into the city room, into the foyer, leading down into the city room.
She was stood next to a woman called Ruth Morrell.
Now, Ruth Morrell publicly stated, and her statement was entered into evidence at the Saunders Inquiry, that Michelle Kiss was stood to her left, the bomb went off, Ruth Morrell was struck in the legs, reportedly, and Michelle Kiss was struck in the head.
Michelle Kiss then fell to the floor on the steps.
Ruth Morrell turned to her left and I think that I'm paraphrasing this slightly but I think the more or less she said she realized immediately that Michelle was dead so Michelle had been hit by some shrapnel in the head so this is a shrapnel head wound from a massive TATB bomb so that would have been a very unpleasant sight now
We have CCTV footage that was entered into the Saunders Inquiry that clearly shows That Michelle Kiss was not stood on those steps.
She was not on those steps.
We can see Ruth Morel and we can see her daughter Emily.
And we can see where Michelle Kiss was reportedly standing up to one second before the official timing of the blast.
Michelle Kiss is not there.
She is absolutely, definitely not there.
Therefore, the official account of Michelle's kiss, Michelle Kiss's death, whatever may have been said about what happened to her, regardless of the reams of written reports that were put forward, including autopsy reports that were cited as evidence in the official Saunders Acquiry, The official described circumstances of Michelle Kiss's death are definitely false.
They are false.
Yes.
Now, it's interesting isn't it, although not surprising perhaps, that when presented with hard evidence like this, people don't go, oh yeah, Clearly there was something wrong here.
This is fabricated.
They go, they go, yeah, but what about all the other people who got injured?
What about that?
I mean, there'd have to be a lot of people in on this to, to, to, to create this.
You know, if suppose it was faked, think of all the people you'd have to lie to, to pretend it happened.
Yeah, not as many as people assume.
So people assume, and this is one of the problems when we're talking about any kind of large-scale conspiracy, because this obviously, this is, we are talking about something that would be a state crime and a conspiracy.
Compartmentalized hierarchical structures, which are commonly used by multinational corporations, for example, around the world, mean that only a very few people have a full oversight of an operation, even a highly complex global operation.
Think about something like building an aircraft.
People are manufacturing parts all over the world, but very few people know Ultimately, how to put that aircraft together.
There's only a small number of people that know how to put that aircraft together.
We can look at things like the Manhattan Project.
So the Manhattan Project, they built a town in the middle of the Nevada desert.
There were 130,000 people involved in the Manhattan Project, but only a tiny handful, we're talking, you know, Less than 20 or 30 people knew what they were trying to build.
Most people that were involved in the Manhattan Project had no idea what they were trying to build.
They did not know about the potential existence of a nuclear bomb or an atom bomb.
Or a potential bomb.
So there are plenty of people who would be involved in an operation like that Who wouldn't necessarily know anything about it.
So for example, we've got the Operation Manta Line investigators.
So Operation Manta Line was the official investigation into what happened inside the City Room.
Now bearing in mind that the City Room was a sealed off space for the best part of an hour.
The way that the thing panned out, very few people entered and left the City Room in the first hour.
Now there were a set of doors that were leading from the City Room to what they called the Hospitality Suite.
Now in the bar footage we can see those doors.
The reason that the book, the colour scheme on the book is the colour scheme that it is, is because these doors were white doors with a blue kick plate on the bottom.
And we can see those doors in the bar footage.
We've got, you know, reasonably clear images can be enhanced to show us what those doors were.
They were unmarked and undamaged.
By the time, so this is four minutes after the alleged bomb has gone off.
So four minutes after the bomb has gone off, the doors to the city, the doors to the hospitality suite are unmarked and undamaged.
We can say that is a fact.
We can see it in, in, we have what I would call observable physical evidence of that fact.
By the time we get to the Saunders inquiry, the same doors are peppered with what looks like shrapnel holes.
So what we can say is that that shrapnel damage was not incurred in the first four minutes after the reported detonation of the bomb.
So this was either extremely slowly moving shrapnel that was floating in the air, Or, that was fabricated evidence that was presented to an official inquiry.
Now, there were over a thousand people involved in the Operation Manta Line investigation.
So if you think you're one of the first, the first Operation Manta Line investigators to go into the City Room, who didn't start going in there really until the early hours of the morning, so this was a couple of hours after the alleged bomb was supposed to have gone off, They would have encountered that damage presumably.
They would have presumably seen what looked like shrapnel damage on a door.
So they would have investigated on the basis of shrapnel damage on a door.
and and what looked like I mean other other things that we can see there was shrapnel damage to the walls by the merchandise stall that was entered into evidence as chipped you know what looked like pockmarks chipped walls was entered into evidence at the Saunders inquiry we can see in the bar footage that they're not marked they're not chipped so so again that that
damage that was presumably found by Operation Mantle and investigators would have looked to them as if it had been caused by a bomb.
But it wasn't caused by a bomb.
I'll rephrase that.
We don't know what caused it, but it's very unlikely that it was a bomb.
But they would have...
I read a book once about the troubles in Northern Ireland called Watching the Door and it described the aftermath of a car bomb or a bomb in a pub actually. - Mm.
And it described the sort of, the pink sort of like, the bits of flesh, like sort of rose petals.
There was sort of flesh and blood sprayed everywhere.
Clearly, either they went to the trouble of fabricating that, or the people who investigated at a later stage had no idea what to look for after a bomb.
Because you'd know, wouldn't you?
If you'd seen a real bomb damage on human flesh, you would be able to look at that scene and go, nah.
Yeah, which is what I've done.
You know, I mean, one of the things to bear in mind is, okay, so initially there were said to be 59 injured people that were in the room.
Of those 59 people, 21 ran out immediately, so we're told.
So they were injured, but not so injured that they couldn't run out of the City Room.
Right, there were 38 people that were seriously injured that remained in the City Room.
We are told.
And 22 dead and dying people that remained in the City Room.
Obviously.
Now, all of those people have been removed from the City Room.
By about 11, I think it was, I probably might have got this slightly wrong, but 11.40.
By 11.40 those people had been removed.
So anyone that entered into the city room after 11.40 wouldn't have seen any bodies.
Right.
Now, one of the other things that you would normally expect is that if where bodies were lying in situ, there would have been photographs, crime scene photographs that were taken.
You would expect evidence to be preserved.
So where bodies were lying, whether they had been moved or not, you know, where they were lying, you would expect to be marked.
And you would expect there to be, you know, so that investigators could investigate the remaining physical evidence.
We also have footage that actually Richard D. Hall pieced together from the CCTV stills.
Now bearing in mind what I'm saying, none of this evidence that I'm talking about, the bar footage, the Parker photo, the CCTV images that show Michelle Kiss was not stood where she... None of that was...
Most of that was not even entered into evidence at the Saunders Inquiry so the bar footage wasn't and nor was the Parker photograph so this wasn't even entered into evidence.
Other things like the CCTV stills that we mentioned about Michelle Kiss were not highlighted as showing that she's not stood there so although they were present in the stills it wasn't discussed at the Saunders Inquiry.
So So, investigators that have gone in there, as I said, you would expect to see some evidence of a crime scene or that measures have been taken to preserve that crime scene for investigation.
If we piece together the CCTV stills that were taken in the early hours of the morning following the Manchester Arena attack, it is possible to put a kind of montage together, which is what Hall did, showing You know, those areas where people were said to be lying.
Now bearing in mind that most of the people that were said to have fallen were in a CCTV blind spot.
Which again, did not get mentioned at the Saunders Inquiry.
But there are a few people that should have been observable in that montage.
Or at least where they were lying should have been observable.
People are just walking through those spots.
Police officers and investigators are just walking through where people should have been lying.
There's no evidence on the floor that anything has been preserved as evidence.
There isn't any.
So you would have thought that a number of people that were in that room who may have been Operation Manta Line investigators would have been suspicious.
How...
How that is managed is difficult to say.
The Saunders Inquiry, was Saunders a man or a woman?
Sir John Saunders, yeah, a man.
Sir John Saunders.
Can I ask, has he been promoted or given some kind of extra honour since the Inquiry?
I don't know, but I mean Sir John Saunders is often used you know for for I mean one of the one of the interesting things about Sir John Saunders is that he he was initially put in charge of the so-called inquiries into the 22 deceased now this is another important point Inquiries are supposed to tell us not just how the person died but the circumstances of a person's death.
In fact that's probably the most important aspect of an inquiry.
The physical cause of someone's death is quite easy to ascertain with an autopsy.
An inquiry tells us about how they died or what caused their death.
It's important.
None, none of the 22 people that supposedly died in the Manchester arena had any kind of inquiry into their deaths.
There were no inquests.
Saunders was put in charge of the initial inquests, which because it subsequently became subject of a public inquiry, he held over to the inquiry.
The inquests that should have occurred didn't occur because...
The terms of reference of the inquiry determined the circumstances of the people's deaths because the terms of reference for the inquiry was to investigate how people lost their lives as a result of the bombing in the Manchester Arena on the 22nd of May 2017.
So the circumstances of their deaths, which is a key component of what an inquest is all about, had already been stated purely and simply by the government setting the terms of reference for the inquiry.
There was no investigation into those circumstances.
So had it been done correctly, just paint me a picture, give me an example of the kind of things one might have read had it been done properly.
What, in terms of the inquests?
Well, yeah, in terms of, just make up one for, okay, so what, tell the story about their journey to the concert and their, and what happened in the moments before the death, that kind of thing, or what?
Yeah, I mean, that's the kind of thing that we were given in the inquiry, stories about who attended the concert and how they got there, and we were, a big part of the inquiry is about the emotional story.
You know about how loved these you know the victims were and how sadly they'll be missed and all of the the wonderful things they did for their local community and so forth which I'm not I don't doubt these people probably did but the important part of an inquest
Into someone's death is ascertaining what killed them or who killed them where where they died you know what all of that was given only in forms of a narrative it wasn't given in forms of an exploration of the evidence a very complex narrative was offered for example with regard to Michelle Kiss so if there was an inquest
The elements of an inquest, which were reported in the Saunders Inquiry, bearing in mind that the Saunders Inquiry from the outset had already set out what the circumstances of her death were, so there wasn't any investigation leading up to explaining these circumstances.
It was simply stated what had happened to lead up to these circumstances.
So with regard to Michelle Kiss, there's a very complex and lengthy explanation of You know, where she fell, you know, who initially found the body, what attempts were made to resuscitate her, you know, who covered the body, who subsequently covered the body, how the body was recovered, where the body was taken, who conducted the autopsies, what the stated cause of death was.
All of this is very complex and very compelling, but then so is war and peace and that is fiction.
So it's a very compelling story, but the problem is the observable physical evidence shows us that Michelle Kiss was not there.
She wasn't there.
Yes.
Right, so you're starting You're starting from a false proposition.
You're starting from a claim that she was killed by a bomb in the city room.
That's where, that's where the, what passed as the inquest, which was simply written, written accounts.
I mean one thing, there were no autopsy reports presented.
We were just told that there had been autopsies.
The autopsy reports themselves were not presented.
It was just said that there were autopsies by, I would add, government-appointed pathologists.
Yeah.
So the whole thing, once you, I mean, and I hope people will read the book because I explain it in great detail, how this narrative was constructed and what we know and what we don't know.
And what we don't know is where Michelle Kiss is today.
We don't know that.
She could... And another point that I point out is Michelle's Kiss's family may well believe everything they were told about the circumstances of her death.
I don't know.
They could well believe that that's what happened to their loved one.
But nobody can ask them because they'd instantly be had up by Marianna Spring on charges of harassment.
Exactly, and one of the other reasons that I was sort of compelled to write this book was of what's happened to Richard D. Hall as a consequence of him writing his book.
Yeah, we should come to that.
I'm just going to move this doghast away because it thinks it's feeding time and it's not.
Go on, dog, just go.
Mine might start biking.
It's not.
I'm not feeding you, no.
Not enough.
I'm surprised mine isn't barking.
Yeah, so how is Richard doing, actually?
Because he's been sort of quite radio silent, certainly since I had him on this podcast, so I haven't communicated with him.
And I do worry about him, because it seems to me that what the state is trying to do is trying to get him And silence him, but not in such a way that his case becomes a kind of cause to labour and attracts more interest in it than... So they're sort of trying to walk a tightrope.
Am I right?
Yeah, I think that's reasonable.
I mean I attended the case and I actually wrote up my recollections and report of what happened in the case.
sub stack I wrote up my recollections and a report of what happened in the case and I think it's fair to say that the you know now that the trial is finished I can perhaps comment and say that you know that although the ruling has not been issued yet the trial was a bizarre thing.
It was a very strange thing.
A lot of it didn't appear to be about what the case is about.
So the case is about alleged GDPR breaches and harassment.
But the summation that the prosecution gave was about how the verdict might impact the UK's interpretation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Which was not what the trial was about.
Which threw the defence barrister off actually.
I mean, I think he was perplexed by that.
But Richard himself, I think it's fair to say the pressure that he's been under has been immense.
And I think, you know, I noticed a change in him.
I noticed him, you know, physically you could see that the stress was telling on him.
But, It was a quite wonderful thing actually.
There was a moment in the trial where Richard was under cross-examination by the prosecution.
And he gave a great account of himself and he ended up actually... It was quite bizarre!
He ended up cross-examining the barrister.
So he was the one asking questions which I just couldn't I couldn't get my head around this so I was watching.
Why the prosecution allowed that?
Why the judge allowed that?
I mean it was all very very weird.
I mean, he actually managed to get some of his evidence in.
I mean, every time the prosecution barrister said something, Richard managed to sort of wangle it so that he could produce some more evidence to support what he was saying.
Which, to Judge Stein's credit, she allowed.
She allowed him to put some... Now this evidence was previously... There'd been a summary judgment previous to the start of the trial which supposedly barred Richard from being able to present any of this evidence.
And much of that is what I'm talking about today.
Now...
But that didn't happen.
He did manage to get some of it in.
For example, he showed the court the photograph of the merchandise stand and Judge Stein saw that photograph and he explained what it showed.
But what was really great about this moment was the Richard D Hall that I know kind of re-emerged in that moment.
There was a notable physical transformation.
And afterwards, you could see that a lot of that pressure had lifted off him.
Of course, now he has to wait for the verdict, which could be ruinous for him.
You know, it could be ruinous for him.
But I think the very fact that he was able to, at last, speak freely, which the court did give him reasonable reign to speak freely, and the prosecution barrister I mean I was wondering, has he waded into this like some sort of, has he waded into this in some sort of like clueless, I just, I mean obviously he's a temple barrister, he's no fool.
I just couldn't understand how, you know, he put his foot in it so badly by allowing, giving Richard the scope to present his evidence, to talk quite openly about what he believed.
And that's what makes me think, and I spoke about somebody else about this, I mean one of the things that's noticeable, prior to the case starting, as you well know, Richard was described as Britain's sickest man for questioning the Manchester Arena narrative.
So he was vilified by the entire UK media, what I would call the legacy media.
When the case was reported, the same paper, I mean this was the Daily Mail that called him Britain's Sickest Man, was referring to him as a former TV producer who had presented evidence at a trial questioning the Manchester Arena event.
Now that was a big shift in narrative.
Yes.
Right?
So my thought, I was trying to rationalise this and also trying to rationalise why the prosecution barrister had... I mean Richard came out of that looking like he, you know, to be frank, came out of it looking like the bigger man.
He looked like he was genuinely you know was presenting evidence to substantiate his opinions and that his opinions were honestly held and that came up quite a lot in the case that his opinions were honestly held now my thought about it is it's okay framing someone as a crazy conspiracy theorist if you just want to to accuse them of harassment and GDPR breaches
If that's the sole purpose, then sure, he can be just a fringe loony.
But if you want to set a case precedent, which is going to have ramifications of the import of redefining the UK interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights, specifically Article 10, then that can't be based on the ramblings of a lunatic.
It has to be based on something tangible, something real.
So I think that's... I personally, I fear that that explains the shift in the narrative.
Right.
So, yes.
Well, that's probably quite worrying, isn't it?
Well, I think so.
But I mean, I...
You know, I hope I'm wrong.
You know, I hope I'm wrong.
But I mean, that's just me speculating there, trying to figure out what I witnessed.
Because what I witnessed didn't make a lot of sense to me.
And what sense did you get of the workings of the English justice system?
Did it feel like a kangaroo court?
Did it feel fair?
Did it feel...
Well I thought the arguments presented were reasonably presented and were put forward but bearing in mind this was an extremely weird case to begin with because you know that the original Accusation of harassment against Hall, the original claim.
So it's a civil case, civil claim for harassment.
So a reasonable defense under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 is that you're a journalist pursuing a real story of, you know, of public interest.
I mean that has to be the situation, doesn't it?
Because otherwise journalists would be constantly prosecuted for harassment.
So Richard's defence, reasonably, initially, was to present his evidence to demonstrate that that's exactly what he was.
That's exactly what he was doing.
He was not some fringe lunatic that was making stuff up and going around accusing people for no reason of lying.
You know, he wasn't accusing anyone of lying.
He was saying that this event is not as we've been told and here's the evidence to prove it.
Now, all the evidence was struck out by the court.
The summary judgment, which was applied for by the prosecution, the prosecution applied for this, was struck out.
So as far as anyone was aware, including Richard, and I think it's, I mean, I don't know, I'm not, I wasn't privy to the conversations between Richard and his defence barrister, but from what I, you know, I was able to speak to Mr Oakley, who was, who was Richard's defence barrister, and you know, he, I got the impression from him that, that, you know, when they went into the case, they, it was on that understanding.
They, they went, they went to trial thinking For example, the prosecution could say things like 22 people died in the Manchester Arena and neither Richard nor his defence barrister could challenge that because they weren't allowed to present any evidence to challenge it.
But as the case unfolded, Mr Oakley I mean I actually said to him because I haven't I have lost my faith in the British justice system and I said to him afterwards you know you've almost restored my faith in the British justice system because he did give a thoroughly Well-read and well-informed defence of Richard's case.
So that, you know, it was good to see that adversarial process that we imagine happens in a court of law, happen in the High Court.
I mean, it did appear to be that, but that said, we don't know what the verdict is.
So whether the verdict will reflect that or not, I don't know.
Didn't you say that he sort of cost himself a career by sticking his neck above the parapet like that?
Well, I don't know whether he did or not.
I mean, obviously, it's not something that he is overly concerned about.
I mean, I wouldn't have thought that he is overly concerned about the implications for his career.
Otherwise, you know, as you would Well, it's the same if you're a journalist or a publisher, isn't it?
Earlier we said, you know, there's no chance of me getting my book published.
No publisher's going to publish it because it would be a career ender.
I think we can probably acknowledge that.
So, you know, it's reasonable, I would say, that no... I mean, a defence barrister's in a slightly different situation, aren't they?
Because they defend people that have been accused of serious things.
But nonetheless, he did make a robust defence of someone that was claiming that the Manchester Arena bombing didn't happen.
In fact, Oakley, in his summation, pointed out that Richard D. Hall, and he also spoke about my book as well, That we've asked a number of questions that have never been answered.
They've never been answered.
They've never been answered in any investigation.
Well, they haven't even been examined in any investigation.
And they haven't been examined or answered in any public inquiry.
And Mr Oakley actually did say these questions need to be answered.
Well, what about the judge?
I mean, judges aren't stupid people.
No.
And presumably they have some awareness of the background to these things before they go into these cases.
So the judge must have known.
Yeah, and I think the Judge Stein, I mean it was quite, it was a kind of humorous moment I suppose, but Judge Stein, they were talking about reading the book and I don't think Mr Oakley had the opportunity to read all of Richard's book.
I mean bearing in mind that Mr Oakley came to this case very, within weeks of it starting, so there was a lot for him to get up to speed with.
What was that?
Well, because... Well, no, it was just because Richard's looking for someone that would represent him fairly, I think.
Oh, I see.
So, so, um... But Judge Stein said she had read it.
She said she's read Hall's book.
Blimey!
So, Judge Stein has read Hall's book.
We know that, because that's what she said in the court.
Similarly, Judge Stein allowed Hall to present evidence which, as far as anyone knew from the summary judgment, had been barred from being entered into the court.
I tell you what, this is like mirrors within mirrors within mirrors, or layers of the onion.
You're never quite sure.
I'll give you an example of this.
I, back in the day, I used to I've been to two maybe three of Tommy Robinson's court cases and at the time my view was of a man, a brave outspoken man who was being stitched up by the English justice system.
He's not getting justice and I went along to these trials and I could see what seemed to me to be the workings of a corrupt system and with hindsight I'm thinking no, that too was part of the theatre.
He was being set up for the benefit of those people who were interested in thinking this way, that yes, he was a victim of an unjust system.
So you can never tell who is playing what role, because all the world's a stage.
No, I agree, and I did think, I mean, after I also attended the summary judgement hearing, after that was, that had concluded and they'd struck all of Richard's evidence out, I mean, I was absolutely convinced that, you know, the justice system is just hopelessly corrupt.
I mean, there's just nothing...
Nothing redeemable about it and I still largely hold that view but there was a part of that case the trial itself which you know at least the mechanism appeared to work as it is supposed to work as in you know the adversarial
Prosecution, defence, the system, that happened, you know, which is unusual because I have seen other cases where it hasn't happened.
So, you know, at least that aspect of how the justice system is supposed to function happened.
But of course, like I said, we don't know what the verdict will be.
I don't know what the verdict will be.
I know.
It's...
It is kind of...
Part of you thinks there must be some honest lawyers out there.
There must be.
I mean, not everyone who goes into the law is a crook and a liar and a coward who just accepts that the system, you know, joins it maybe thinking they're going to engage in justice and quickly realizes, no, it's all a lie, but what the hell?
You know, they've done their training now.
I mean going back to a couple of points that we've discussed earlier you know about how a major conspiracy would work and so forth and about you know me kind of writing more from a kind of normie quote-unquote normie perspective is that I still believe that you know I don't think that every journalist is corrupt I don't think that every... What do you mean?
I don't think that every judge is corrupt.
I think I'm more of an expert on that subject.
I'd say that... I think you are, I think you are.
They're all shite.
Yeah, yeah.
Oh no, they're all rubbish.
I'll go with that.
They're all rubbish.
No, no, no.
I think that some of them are worse than rubbish.
Yeah, no.
Yeah, no.
No, certainly.
I mean, there's certainly obviously people that are out-and-out propagandists.
Yeah.
I mean, I would put Marianna Spring very much in that camp.
What?
What is Mariana?
Mariana of the Moated Grange.
Mariana of the face mask and the thing and going around telling everyone they're conspiracy theorists.
Yeah, I still don't think that... I mean, if we lived in a society where everyone was corrupt and everything is... All our systems are irredeemably useless.
Then there's nothing to fight for is there in terms of being able to establish something that actually works.
Because I mean if human nature is...
Beyond the ability to act honestly with honour and be, you know, if we're incapable of doing that, then we really, really are, you know, we are in deep, deep, deep, deep trouble.
I don't know you.
I don't think we are.
You see, I think that you're proof of, you are living refutation of that.
But the fact that you are the living refutation of that point, that ghastly scenario you just laid out, doesn't mean to say that the scenario is not generally true.
I think it's worse than you think, but that people like you are what give us hope.
Here you are, you're operating outside the system.
You're doing what people within the system don't do, because that is the nature of the system.
It's the beast system, I would call it.
It is corrupting.
It's what the French call la déformation professionnelle.
Every field you go into, you end up being corrupted by its particular Quirks of corruption.
Yeah.
I mean, I think that's the point.
My point has always been, the system is corrupt.
If you wish to get on in the system, it is to your benefit to go along with that corruption.
It's to your benefit to go along with that corruption.
But that doesn't mean... I mean, it's like the discussion about police officers.
So you know I have personal experience and have seen many times certainly in my youth police officers doing breaking the law and being and being violent and hurting people and attacking people common assault I've seen many many police officers commit common assault now But I still don't think that every police officer is some sort of, you know, mindless thug that goes around beating people up.
I don't think that's true.
I mean, I've also met other police officers that are not like that at all.
They wouldn't dream of doing something like that.
So I think the system is set up to enable some people... I mean, Tommy Robinson's a great example, as you quite rightly said earlier.
Robinson is being put forward as the kind of the face of the far-right and all this kind of stuff in the UK.
A far-right, which as far as I can tell, is not really much of a significant threat or an influence.
There isn't really a meaningful far-right in the UK.
It doesn't exist.
I mean you've got a few people like Robinson who are put up as kind of figureheads To create the impression that there's this mass movement of people that are leaning, you know, and then are painted by a corrupt media to some sort of neo-nazi, you know, thug that this is an infestation in the psyche of the nation.
In truth, It is this corrupt system that has created that imagery and that propaganda.
Because in truth, a lot of people that protested in places like Southport and a lot of people that protested in Leeds and Merseyside and Manchester and elsewhere were protesting for legitimate reasons and for good reason.
And they had no intention of causing violence or anything like that.
But because the system is corrupt, the normies in the masses who consume the product of the system, they can easily be persuaded that the opposite is true. - Okay.
Not because the people involved are bad, but because the system is bad.
Just on the trial, the court case, whatever you want to call it.
Was it well attended?
Were you the only person in the kind of... Oh no, no, I think, you know, the court was full to the point, you know, but they won't allow standing in the court.
So, you know, you've only got a certain number of people that can go in the court.
But it hasn't been reported, has it?
What, the trial?
Yeah.
Yeah it was reported a bit but I think, funnily enough, I was actually sat next to an ITV reporter who covered the trial a bit but they, this again it all got really weird, so they covered the prosecution They covered the prosecution and reported on... broadly they covered the prosecution and reported on the prosecution.
But when it came time for the defence barrister to do the cross-examination, it just went silent.
In fact, on the last day when they were doing the summation, there weren't any reporters there.
Some of them were in a spillover court that they'd opened up to put some CCTV footage in for a spillover court.
But there was...
You know, looking at it kind of basically, the case did not go well for the prosecution in my view.
Now obviously I'm biased.
I mean I can't pretend that I haven't got a dog in the fight, I do.
So my interpretation of it is probably skewed.
But trying to be as objective as I possibly can and just looking at the evidence that was presented, the case did not go well for the prosecution.
You know, they couldn't cite clear examples of anything that you might describe as harassment, for example.
Yeah.
So if you can't give an example of the thing that you've accused someone of doing, which they couldn't, then, you know, that's obviously not gone well for the prosecution, I would have thought.
But again, we don't know what the verdict's going to be.
And I'm not a legal scholar, so, you know.
The people who brought the prosecution, did they testify?
Yeah.
Yeah, they testified.
How did they come across?
Well, I think the main problem with their testimony was that, from my perspective, was that they couldn't give an example of what they were talking about.
I mean, if you can't give an example of what it is that your point is, I don't really know quite what the...
But they couldn't.
You mean that they were bringing a case for harassment, but they couldn't give any concrete, persuasive examples of what form that harassment took?
No, I mean the only thing that came up in the case, and that's something that is already well known, is that Richard visited the street where one of the purported victims was said to have lived in, I think it was in 2019, August 2019.
Well subsequently, Greater Manchester Police did an investigation, I think in July of 2021.
Where they investigate to see if anything had happened.
You know, they asked people in the street if they were aware of the incident or anything.
And basically the Greater Manchester Police, that there was no cause for concern.
They concluded there was no cause for concern and they ceased their investigation.
There was nothing there.
They didn't think that there was anything to investigate.
Now it did become evident in the court that the claimants didn't know about Hall's visit until the summer of 2021.
As in, the claimants didn't become aware of his activity until the police turned up at their door and told them about it.
So subsequently, I mean it was a bit more complex than that because one of the claimants said that he was aware of Hall's work in 2018, which was a bit odd because Hall didn't publish anything about him or say anything about him until 2020.
So quite how that worked wasn't really made clear in the court.
So so then that I mean basically you know what I think the key point about the about the testimonies of the the prosecution witnesses who were cross-examined by obviously by a horse defense barrister is that there wasn't anything you could nail down that was relevant to their claim.
So, which is, you know, but as I said, you know, I'm biased, I'm trying to report on it objectively, but I can't pretend that I'm not biased, I am biased.
Did you have any chats with anybody, you know, like the ITN reporter, or did they know what... I did.
I had a brief chat with her, very brief, Uh because I heard her speak to a colleague and make a comment and I can't quite remember what the comment was and I just sort of turned to her and said that's not true.
I said that's actually that's not true.
I think it was about something like he harassed them or blah blah blah so I can't remember what it was and I said that's that that's not true and then she got she immediately got very defensive which is a good which is a good You know, illustration of what we were talking about earlier.
She says, I went to the inquiry and I heard all the terrible, terrible stories about what happened to these people.
I reported on the inquiry and it's awful what happened and blah, blah, blah.
And I said, and she said, and I've seen, and she said to me, I've seen all the evidence.
She said, I've seen all the evidence.
And I said, oh, have you seen the bar footage?
And she said, no.
I said, well you haven't seen all the evidence then.
You know you think you've seen all the evidence but you haven't seen the evidence.
She loves you.
And so I said so in terms of in terms of the um the observable physical evidence of what happened in the immediate aftermath of that bombing if you even if you went to the Saunders Inquiry you haven't seen the the evidence you haven't seen it because it wasn't reported in the it wasn't it didn't it wasn't even discussed in the Saunders Inquiry.
So what's your take on the bar footage is it is Um, how did that emerge?
Was he part of the psyop or...?
Well, I mean, so, Mr Barr was reportedly in that room with his son, who, at when the bomb went off,
They're not, or when the bomb reportedly went off, they're not mentioned in any footage or in any report about, you know, they're not listed as among the people that were in that room and he, and Hall managed to speak to him, Hall interviewed him, spoke to him and he said that, so they're in this room where this massive shrapnel bomb's gone off with 3,000 bits of shrapnel in it and neither him nor his son were injured, he said that.
Neither he nor his son were injured at all.
Not a scratch.
He then filmed.
Why he filmed it, I don't know, but he filmed it on his phone.
What was going on inside that room, which included Ruth Morrell, who was the woman I mentioned earlier, supposedly stood next to Michelle Kiss, strutting past in the front of the frame.
with a with a bit of red sort of red moulage daub daubed on a daubed on a leg after supposedly having a bolt blown clean through her thigh she's walking on high heels she's walking on high heels quite jauntily Strutting across the front of the frame.
You've never been hit in the leg with a strap.
You wouldn't know whether you can walk jauntily or not.
I've been shot in the leg.
On high heels.
I've been shot in the leg with an air gun.
And I know that that's bad enough.
You couldn't walk in high heels after that.
I can't walk in high heels anyway.
I'm rubbish at it.
But you know quite obviously when you analyse that footage which Richard did at length and I've subsequently sort of added a little bit more to that.
Uh, she's not just been struck.
by shrapnel that's passed through her leg.
I mean there's no hole in her, there's a tiny tiny little hole, pinhole in her jeans.
Now when her wound was shown by the media, we were looking at something with a sort of diameter, a diameter or radius of about five centimeters for an entry and exit wound in a leg.
Well there's no entry and exit wound in her jeans in this footage.
So how does it pass, how does it cause a massive entry wound in a leg but not in her jeans?
Or an exit wound in a leg, but not in her jeans.
The reason I'm cross-examining you on this is because you're citing the bar footage as evidence that it's all kind of fabricated.
The promoters of the official narrative, have they accepted the bar footage as kosher, as part of their No, no, they haven't mentioned it.
They don't mention it.
There's no official acknowledgement that it exists. - It's weird because, so you know from the timing that it must have been filmed very shortly after the bang noise.
Oh no, we can absolutely prove that it was because Ruth Morrell is seen in the footage with this, you know, the clothes that she's wearing, the red mark on her jeans, is also seen outside the arena on all the legacy media reports Sitting on the floor outside the arena so she was definitely there wearing those clothes with that With those jeans with that red mark on her leg that night.
There's no doubt about that.
Sounds to me like this is a case of a potential case of crisis actors going off script.
I mean it I don't know why Mr. Barr I don't know why John Barr filmed that footage and I know what I can't find what I find even more amazing is that he published it on social media.
Right, so this is another point.
This was published on social media.
The only reason that people became aware of it initially, and I was, you know, among those people that became aware of it initially, and I didn't follow it up.
Richard followed it up.
Richard D. Hall followed it up.
I didn't.
And actually I remember speaking to someone about it at the time, who I won't name, Who leapt down my throat because I was talking about it.
I was saying, look at this footage.
What the hell's going on?
This is not a bombing.
Well, it's obviously not a bombing.
What's going on?
And he absolutely eviscerated me.
He said, you know, this was on a phone conversation.
You know, he just said, you can't assume from that that there's no blah blah blah blah.
It doesn't show that.
It doesn't show this.
And I thought, well, fair enough.
That's an initial reaction.
But let's.
So therefore, it must be analysed.
This footage must be analysed.
We must we must look at it in comparison to the stated evidence that the evidence that is claimed about what happened.
Does it?
You know what?
What does this show?
And, you know, years later, you know, seven years later, that work was initially done by Richard and it compelled me to carry on with that work.
And yeah, I mean, it clearly shows that the That what we are told about the Manchester Arena bombing I mean I wouldn't normally go this far with I'm very hesitant to sort of nail my colours to the mast and go this is a fact because you know often I've been proved wrong and and You know, and also I'm always aware that more evidence can come out.
There's always more evidence that can come out that can make you revisit something and reinterpret it.
But in this situation, in this case, what we can definitely say is that the observable physical evidence does not show a bombing.
It doesn't show a bombing.
So I think we need to start from that basis.
And I think one of the problems with the official narrative, as you alluded to earlier, when you were talking about, and which was the same as mine, our experience of reading about all this horrendous loss and suffering, is that it overwhelms us emotionally.
But what, you know, rather than, I mean, and that story emerged very quickly, don't forget, that story was emerged within the first day.
That story was starting to come out.
So we were told about what happened using an appeal to emotion.
We were emotionally convinced to believe the story without anyone once thinking what is the evidence to support the account?
What is it?
The mainstream media in its entirety did not do that.
It didn't do that.
It just reported what it was Basically acting as stenographers for the government and the police.
It just released public press statements and called that a report.
You're right.
You say this early on in your book that I think about half past seven in the morning after the BBC mentioned it first in their bulletin and they told the story And the facts, apart from they changed the bomber's age from 23 to 22.
That 22 number.
Yeah.
The story's changed little since.
It's like they had it ready-made.
Yeah.
That was it.
Can I ask you, what Obviously we pay massive tribute to Richard D. Hall for his heroic investigator and he's great on the stuff.
He's great on Madeline McCann.
He's great.
He's a really... He's a decent man and I hope he doesn't get... We should all support him in whatever way we can.
What new evidence did you discover on your researches?
What was...
Well I discovered the fabrication of evidence that was submitted to the Saunders inquiry and I also kind of did some further analysis on you know by looking at the images of people like Ruth Morrell also I you know I discussed more about the evidence that came in the inquiry with regard to what are the
The physical, you know, impact of bombs, how that comports with what we can see in the observable physical evidence.
I also sort of kind of structured that evidence in terms of, you know, primary evidence, secondary evidence, witness testimony, you know, so I kind of broke the evidence apart more and kind of listed it in terms of its
In terms of its precedence you know so what what is what so what I would say is you know if primary evidence is observable physical evidence or what is sometimes referred to as real evidence so this would be a knife with blood on it for example or or some footage of someone being shot for example.
And that always has to take precedence over secondary evidence, which is a report of primary evidence or witness accounts, which, you know, best will in the world, you know, especially when we're in extremely stressful situations, the mind plays tricks on you.
You get, you get, you know, you, you, you recall things that aren't necessarily true.
So based, based on that, you know, what are the argument that I presented, which is perhaps somewhat different to the argument that Richard presented is, is that, um, you know, We can rank the evidence and say that the observable physical evidence shows that the subsequent witness accounts are not true.
One example, obviously I've given the example of Ruth Morrell's statement that was presented to the Saunders Inquiry.
Well we know that's not true.
Now what I also explore in the book is we don't know why it's not true.
We don't know why Ruth Morrell made a false witness statement or even if she did because there was further evidence presented at the Saunders Inquiry.
There were witnesses there that were complaining about the fact that their witness statements were changed by the police.
So we don't know actually that she gave a false account but she has subsequently given quite a few TV interviews and media interviews where she maintained the official account about it particularly in respect to Michelle Kiss so we can say that her account is false but for whatever reason
Now something I explore in the book things like you know false memory and stuff like that because there's a lot of evidence that false memories can be implanted there's been a lot of lot of experiments done where false memories have been implanted in people so we don't know the extent to which people's own experience has been manipulated But nonetheless, her account is false.
We can provably show it's false because the primary evidence doesn't merely not support her account.
It utterly contradicts it.
It completely denies her account.
So we know her account is wrong.
We don't know why.
And one thing that Richard was very keen to point out was something that started at
in his trial is that he was asking for further investigation and i would support that that's what both of us would would say i would i mean i don't speak for him but i think having spoken to him it's fair to say that both of us would call for further investigation because quite evidently there needs to be further investigation yeah Yeah.
Something tells me, Ian, there's not going to be further investigation.
No.
Because it would open up a massive can of worms, I think.
Which is that so many of these supposed events are fabrications.
Yeah.
One big thing that I did right, I wrote a whole chapter about something called Operation Gladio.
I'm sure you're familiar with that.
But that was a false flag operation that ran for more than 40 years in Europe.
It was nominally led by NATO, but actually when you get into it, it was more led by the intelligence agencies, particularly CIA and MI6.
But other intelligence agencies, such as the old French SDECE, were all involved.
And it was false flag terrorism in the traditional way.
You know, make it happen on purpose, false flag terrorism.
As in, far-right terrorist groups like Ordine Nuovo in Italy, and groups like that, were committing acts of terrorism.
You know, killing their own citizens.
Killing European citizens.
This happened across Europe for about 40 years.
And blaming it on far-left terrorists.
Alright, so they were killing...
It was being acts of terrorism committed by far-right groups who were being controlled by the intelligence agencies, Western intelligence agencies, to kill people and then blame it on far-left terrorists.
Right?
So that was that we know this is an established fact because there are European parliamentary resolutions on the Gladio affair asking NATO to stop doing it.
Okay, so we know that false flag terrorism is an established fact.
So then, from that, we then get to the most contentious of all types of false flag terrorism, which is the hoax.
So the question would be, and I would ask, if you can accept that the state is willing to kill its own citizens for political and propagandist ends, would it equally be willing to completely fabricate an event for the same political and propagandist ends?
You know, logically speaking, if you can overcome that initial cognitive dissonance, yes, of course it would.
If it's willing to slaughter people, really kill people, Then of course it's willing to create fake and false narratives for the same, you know, not necessarily the same reasons, but for the same kind of reasons.
So it's not that difficult to understand the motivation behind doing something like that, like Manchester.
So at the time, you know, obviously, you know, there were, there were calls for further military intervention in Libya.
As a consequence.
Which handily suited the agenda.
Which handily suited the agenda, yeah.
I mean, there are other things that have come from Manchester directly.
So we've got something called Martin's Law.
So Martin's Law was named after Martin Hett, one of the reported victims of the Manchester Arena bombing that was a hoax.
I'm going to just say it was a hoax, it was.
Now Martin's law, I think it's called the access to prevention of terrorism events or something like that.
I can't remember it now, it's escaped me.
But basically what it means is that every time we go to, when this is enacted, it's currently a bill but it's almost certainly going to be enacted.
That every major event that we go to, every, you know, with even things like festivals and things like that and sports, sports football matches and whatever, that the onus is placed upon the venue providers and the people that are organising the event to put in counter-terrorism measures.
So counter-terrorism measures is going to mean screening, it's going to mean... But, key, it's going to mean digital ID, isn't it?
Inevitably.
You're not going to be able to get in unless you can present your digital ID.
They are clever buggers.
So this comes directly from the Manchester Arena hoaxed false flag.
It's a direct product of that.
But that's awful, Ian.
That means that if in future I want to go to watch an occult ritual at a Taylor Swift concert and have my memory removed and be manipulated.
I won't be able to do so without digital ID.
Yeah, I know.
It's a real bummer for people, isn't it?
They want to engage in that kind of stuff.
I guess I've got to learn to live with it.
The good thing is, at least the state will know that you're a Satanist.
Well, even if you've forgotten who you are, the state will remember.
You already can phone them up, couldn't you?
Say, you know, what are my beliefs this week?
I've been to a Taylor Swift concert, and I can't remember anything that happened in the two hours.
You went to a Taylor Swift concert?
Why?
What on earth compelled you?
Have you got young children or something?
No, no, I'm actually...
I have not been to a Taylor Swift concert.
I can't imagine anything worse!
I've read numerous articles by people saying, why am I a Swiftie?
How amazing is Taylor Swift?
No, I haven't written that article.
Right.
And you're unlikely to find me writing one in the near future.
Because I think he's a bloke, apart from everything else.
A lot of this stuff, you know, the things about Taylor Swift and all that, I must admit, it just goes... I just don't even... I'm not... I'm realised that people I mean one of the things that I did notice about Taylor Swift was the fact that we've had all this trouble in the UK, well all this trouble, we've had some limited social unrest and disorder in the UK.
Taylor Swift comes over to the UK to do this big gig in London.
Prior to, only a couple of weeks ago, she had to stop Yeah.
Yeah.
European gigs because of quote unquote terrorist threats then she comes to London after all this has kicked off to this massive London event which is just plastered all over the media and I was thinking why?
I mean if that was the say that was the Rolling Stones so the Rolling Stones turned up to do a big London gig why would the media put it on the front page You know, Rolling Stones do Wembley Arena gigs.
I mean, the Rolling Stones do Wembley Arena gigs.
You know, I've done them many times before.
I don't remember the whole media reporting... Billy Joel played Cardiff the other day.
Where was that?
Yeah, where was that?
Why wasn't that all over the papers?
Exactly.
What's so special about Taylor Swift?
Did he?
Well, probably.
Well, I don't know.
I thought you'd gone to that one as well.
Just before we go, Ian, I've enjoyed talking to you very much.
Since our last podcast, would you say that you've gone further towards my position, you know, down the rabbit hole?
Are you still resolutely kind of normie adjacent?
I am.
I'm in the same position that I was in then.
You know, I mean, I don't... The rabbit hole is a, I would suggest, is a propaganda construct, right?
So this idea... They want you to think like me.
Well, yeah.
Because the idea is that there's something unusual about this information.
This information is a bit weird.
It's a bit unusual because you're questioning the state.
You're questioning a state which, you know, you will, as a journalist, you will recall this.
This is what journalists are supposed to do.
Questioning power is supposed to be a pretty... Well, that's part of the lie narrative.
I don't think it's actually... there's any evidence that that happens.
No, I don't think there's any evidence that it's happened, but it is what is supposed to happen.
So if we, if we, you know, it is the narrative that we are given, isn't it?
So therefore what they're suggesting is that the people that are actually doing that are the weird ones.
They're going down the rabbit hole.
There's something wrong with them.
Oh, I see.
Well, we can quibble over the terminology.
It's just a term of convenience.
So, from my perspective, I would say I'm not really in any different position than I was when I wrote Pseudo-Pandemic, which is my previous book.
And I enjoyed that book as well.
Long may you continue.
Staying a normie while yet engaging investigations which reveal the true nature of the world.
Congratulations.
Tell us where we can get hold of your book apart from all good bookstores.
Well, no good bookstores, right?
No.
No, it's free.
You can get it for free online if you go on my website and it's IanDavis.com and it's spelled I-A-I-N-Davis.com all one word and if you just subscribe to my website then I'll give away a free copy and you can read it at your heart's desire.
You can also buy a paperback version if you wish, which is also available on my website.
And also you can read my work on my Substack, which is iandavis.substack.com, where I have recently covered the trial in quite some detail.
I think I've written the five series.
They're very good pieces, I might say.
Very good.
Oh, thank you very much.
I think, you know, you're made for Substack, among other things.
I've just noticed actually how cruel it was, an act of fate, that you happen to have a Christian name and a surname, both of which have to be spelt out because there are variants on the common spelling.
And Davis can be either D-A-V-I-S or D-A-V-I with an E in it.
Yeah, I mean one of the weird things is... What were your parents thinking?
My old website was called In This Together, right?
And I had, because I didn't know anything about SEO or anything like that.
So I just put in dash this dash together.
So of course, when people were typing in this together, if they ever were, my website wasn't coming up because I'd put all these dashes in the URL.
So I completely screwed that up.
And now I thought, well, what could be easier than just putting my own name and just saying that?
But of course, as you've just pointed out, even that's not straightforward.
I think I might buy the URL if it's available.
Blog.
Is that available?
I don't know whether that's available.
I can say it's not.
I don't know.
You're talking to the wrong man about SEO optimization and things like that.
Yeah, well, likewise.
So, thank you very much Ian Davis.
It only remains to thank you, my lovely viewers and listeners.
Please, I really appreciate your support.
If you want early access to my podcast, which you probably do, it's that they're worth it.
They're worth it.
You can support me on Substack.
Sign up to my Substack or my Locals or Patreon or Subscribestar.
If you don't want early access, just want to give me a quick treat, you can buy me a coffee.
That's appreciated too.
Support my sponsors.
Often there's a lot of self-interest involved because they sell product that could be beneficial to you.
Thank you again for watching and listening and thank you Ian Davis.
Oh and also Thank you Richard D. Hall for all the work you do, and we love you and we hope that you're not feeling too got at right now, because you've got a lot of supporters out there.
Yeah, and I think that was evident from the trial as well.
