| I hope they rinse him for everything on 11:00 - Feb 10 with 1508 views | ChorleyBoy |
| I hope they rinse him for everything on 10:55 - Feb 10 by bluelagos |
That's cos he doesn't have any. He had the opportunity to present it and didn't.
Not sure why you or anyone else would think he's not been treated fairly. He has.
He's a fcktard of the highest order, the court has found the same. Not much more to say really. |
"He had the opportunity to present it and didn't. "
Well, that's news to me - can you provide a link to that, please? |  | |  |
| I hope they rinse him for everything on 11:01 - Feb 10 with 1517 views | redrickstuhaart |
| I hope they rinse him for everything on 11:00 - Feb 10 by ChorleyBoy |
"He had the opportunity to present it and didn't. "
Well, that's news to me - can you provide a link to that, please? |
It is inherent in the type of hearing. He had to show that he had a realistic defence. He didnt. |  | | |
| I hope they rinse him for everything on 11:07 - Feb 10 with 1501 views | EdwardStone |
| I hope they rinse him for everything on 10:56 - Feb 10 by ChorleyBoy |
I'm sure you're right. I would like Hall's evidence to demonstrate that perfectly. Why don't you? |
I'm sure you look in the mirror and see yourself as a fearless warrior seeking out the truth
I see you as a contraversialist/ contrarian who gives succour to deluded fantasist
Endlessly wishing to "debate" this tragedy and the horrendous effects it has wreaked on the victims and their families is cruel and unseemly.
Div list for you Charley Boy |  | | |
| I hope they rinse him for everything on 11:07 - Feb 10 with 1491 views | ChorleyBoy |
| I hope they rinse him for everything on 11:01 - Feb 10 by redrickstuhaart |
It is inherent in the type of hearing. He had to show that he had a realistic defence. He didnt. |
So he was allowed to show evidence, which he declined to do, in a hearing which was about determining whether he would be able to present his own evidence in a future court case.
That makes little sense to me. | | | |
| I hope they rinse him for everything on 11:09 - Feb 10 with 1470 views | ChorleyBoy |
| I hope they rinse him for everything on 11:07 - Feb 10 by EdwardStone |
I'm sure you look in the mirror and see yourself as a fearless warrior seeking out the truth
I see you as a contraversialist/ contrarian who gives succour to deluded fantasist
Endlessly wishing to "debate" this tragedy and the horrendous effects it has wreaked on the victims and their families is cruel and unseemly.
Div list for you Charley Boy |
It's a WIN WIN div-listing. | | | |
| I hope they rinse him for everything on 11:10 - Feb 10 with 1478 views | redrickstuhaart |
| I hope they rinse him for everything on 11:07 - Feb 10 by ChorleyBoy |
So he was allowed to show evidence, which he declined to do, in a hearing which was about determining whether he would be able to present his own evidence in a future court case.
That makes little sense to me. |
Then perhaps you need to do some research and understand the process a little better.
He would have been able to put in a witness statement, along with any key documents, to demonstrate that his case was realistic, rather than a waste of everyone's time. He plainly failed either to do so, or to put anything remotely realistic in it. | | | |
| I hope they rinse him for everything on 11:16 - Feb 10 with 1459 views | ChorleyBoy |
| I hope they rinse him for everything on 11:10 - Feb 10 by redrickstuhaart |
Then perhaps you need to do some research and understand the process a little better.
He would have been able to put in a witness statement, along with any key documents, to demonstrate that his case was realistic, rather than a waste of everyone's time. He plainly failed either to do so, or to put anything remotely realistic in it. |
Okay, this could be helpful.
I'd be grateful if you could direct me to this information about Hall's case.
If you don't, I'll just get bogged down in all the nonsensical conspiracy theory channels I tend to gravitate towards. See it as giving me some form of education. | | | |
| I hope they rinse him for everything on 11:19 - Feb 10 with 1459 views | redrickstuhaart |
| I hope they rinse him for everything on 11:16 - Feb 10 by ChorleyBoy |
Okay, this could be helpful.
I'd be grateful if you could direct me to this information about Hall's case.
If you don't, I'll just get bogged down in all the nonsensical conspiracy theory channels I tend to gravitate towards. See it as giving me some form of education. |
The BBC report says it was a Summary Judgment hearing.
You can look up summary judgment in the rules. Or a quick google brought up this helpful summary
https://ai-law.co.uk/civil-litigation-brief-a-look-at-summary-judgment/ | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| I hope they rinse him for everything on 11:32 - Feb 10 with 1425 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
| I hope they rinse him for everything on 08:56 - Feb 10 by ChorleyBoy |
The Judge said Hall's claims were preposterous, as indeed they appear to be, but that doesn't escape the fact that the judge hasn't seen the evidence Hall wants to show.
I am not happy with our justice system ruling without seeing evidence. You and Badger appear to take a different stance.
Like I said before, if the evidence is rubbish, let's all see it and expose it as such. |
I don't think you understand what a Summary Judgement is. The Judge makes an assessment as to whether the evidence to be presented has any merit whatsoever, or whether there are incontrovertible points of law which can be established before the case.
The judge has seen sufficient evidence (video of the attack and specific CCTV footage of the Hibberts at the Arena) to rule substantively that the claim that they were not there is incontrovertibly false.
The judge has seen the relevant evidence.
You can read the actual summary judgement here:
https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/martin-hibbert-and-another-v-richard-d-hall/
But the News account linked above is a fair summary.
When there has been a Public Inquiry:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/manchester-arena-inquiry-volume-1-sec
And a Murder Trial:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/aug/19/manchester-bomber-brother-hashem
Then certain facts are accepted as incontrovertible and established. Such as that there was a bomb that killed 22 people and maimed many others.
So the judge can take that as read. It is evidenced. The judge has read the relevant sections of the Inquiry report and the murder trial judgement.
So "no platforming" the conspiracy theorist, or, to put it another way, not forcing the harassed and traumatised victims of Abedi's attack to sit and listen to defamatory lies that they fabricated injuries, is appropriate as certain facts are established and don't need to be repeated. | | | |
| I hope they rinse him for everything on 11:33 - Feb 10 with 1424 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| I hope they rinse him for everything on 08:56 - Feb 10 by ChorleyBoy |
The Judge said Hall's claims were preposterous, as indeed they appear to be, but that doesn't escape the fact that the judge hasn't seen the evidence Hall wants to show.
I am not happy with our justice system ruling without seeing evidence. You and Badger appear to take a different stance.
Like I said before, if the evidence is rubbish, let's all see it and expose it as such. |
You want Hall to be able to present his "evidence" in a court but you dismiss the judge who has weighed up his "evidence" and deemed it inadmissible. You don't see any issue with that position? What makes you think the judge has made that ruling without considering the "evidence"?
You seem to struggle with rational logic. |  |
| |
| I hope they rinse him for everything on 11:39 - Feb 10 with 1401 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| I hope they rinse him for everything on 11:16 - Feb 10 by ChorleyBoy |
Okay, this could be helpful.
I'd be grateful if you could direct me to this information about Hall's case.
If you don't, I'll just get bogged down in all the nonsensical conspiracy theory channels I tend to gravitate towards. See it as giving me some form of education. |
I guess you are being sarcastic but you even recognise that you "get bogged down in all the nonsensical conspiracy theory channels I tend to gravitate towards. See it as giving me some form of education."
There comes a point at which everyone needs to balance the quality of sources of evidence they accept. Why would you tip that balance in favour of the wackiest most frequently disproved? | |
| |
| I hope they rinse him for everything on 11:46 - Feb 10 with 1388 views | redrickstuhaart |
| I hope they rinse him for everything on 11:39 - Feb 10 by Nthsuffolkblue |
I guess you are being sarcastic but you even recognise that you "get bogged down in all the nonsensical conspiracy theory channels I tend to gravitate towards. See it as giving me some form of education."
There comes a point at which everyone needs to balance the quality of sources of evidence they accept. Why would you tip that balance in favour of the wackiest most frequently disproved? |
Notably, the judge even explains what evidence was put forward and considered.
"Alleged inconsistencies and anomalies in the publicly available evidence
concerning the Manchester bombing have been put forward by the defendant at
great length and in great detail in his book and other publications. Exhibit RDH
1 to his witness statement, running to approximately 100 pages, contains a
section headed “Evidence which refutes the official Manchester narrative and
justifies an independent investigation”. Sub-headings include “Type of
explosive allegedly used”, “Lack of building damage”, “Apparently unharmed
victims” and so on. I will not embark on a more detailed description. They all
tend to the same conclusion, which is that the Manchester bombing was a staged
and therefore fake event involving conspiracy on a grand scale orchestrated by
malign UK government agencies and in which the (“recruited”) claimants were
complicit. I will not repeat the epithets that I have already applied to this
hypothesis. Suffice it only to add that the defendant’s points are directed
towards evidence not actually relied upon by these claimants and they do not
answer or cast any serious doubt on that evidence." | | | |
| I hope they rinse him for everything on 11:48 - Feb 10 with 1385 views | Mullet |
| I hope they rinse him for everything on 08:56 - Feb 10 by ChorleyBoy |
The Judge said Hall's claims were preposterous, as indeed they appear to be, but that doesn't escape the fact that the judge hasn't seen the evidence Hall wants to show.
I am not happy with our justice system ruling without seeing evidence. You and Badger appear to take a different stance.
Like I said before, if the evidence is rubbish, let's all see it and expose it as such. |
It wasn't good enough to get to court. That is how our system works. If you're going to criticise it, at least know about it.
Why should thousands of people suffer to please your arrogance and indulge this asshole? He was given a chance and fcuked it.
Your very real concerns and ego are not justifiable to lead to a court case because you just want to nose through the ramblings of someone who just wants to make money from the suffering of kids. |  |
| |
| I hope they rinse him for everything on 11:52 - Feb 10 with 1365 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| I hope they rinse him for everything on 11:48 - Feb 10 by Mullet |
It wasn't good enough to get to court. That is how our system works. If you're going to criticise it, at least know about it.
Why should thousands of people suffer to please your arrogance and indulge this asshole? He was given a chance and fcuked it.
Your very real concerns and ego are not justifiable to lead to a court case because you just want to nose through the ramblings of someone who just wants to make money from the suffering of kids. |
There is also very good reason for this system. Why should a court sit through and a jury have to listen to 100 pages+ of random, baseless claims simply to indulge that fantasist's right to be heard? In the same way, the police cannot present illegally-gained information for good reasons. We have a court process that is fair. Chorley seems to not like it but the defendant is not being gagged in any way that Chorley seems to think. | |
| |
| I hope they rinse him for everything on 11:54 - Feb 10 with 1337 views | Mullet |
| I hope they rinse him for everything on 11:52 - Feb 10 by Nthsuffolkblue |
There is also very good reason for this system. Why should a court sit through and a jury have to listen to 100 pages+ of random, baseless claims simply to indulge that fantasist's right to be heard? In the same way, the police cannot present illegally-gained information for good reasons. We have a court process that is fair. Chorley seems to not like it but the defendant is not being gagged in any way that Chorley seems to think. |
If he wants to come up here and see the damage, meet some victims, chat it through with me he's welcome. | |
| |
| I hope they rinse him for everything on 12:01 - Feb 10 with 1316 views | lowhouseblue |
| I hope they rinse him for everything on 10:03 - Feb 10 by ChorleyBoy |
So you've seen Hall's evidence? I haven't. |
jeez, you want to see his 'evidence' that the manchester attack didn't happen? alas once ai really gets good at fake videos etc this sort of 'i'm only being open-minded' lunacy is going to become endemic. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| I hope they rinse him for everything on 12:10 - Feb 10 with 1282 views | RadioOrwell |
| I hope they rinse him for everything on 11:07 - Feb 10 by ChorleyBoy |
So he was allowed to show evidence, which he declined to do, in a hearing which was about determining whether he would be able to present his own evidence in a future court case.
That makes little sense to me. |
It makes sense if the guy didn't have any evidence for his claims. |  | | |
| I hope they rinse him for everything on 12:25 - Feb 10 with 1258 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| I hope they rinse him for everything on 11:54 - Feb 10 by Mullet |
If he wants to come up here and see the damage, meet some victims, chat it through with me he's welcome. |
Perhaps you should also provide your concerns to the insurers that picked up the claim. I’m sure they’d be wondering why loss adjusters falsified their reports:
https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/uk/news/breaking-news/how-manchester-and-lo
So even if you think this is some rabbit hole government conspiracy, do you really think the private sector would want to be on the hook for millions?
What even would be the point of such a conspiracy- that’s what always gets me. What is ther to gain in inventing such a horrific event. I think the end result is the internet has give a voice to oddballs and simpletons. | | | |
| I hope they rinse him for everything on 12:50 - Feb 10 with 1230 views | ChorleyBoy |
I have now read through the Judgement.
There was ignorance on my part about the details of the hearing. Thanks to those who have politely directed me to more information. No thanks to all those who have repeated yelled "kids died, anyone who questions the official narrative is a dangerous conspiracy theorist, kids died". I tend to react negatively to those who attempt to sway my opinion with extreme emotion and their expectations to fall in line.
The judgement makes no specific reference to the short pieces of evidence Hall provided yet it was deemed it insufficient to require further evidence to be presented in the future trial.
The judgement seems clear and fair on the premise that the judge believes the evidence provided was not enough to revisit the whole authenticity of the Manchester Arena bombing. Hall appears to want to do that, but the reality of that happening was next to nothing before this hearing - it is now zilch.
EDIT
NOW I'M GOING TO WATCH THE MATCH.
COYB [Post edited 10 Feb 12:52]
| | | |
| I hope they rinse him for everything on 17:12 - Feb 10 with 1126 views | You_Bloo_Right |
| I hope they rinse him for everything on 12:50 - Feb 10 by ChorleyBoy |
I have now read through the Judgement.
There was ignorance on my part about the details of the hearing. Thanks to those who have politely directed me to more information. No thanks to all those who have repeated yelled "kids died, anyone who questions the official narrative is a dangerous conspiracy theorist, kids died". I tend to react negatively to those who attempt to sway my opinion with extreme emotion and their expectations to fall in line.
The judgement makes no specific reference to the short pieces of evidence Hall provided yet it was deemed it insufficient to require further evidence to be presented in the future trial.
The judgement seems clear and fair on the premise that the judge believes the evidence provided was not enough to revisit the whole authenticity of the Manchester Arena bombing. Hall appears to want to do that, but the reality of that happening was next to nothing before this hearing - it is now zilch.
EDIT
NOW I'M GOING TO WATCH THE MATCH.
COYB [Post edited 10 Feb 12:52]
|
Well I'm sure we're all much happier knowing that you think the justice system has worked as designed having availed yourself of the facts.
Shame you didn't do that before posting on here. |  |
| |
| I hope they rinse him for everything on 21:51 - Feb 10 with 1045 views | Mullet |
| I hope they rinse him for everything on 12:50 - Feb 10 by ChorleyBoy |
I have now read through the Judgement.
There was ignorance on my part about the details of the hearing. Thanks to those who have politely directed me to more information. No thanks to all those who have repeated yelled "kids died, anyone who questions the official narrative is a dangerous conspiracy theorist, kids died". I tend to react negatively to those who attempt to sway my opinion with extreme emotion and their expectations to fall in line.
The judgement makes no specific reference to the short pieces of evidence Hall provided yet it was deemed it insufficient to require further evidence to be presented in the future trial.
The judgement seems clear and fair on the premise that the judge believes the evidence provided was not enough to revisit the whole authenticity of the Manchester Arena bombing. Hall appears to want to do that, but the reality of that happening was next to nothing before this hearing - it is now zilch.
EDIT
NOW I'M GOING TO WATCH THE MATCH.
COYB [Post edited 10 Feb 12:52]
|
Some front to act the victim in any way here. Disgusting to pretend you were just asking questions innocently and then link it to watching the game as some sort of cheap distraction. | |
| |
| I hope they rinse him for everything on 21:55 - Feb 10 with 1042 views | ChorleyBoy |
| I hope they rinse him for everything on 21:51 - Feb 10 by Mullet |
Some front to act the victim in any way here. Disgusting to pretend you were just asking questions innocently and then link it to watching the game as some sort of cheap distraction. |
I don't like politics threads running into matches, but that was my doing, so I stopped contributing to the thread. No victimhood on my part. Read into my comments what you want though. | | | |
| I hope they rinse him for everything on 00:20 - Feb 11 with 980 views | BlueBadger |
| I hope they rinse him for everything on 07:35 - Feb 10 by ChorleyBoy |
No, my downvote (I don't give out many) was for the OT's comment "I hope they rinse him for everything".
One of the main purposes of the court case, as I understood it, was to decide whether Mr Hall (who was defending himself) could present his own evidence in court to support his claims. Again, as far as I understand it, he was not granted this right.
I think this sets a dangerous precedent.
The "truth" of the world is being played out on TV for us all to unquestioningly digest. What resources do individuals have to counter powerful institutions who have all types of deepfake technology at their disposal.
If Mr Hall has evidence to prove what he says is true, I think he should be allowed to present it. If the "evidence" is pathetic nonsense, let's expose it as such and allow the victims of the attack the dignity they deserve. |
This is such a feeble 'he just has Very Real Concerns' defence that even [redacted] would be embarrassed to try and run with it. |  |
| |
| I hope they rinse him for everything on 00:21 - Feb 11 with 976 views | BlueBadger |
| I hope they rinse him for everything on 10:03 - Feb 10 by ChorleyBoy |
So you've seen Hall's evidence? I haven't. |
Nobody has mate. Because he's made it up. | |
| |
| I hope they rinse him for everything on 00:23 - Feb 11 with 975 views | BlueBadger |
| I hope they rinse him for everything on 12:50 - Feb 10 by ChorleyBoy |
I have now read through the Judgement.
There was ignorance on my part about the details of the hearing. Thanks to those who have politely directed me to more information. No thanks to all those who have repeated yelled "kids died, anyone who questions the official narrative is a dangerous conspiracy theorist, kids died". I tend to react negatively to those who attempt to sway my opinion with extreme emotion and their expectations to fall in line.
The judgement makes no specific reference to the short pieces of evidence Hall provided yet it was deemed it insufficient to require further evidence to be presented in the future trial.
The judgement seems clear and fair on the premise that the judge believes the evidence provided was not enough to revisit the whole authenticity of the Manchester Arena bombing. Hall appears to want to do that, but the reality of that happening was next to nothing before this hearing - it is now zilch.
EDIT
NOW I'M GOING TO WATCH THE MATCH.
COYB [Post edited 10 Feb 12:52]
|
LOL | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
