The Downfall of Richard D Hall - the latest podcast to show why you can't trust conspiracy theorists.
Presented by Brent Lee and Neil Sanders, this deep dive is supposed to reveal how RDH went from reasonable individual to conspiracy nutter. It's meant to act as a warning but fails to hit the mark....
The first alarm bells started to ring when so-called investigative journalist Gemma O’Doherty laid down the terms and conditions on her nightly livestreams. Only controlled opposition would ignore the trial of Richard D Hall, apparently. She goaded UK Column, among others, to take up the mantle and cover the story - claiming the trial represented a persecuted journalist up against the big, bad system, just trying to get the truth out. They were attempting to shut down investigations into false flags, the bastards. Poor Richard - he was right. There was no bomb and no victims on the night of the Manchester Arena bombing on May 22, 2017, she repeated to a gallery of nodding heads and thumbs up in the comments section.
I knew it was a trap because O’Doherty has form. UK Column exposed their weakness by backing Richard D Hall. They proved two things in that moment:
They’ve got lousy ethics.
They’re not as squeaky clean as they present (old-timers on a mission).
Their decision to support RDH’s cause set them up for some serious reputational damage, deservedly so. Stupid move. Never let counterintelligence operatives goad you into anything. Have the moral backbone to say no, or better still, cover the trial like proper journalists and present both sides of the story in a fair and balanced manner. Where was their interview with Martin Hibbert? Shouldn’t the viewer, at the very least, expect to hear his side too? Instead, they chose to ignore all the warnings from this Substack and, bizarrely, publicly backed RDH’s campaign, even broadcasting yet another financial appeal.
The next sign that I was witnessing some serious shenanigans was when Gemma O’Doherty showed up in Richard D Hall’s Rich Planet TV studio in April 2024. These two are in cahoots, I thought. Phoney investigative journalism aimed to mislead but giving the appearance of thorough research to the uninitiated. The fact that John Waters had foolishly endorsed Gemma O’Doherty made it difficult for people to recognise the scam. Surely if a journalist of John Waters calibre had given the nod for O’Doherty’s work, it must be trustworthy. Wrong. Why did John Waters choose to endorse Gemma O’Doherty after she had broadcast so many lies and rumours about decent people who are exposing the rot in the system, is anyone’s guess. I’ve tried to appeal to his better nature but he freezes on the subject and makes lame excuses for her appalling behaviour. Not good enough.
“It’s quite clear that this is contrived in both of our cases. And, you know, there’s nothing organic, nothing natural about these cases,” O’Doherty told Hall in the broadcast in April 2024. Yes, that much we can agree on O’Doherty. It’s a set-up, for sure.
In July 2024, O’Doherty again made it plain to her viewers that the aim of the two trials would be new laws. Edel’s Law, based on her reckless journalism in The Irish Light newspaper, discussed in detail in this Substack from April 2024: Deliberate Bad Publicity: Gemma O'Doherty is the real psyop.
O’Doherty claims Edel’s Law would mean ‘that every person in Ireland will no longer be allowed to question any suspicious deaths’. Wouldn’t that be handy in a time of genocide? She tells us Eve’s Law (after Eve Hibbert) will shut us up talking about terror events. That’s what these operations are really about - they have to tell you. These two are so crafty, they’ve got you blaming the victims, not their sloppy journalism, for the proposed news laws. See how this works.
There’s no need for these laws but Richard D Hall and Gemma O’Doherty have gone out of their way with their ridiculous brand of fake investigative journalism to con their viewers into believing they’re the persecuted ones, not the real victims who they dismiss as crisis actors, with zero evidence. It’s mind-bending. Such is the potency of the spell cast by Richard D Hall that thousands of people think the 22 people killed in the Manchester Arena bombing were hired for the night, again with zero evidence.
This delusion isn’t helped by the likes of seasoned journalist James Delingpole who’s been instrumental in promoting false flag investigation narratives, mocking victims while quoting Bible verse. What’s his game? Just like UK Column, Delingpole’s blind faith in Richard D Hall exposes something more sinister. Is he ultimately encouraging his viewers to reach wrong conclusions so they look stupid and untrustworthy in front of their peers? Yes he has some great guests on the Delingpod to carry us along and give us a false sense of security but then there’s the treatment of victims who are mocked mercilessly (remember how he laughed with Richard D Hall about Saffie Roussos). Another alarm bell for those paying attention. And you really should be paying attention because the greatest threat to the regime are critical thinkers. Us! There are traps laid everywhere to make us look thick, cold and unprincipled. Don’t underestimate the planning that’s gone into this. How do you avoid the pitfalls? Have some bloody ethics, for goodness sake, and heed the alarm bells.
The Richard D Hall case is so daft, of course it’s been chosen as a prime example for why you shouldn’t trust conspiracy theorists by podcasters Brent Lee and Neil Sanders (who used to work with RDH interestingly). The Downfall of Richard D Hall has been broken into three, one-hour each, parts and can be found on their Some Dare Call It Conspiracy podcast. It’s very well done, even if it’s coming from a mainstream perspective so you’re not going to agree with certain aspects, as to be expected. Still, it’s important to practise listening to different perspectives so you don’t end up in an echo chamber of lies and misdirection, thinking you’re the good guy who knows it all.
Lee and Sanders also detected the hard edit in the Delingpod broadcast with Richard D Hall, as I pointed out last week in Oh look! There's RDH telling James Delingpole about his Saffie Roussos theory! which mustered eight likes. The Truth is never popular, that’s why honest journalists can’t play for validation. We’re not influencers. We’re here to tell you things you don’t want to hear.
I found it odd that Delingpole had pretended to Abi Roberts that he was unaware of RDH’s theory that the parents of Saffie Roussos had used the ‘hoax bomb’ to conceal their involvement in the death of their daughter. It set off alarms bells again, louder this time. Something very strange was going on. Why was Delingpole acting so shifty, hiding behind his mug?
Neil Sanders goes on to use some choice words to describe RHD and Delingpole for their treatment of the victims of the Manchester Arena bombing. It’s all so easy. Look at these rotten conspiracy theorists demanding pictures of dead kids as proof of a bomb and mocking the suffering of their grieving parents.
People tell me Delingpole is notoriously scatty and he just didn’t remember RDH’s Saffie Roussos theory. Imagine being that brainwashed. Like his former boss in The Spectator, Boris Johnson - Delingpole knows exactly when to turn on the bumbling act. It’s a routine. He knows perfectly well what the theory is, that’s why he edited it out of the broadcast, just leaving a bit in about the injuries on Lisa Roussos’ hand being ‘consistent with a car accident’. The bulk of the theory was edited out because it’s highly libellous and will most likely end up in court again. Any journalist could see that a mile off. You can’t go around accusing parents of using their dead child to promote a hoax bomb event, without evidence. I can’t believe I have to spell this out. It’s not free speech, it’s slander.
Delingpole is being reckless with his false flag investigations encouraging his large following to engage in character assassinations online, priming the way for another court case to make conspiracy theorists look nuts. A journalist of his stature should be warning his followers that there’s no evidence to support the Saffie Roussos claim, that there are libel laws that protect a person’s good name and that we should thread carefully considering the sensitive nature of the story and lack of credible evidence. Speculation won’t do. Instead, Delingpole is seal clapping along to RDH’s madcap theories without grilling him appropriately, as you might expect from a journalist who’s written for The Times, The Daily Mail, The Telegraph, The Express, The Spectator and who was once the executive editor of Breitbart London. Something is most certainly not adding up. It has all the hallmarks of another set-up. The aim of the game: to undermine critical thinkers.
And in its own tinfoil hat kind of way, they deserve to be undermined for being so easily manipulated. They’re supposed to be critical thinkers, after all. Everybody who fell for the Richard D Hall scam is guilty of repeating nonsense and failing to detect warning signals as they arose.
It’s all well and good asking questions and investigating perceived false flags, but standards are necessary to avoid being played or worse still, accusing innocent people in the wrong. Funnily enough it’s RDH himself who warns us about the tactics employed by the captured mainstream media, as alluded to in Part One of The Downfall of Richard D Hall:
“I think the mainstream are very careful what they put out and even to the point where I think, they know there’s a small percentage of people who don’t buy any of these terror events and they know that people like you (Nicholas Kollerstrom) are going to analyse them, so they possibly plant things there to mislead you so that you get the wrong end of the stick with your theory”.
Well yes. That much should be clear by now. It’s very important to the regime that critical thinkers are tricked into absurd and fantastical conclusions like the no bomb, no victims theory so we look stupid and undesirable.
The purpose of the Downfall of Richard D Hall podcast is to show the public how somebody can go from being a reasonable, logical human being to a madman, intoxicated by falsehoods and fantasy, who ends up losing it all, for being a conspiracy theorist. In other words, you don’t want to be one of those freaky conspiracy theorists. You might end up losing your hat, and your mind, if you’re not careful. It’s not worth it. Stick to the day job.
That’s the aim of the game but still, there are some good bits worth gleaning from the production which methodically offers a timeline of RDH’s apparent descent into madness and bankruptcy. I’ve studied RDH’s output and it’s all riddled with holes. He’s always been deceiving his audience. There was no descent into anything apart from more deception.
Neil Sanders says: “Interesting what Richard’s saying at this point in time is - just looking at pictures and forming an opinion of them really isn’t evidence. It really isn’t good enough, which is odd because that would be the mainstay of his entire thesis but let’s not get bogged down”.
According to the podcasters - RDH increasingly gets taken in by historian Nicholas Kollerstrom from that point onwards, a kind of ‘the big boys made me do it’ excuse for his ill-judged no bomb, no victims conclusion. It sounds plausible, if you’re unaware of the details. Again, this is three hours of methodical research (from a different angle) and in the end, just like RDH’s followers, you’re compelled to reach a false conclusion. It’s all pointing in one direction - but it’s still misleading. Another shining example of how suggestion works.
The real conclusion, as far as I can discern, is that Richard D Hall is playing the role of a conspiracy theorist to show just how easy it is to trick a bunch of people with dodgy info, presented in such a fashion, that they think they’re right, even if it means picking on the victims who they perceive as crisis actors, so fair game. Clearly I don’t tell you any of this to be popular but it must be said. The main crisis actor in all of this is Richard D Hall. He deserves an Oscar for bringing his books to court in that signature brown suit and declaring there was no bomb and no victims to the media while Martin Hibbert rolled by in his wheelchair. That takes some neck and displays a serious lack of conscience. Richard D Hall succeeded in turning off large swathes of the public from valid conspiracy theories. Mission accomplished.
His sister operation in Ireland continues to pump out false and misleading information to likes and validation - Poor Richard was wronged by the big, bad system. Please donate. The victims are liars and on it goes for as long as the audience allows themselves to be fooled.
Show your support for independent journalism and buy the author a coffee HERE.
I still have a hard time getting my head around how RDH fell into this abyss and went to the extremes he did. It was like something took him over.
I see it as a part of a strange dynamic in the Truther world that somehow the illusion prevails that no Jihadist attack has ever happened anywhere on earth and they are all 'false flags'. Every last one of them. It's incomprehesible and extremely dangerous. I could take this down a more spiritual woo woo path and throw in Djinn possession overcoming people such as RDH, but out of respects to Manchester, Bataclan, Sligo and other victims of ISLAMIC MASS MURDER of 'Infidels' I'll keep my mouth shut.
In my opinion, the evidence is strong that this event did not occur as claimed and that a TATP bomb did not explode that night (though there clearly was an explosive sound and flash visible from the arena). I believe deliberate disinfo has been put out to make people think the attack was a hoax (and like I said, the official account does not stack up with the evidence presented, which may be part of the deliberate disinformation). The false evidence and claims, and people involved in making those claims (i.e. Mr. Hall), are then discredited, and the whole notion that the attack did not occur as claimed is thus discredited, and the impression created in the public mind that anyone questioning official accounts of similar events is not to be trusted. This helps reinforce the official narratives of any "false flag" attacks in future.
BTW you do yourself no favours with these snide, churlish personal attacks about people being "brainwashed" or "mad", nor do you help yourself by digging in on your position and not giving any ground to the other side. It's unhelpful in persuading people to your point-of-view. Neil Sanders has been extremely aggressive and abusive to people on Twitter who've questioned or disagreed with him, which also makes it hard to give serious consideration to his claims.