What a lark! So why is James Delingpole pretending he doesn't know about the controversial claim in one of his latest podcasts with Abi Roberts? Something stinks.
Question from Telegram: Claire: Ok so let's say you're right, why would he (Delingpole) pretend he doesn't remember this detail? I don't get it....what does he gain? Good question Claire. So Delingpole is acting weird playing down RDH's wild assertion that the parents of Saffie Roussos were using a hoax bomb to cover up their daughter's death. I know he knows as I got in touch with him personally to flag the issue and he responded but refused to let me back on his show to balance the argument. Fine, it's his show. But this a big deal. This is outrageous in journalistic terms - no news editor would allow a story like that out because he'd be afraid of getting sued. It wouldn't see the light of day. But as we saw, Delingpole let Richard D Hall broadcast it on his podcast. Odd. Delingpole is a seasoned journalist, he understands libel limitations. Also, if you follow Richard D Hall - he's not shy about his baseless theory. As a journalist there are alarm bells going off to beat the band. This is not normal. You need evidence to support your claim, especially one that's likely to land you in court. Of course you do. Imagine being falsely accused of hiding your child's death and using a hoax bomb to cover your tracks. That's slander if you can't back it up! How is he getting away with it? It's my contention these units are embedded on our side to make critical thinkers/conspiracy theorists look mad and bad and most importantly, untrustworthy. I'd have serious questions about these false flag investigations. It's clear people are being misled, on purpose. This is not good. I wouldn't be surprised if Andrew Roussos sues next and again makes a show of the conspiracy theory crowd who'll double down thinking he's a crisis actor, just as they did with Martin Hibbert. The brainwashing is off the charts on this, worse than the Covid hoax. Why is it important to tarnish the reputation of conspiracy theorists? Because we pose the greatest threat to the regime/NWO so we must be undermined at every turn. No decent journlalist would support this BS. That's why there are codes of ethics - it makes it easy to weed out lies and spot spoofers. People are revealing themselves here. There's no excuse for supporting RDH if he's being so reckless and going after bad publicity. A proper journalist would never accuse grieving parents of using their child's death to cover for an earlier incident without proof. It's completely unacceptable but also reflects the general crap morals of the audience who should, by right, be kicking up a stink. I can only conclude, they're under some kind of spell.
As someone with no dog in this fight apart from being concerned with the truth, this video seems disingenuous to me Aisling. It is based on a suggestion that Delingpole pretended he didn’t know something when he did. If you listen to what Abi actually said to James, it was that there was a claim that the parents had previously killed their daughter, which is a strong shocking statement, to which James replied I’m not aware he’d said that. Has Richard D Hall ever said they killed Saffie? As I understand it he has only ever speculated that she might have previously died in an accident, not that they had killed her. I don’t think he said they killed her in any of the clips you showed. It looks to me that in your haste to find a “Gotcha” moment, you have contorted the truth. You can’t be claiming the moral high ground in a battle between good and evil at the same time as bending truth to fit your prejudice
Exactly. They don't suggest they killed Saffie but that she previously died in an accident. But we have to wonder why they would analyse the words of crisis actor parents who will be scripted.
Yes but why would you analyse anything about the words when if it's a hoax they will be scripted? The people orchestrating the hoax know what's what with the couple - if the child died previously or not. Perhaps they were scripted to hint at the fact that Saffie did die in an accident - regardless, it's the orchestrators who are in charge of all this stuff - it's completely nonsensical to be analysing what they say as if it's being generated directly by them themselves.
I’m not sure I understand your point. Richard D Hall was analysing the delivery of the words….presumably to ascertain whether or not they were scripted or genuine
But how could they not be scripted if Manchester was a hoax?
The point is it's determined Manchester was a hoax therefore that couple will be scripted. But in any case who cares whether Saffie is alive or dead and how she died if she is dead. It's not up to us to prove whether the alleged victims already died or are still alive on a Greek island or whatever.
That is not our business. All we have to prove is that it was a staged event.
The best they can come up with for Saffie is SPECULATION about her aliveness or otherwise and when there's so much clear evidence of a staged event we shouldn't be delving into areas of speculation about things that are of little concern.
You have to examine each element separately. Whether or not elements of the event were not as presented, it doesn’t mean that people weren’t injured there. Just as “Covid” wasn’t as presented yet people were still killed and injured. You aren’t making any sense. The people who scripted the words, if they were scripted, weren’t the ones analysing them 🤦♂️
If Saffie's parents are in on the Manchester hoax then they will be scripted to say whatever they say ... so it's very interesting that a Statement Analysis of what they say allows for the conclusion that she'd already died. RDH and Genevieve Lewis set up for this? In staged events there is evidence that they use people who've already died for the alleged dead but I'd never conclude anything from what crisis actor loved ones say because we know they're scripted and we simply cannot rely on anything they say.
I spoke with a friend who lives near Manchester a couple of months after the event and when I told her it was staged she said, “Oh, but we know the parents of a girl who goes to school with a girl whose mother died.” Almost in the next breath though she said, “No evil from these people would surprise me.” As we were talking, she was cogitating and said, “You know, the family of the youngest child who died [Saffie Roussos] was on TV this morning and they talked about how her mother was in hospital still recovering from serious injuries. I guess if the child weren't dead she’d need someone to look after her, the most likely person being her mother so this might explain why the mother is 'still in hospital'." Of course, in the case of it being a hoax, she wouldn't be in hospital, she and her daughter would be sequestered off somewhere! My friend did not switch to believing, in the course of our conversation (and probably still hasn’t), that the event was definitely staged but I was amazed at the way she readily accepted it as a possibility and, although she had had no notion of this or any other event being staged until 5 minutes before, was working out a possible aspect of the modus operandi! I never would have made the connection myself.
At the time the media told us that the Roussos's were "reluctantly" selling their fish and chip shop because the now wheelchair-bound mum could not work in the fish shop so this would fit with Saffie still being alive and their moving somewhere else. My guess was a nice little Greek island ... but total speculation of course.
She says she and her friend "were sat quite far back in the upper tier and just as the last song finished just as it finished we left because we were on the end two seats and we thought if we leave then everyone else can get out quicker. We wanted to avoid the rush of everyone trying to get out."
This is typical Revelation of the Method.
1. If they're far back and on the end two seats then they're hardly going to slow people down and being closest to the exit they would naturally avoid the rush - no need to leave early.
2. We're told the bomb went off "during" the last song not after it had finished but she makes a point of saying twice "just as it finished"
Question from Telegram: Claire: Ok so let's say you're right, why would he (Delingpole) pretend he doesn't remember this detail? I don't get it....what does he gain? Good question Claire. So Delingpole is acting weird playing down RDH's wild assertion that the parents of Saffie Roussos were using a hoax bomb to cover up their daughter's death. I know he knows as I got in touch with him personally to flag the issue and he responded but refused to let me back on his show to balance the argument. Fine, it's his show. But this a big deal. This is outrageous in journalistic terms - no news editor would allow a story like that out because he'd be afraid of getting sued. It wouldn't see the light of day. But as we saw, Delingpole let Richard D Hall broadcast it on his podcast. Odd. Delingpole is a seasoned journalist, he understands libel limitations. Also, if you follow Richard D Hall - he's not shy about his baseless theory. As a journalist there are alarm bells going off to beat the band. This is not normal. You need evidence to support your claim, especially one that's likely to land you in court. Of course you do. Imagine being falsely accused of hiding your child's death and using a hoax bomb to cover your tracks. That's slander if you can't back it up! How is he getting away with it? It's my contention these units are embedded on our side to make critical thinkers/conspiracy theorists look mad and bad and most importantly, untrustworthy. I'd have serious questions about these false flag investigations. It's clear people are being misled, on purpose. This is not good. I wouldn't be surprised if Andrew Roussos sues next and again makes a show of the conspiracy theory crowd who'll double down thinking he's a crisis actor, just as they did with Martin Hibbert. The brainwashing is off the charts on this, worse than the Covid hoax. Why is it important to tarnish the reputation of conspiracy theorists? Because we pose the greatest threat to the regime/NWO so we must be undermined at every turn. No decent journlalist would support this BS. That's why there are codes of ethics - it makes it easy to weed out lies and spot spoofers. People are revealing themselves here. There's no excuse for supporting RDH if he's being so reckless and going after bad publicity. A proper journalist would never accuse grieving parents of using their child's death to cover for an earlier incident without proof. It's completely unacceptable but also reflects the general crap morals of the audience who should, by right, be kicking up a stink. I can only conclude, they're under some kind of spell.
As someone with no dog in this fight apart from being concerned with the truth, this video seems disingenuous to me Aisling. It is based on a suggestion that Delingpole pretended he didn’t know something when he did. If you listen to what Abi actually said to James, it was that there was a claim that the parents had previously killed their daughter, which is a strong shocking statement, to which James replied I’m not aware he’d said that. Has Richard D Hall ever said they killed Saffie? As I understand it he has only ever speculated that she might have previously died in an accident, not that they had killed her. I don’t think he said they killed her in any of the clips you showed. It looks to me that in your haste to find a “Gotcha” moment, you have contorted the truth. You can’t be claiming the moral high ground in a battle between good and evil at the same time as bending truth to fit your prejudice
Exactly. They don't suggest they killed Saffie but that she previously died in an accident. But we have to wonder why they would analyse the words of crisis actor parents who will be scripted.
They were analysing the delivery of the words. Not the words themselves
Yes but why would you analyse anything about the words when if it's a hoax they will be scripted? The people orchestrating the hoax know what's what with the couple - if the child died previously or not. Perhaps they were scripted to hint at the fact that Saffie did die in an accident - regardless, it's the orchestrators who are in charge of all this stuff - it's completely nonsensical to be analysing what they say as if it's being generated directly by them themselves.
I’m not sure I understand your point. Richard D Hall was analysing the delivery of the words….presumably to ascertain whether or not they were scripted or genuine
But how could they not be scripted if Manchester was a hoax?
The point is it's determined Manchester was a hoax therefore that couple will be scripted. But in any case who cares whether Saffie is alive or dead and how she died if she is dead. It's not up to us to prove whether the alleged victims already died or are still alive on a Greek island or whatever.
That is not our business. All we have to prove is that it was a staged event.
The best they can come up with for Saffie is SPECULATION about her aliveness or otherwise and when there's so much clear evidence of a staged event we shouldn't be delving into areas of speculation about things that are of little concern.
You have to examine each element separately. Whether or not elements of the event were not as presented, it doesn’t mean that people weren’t injured there. Just as “Covid” wasn’t as presented yet people were still killed and injured. You aren’t making any sense. The people who scripted the words, if they were scripted, weren’t the ones analysing them 🤦♂️
He has no evidence of what happened to her.
You have no evidence of what happened to her.
Maybe someone should investigate? This seems to be a waste of time.
If Saffie's parents are in on the Manchester hoax then they will be scripted to say whatever they say ... so it's very interesting that a Statement Analysis of what they say allows for the conclusion that she'd already died. RDH and Genevieve Lewis set up for this? In staged events there is evidence that they use people who've already died for the alleged dead but I'd never conclude anything from what crisis actor loved ones say because we know they're scripted and we simply cannot rely on anything they say.
From my page: https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/manchester-bombing.html
I spoke with a friend who lives near Manchester a couple of months after the event and when I told her it was staged she said, “Oh, but we know the parents of a girl who goes to school with a girl whose mother died.” Almost in the next breath though she said, “No evil from these people would surprise me.” As we were talking, she was cogitating and said, “You know, the family of the youngest child who died [Saffie Roussos] was on TV this morning and they talked about how her mother was in hospital still recovering from serious injuries. I guess if the child weren't dead she’d need someone to look after her, the most likely person being her mother so this might explain why the mother is 'still in hospital'." Of course, in the case of it being a hoax, she wouldn't be in hospital, she and her daughter would be sequestered off somewhere! My friend did not switch to believing, in the course of our conversation (and probably still hasn’t), that the event was definitely staged but I was amazed at the way she readily accepted it as a possibility and, although she had had no notion of this or any other event being staged until 5 minutes before, was working out a possible aspect of the modus operandi! I never would have made the connection myself.
At the time the media told us that the Roussos's were "reluctantly" selling their fish and chip shop because the now wheelchair-bound mum could not work in the fish shop so this would fit with Saffie still being alive and their moving somewhere else. My guess was a nice little Greek island ... but total speculation of course.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4250234/saffie-roussos-parents-sell-fish-chips-shop/
Mum - discharged from hospital for the day - looking very unwheelchair bound at Saffie's funeral.
https://www.lep.co.uk/news/crime/manchester-arena-bombing-victim-saffie-roussos-bid-farewell-by-tearful-mourners-1096041
But you're right, it's a complete waste of time. We don't need to know what happened to the alleged dead. All we need to know is that there is:
--- zero evidence of a bomb, especially not the bomb described
--- a million and one anomalies in the rest of the story which they are obliged to incorporate due to their Revelation of the Method rule
So many staged events in 2017 - part of a long leadup to the pandemic crisis perhaps:
Grenfell Fire
London Bridge attack
Westminster Bridge attack
Parsons Green train bombing
Finsbury Park van attack
Aisling, I only watched your chat with Iain Davis recently. To point out an observation about the testimony of teenager, Lucy Jarvis at 1:13:
https://open.substack.com/pub/aislingoloughlin/p/the-iain-davis-interview-on-the-manchester?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web×tamp=4292.2
She says she and her friend "were sat quite far back in the upper tier and just as the last song finished just as it finished we left because we were on the end two seats and we thought if we leave then everyone else can get out quicker. We wanted to avoid the rush of everyone trying to get out."
This is typical Revelation of the Method.
1. If they're far back and on the end two seats then they're hardly going to slow people down and being closest to the exit they would naturally avoid the rush - no need to leave early.
2. We're told the bomb went off "during" the last song not after it had finished but she makes a point of saying twice "just as it finished"
They train them young. Pretty disgusting.
Delingpole is not to be trusted , anyone who takes joy out of killing foxes on horse back has something wrong with them.