Richard D Hall targeted by BBC over Manchester bombing hoax

Video Transcript:

Welcome to Rich Planet TV, I'm Richard D. Hall. Now if this is the first time you've watched Rich Planet and you are here because you've been watching Disaster Deniers hunting the trolls, you've come to the right place. So please bear with me and listen very carefully. After the 2017 Manchester Arena Bomb Attack was reported, there were many anomalies and inconsistencies in the information that was available to the public. One researcher, known online as UK Critical Thinker, made a series of videos which looked at many aspects of the Manchester attack. You can find those videos from this link. Now there is much analysis in these videos which casts doubt over the official Manchester story. I will mention just one piece of evidence here, the Nick Bicker Staff mobile phone footage. This is filmed on the Manchester Arena Concourse which is a wide indoor pathway that goes around the main arena where you can buy drinks and food etc. Now in the Nick Bicker Staff footage, he films himself searching for his daughter which he claims he filmed immediately after the explosion. The footage in his video contains very calm concert goers walking normally. This part of the footage is filmed next to the Concourse Bar which sells drinks during the concert and we see here a young man called Jordan Kenny going into his wallet and then walking towards the bar, presumably to buy something from the bar. In the video people can be heard making fun of Nick Bicker Staff by mimicking his high-pitched squealing. At the end of his video we see a TV screen above his head showing a live feed of the concert stage with pink and orange moving stage lights. Here I have compared the actual concert footage from 2017 with the TV screen above Bicker Staff's head. Now the bang or explosion occurred after the concert had finished when Ariana Grande was no longer on the stage and the main arena ball lights were on and people were leaving. At a few points in the video Ariana Grande's voice can actually be heard singing in the background. This means that Nick Bicker Staff's footage was beyond doubt filmed before the bang or explosion. People are laughing and they don't know what behind me, people bust into bits and half their bodies are everywhere. This is just one piece of evidence which proves there was detailed foreknowledge of what was going to occur. Much other evidence exists which casts huge doubt on the veracity of the entire event. So in 2019 and in 2020 I decided to carry out investigation into the events to try and establish what really happened. I published my findings in a film which you can watch from this link and in a 435 page book. Since publishing my book and film there has been a public inquiry. I have studied the public inquiry and to my knowledge the public inquiry has not provided to the public, images showing recognizable deceased people in the arena foyer or images of any recognisable serious injury located within the arena foyer. In my opinion the public inquiry has not shown what actually happened in the arena foyer on the 22nd of May 2017. The public inquiry organisers carefully redacted all of the important parts of the CCTV footage which would have shown what actually happened before they released the images to the public domain. In August 2022 over two years after publishing my book and film I was emailed by BBC reporter Marianna Spring who said she wanted to interview me to find out more about me, my career and my online profile. You can read all of the emails between the BBC and myself from this link. In the emails I state clearly I do not wish to be interviewed by the BBC and I state clearly the reasons why I do not want to be interviewed. I know people who I will come on to in a second who have been misled by the BBC and misrepresented in previous BBC productions therefore I do not trust the BBC. The emails from the BBC were quite flattering at first and very polite but once I had made it clear I was not going to take part in their programme their attitude changed completely. On the 30th of September 2022 I received a letter from the BBC which contained a number of false allegations. It reads, Mr Hall, BBC Panorama and BBC podcasts are investigating the impact of conspiracy theories around UK terror attacks. As part of the documentary and podcasts we plan to look at your films that you have promoted on your website richplanet.net and your book Manchester the Night of the Bang. I am therefore writing to invite you to respond or comment on a number of points and issues which as a result of our investigation and research we are considering including in our output. As our programme nears its broadcast date there may be other matters to which we will also invite your responses. So I will read out the BBC's 11 points and provide truthful replies. Number 1. I have promoted theories that the Manchester Arena terror attack in 2017 was staged despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary including but not limited to an independent review, an inquiry and testimony from emergency services, concert goers, survivors and bereaved families. My response? My opinion is that to my knowledge there has been no satisfactory evidence presented to the public which proves that the Manchester Arena incident was not staged. For example the public inquiry produced 4100 pdf documents some of which contained photographs and CCTV still images. To my knowledge none of these photographs or still images show any recognisable deceased or seriously injured victim inside the arena for you. To my knowledge neither the review nor the inquiry nor witnesses have produced images taken in the arena for you showing clearly recognisable deceased victims or clearly recognisable seriously injured victims. Number 2. You have promoted these theories online as well as in a book and DVD. Well I have followed evidence then published details of my research and my findings. Number 3. You have approached the homes and workplaces of some of the affected families and survivors of the Manchester Arena attack claiming to seek evidence that they have not been injured. This includes hiding cameras outside somebody's home. I have made some polite door to door inquiries in order to gather evidence which is a perfectly legitimate activity when doing research. I did not hide cameras or a camera outside somebody's home. I did consider placing a camera in a public place in order to gather evidence which has portrayed in my film. However I decided against it and instead I left a camera rolling inside my own vehicle which was parked in a public place. If the BBC accuses me and I think it already has, of hiding cameras outside somebody's home this is false. Number 4. You have accused some of the affected families and survivors of the Manchester Arena attack of lying, describing them as crisis actors and claimed that people did not die and were not injured in the attack. I have not accused anyone of lying. It is my opinion that some people involved have made false statements in their media interviews. This is an opinion, not an accusation. With regards to the term crisis actor, I believe the evidence in the Nick Bicker staff video proves he filmed his footage before the time of the ban or explosion. Therefore I believe he was acting. I believe therefore that describing him as a crisis actor is accurate. Number 5. These actions have caused substantial harm and distress to bereaved families and survivors. Well, I am easy to contact via my website and to date I have not received any direct contact by any Manchester victim to complain about my actions. I have carried out polite inquiries which have been within the law. Number 6. You have encouraged other people to follow your opinions on these events and conduct similar investigations which has also directly resulted in followers sending hateful comments and abuse to victims of the Manchester terror attack. I appealed for information from the public, from witnesses who saw what happened and from people who know people who saw what happened. This does not make me responsible for hateful messages sent by people who I do not know to anyone who may have been involved. Number 7. Your output has contributed to a culture that encourages hateful comments and abuse to be sent to victims of UK terror attacks whenever such an attack occurs often in the immediate aftermath. My output is concerned with seeking the truth about a variety of subjects and explaining what I discover. I have never encouraged anyone to send hateful comments or abuse. I am not responsible for what other people choose to say or do. Number 8. In your videos you have repeatedly referenced Nicholas Collestrom to support your theories that terrorist attacks were faked. Mr. Collestrom is a Holocaust denier and the author of a book breaking the spell the Holocaust myth and reality. The book claims that nobody was murdered in gas chambers in Auschwitz and that any deaths at the camp were due to an outbreak of disease. My response is simply to read his books because these books are very well researched and referenced or you can find interviews with him from this link. Number 9. You have profited from your theories by selling books and DVDs including those alleging the Manchester attack was staged as well as selling merchandise tickets to tours and inviting donations to your website. Well, carrying out research and producing films about subjects people wish to know about is an occupation just as it is for a BBC journalist or any other journalist. Why would you expect anyone to work hundreds of hours for free? Number 10. Our research suggests that you previously have dismissed the idea that terror attacks are hoaxes and have changed your views over recent years. If new evidence comes to light on any subject, an opinion or conclusion can change. My opinion on fully hoaxed fabricated terror as opposed to fabricated terror with real deaths is that fully hoaxed fabricated terror has been used more frequently since around 2013 than it was used before that time. Number 11. The survivors of the terrorist attacks mentioned above say that you have added to their trauma what is your response? Well, I am easy to contact and I have not been contacted by any person claiming to be a survivor of a terrorist attack to tell me that I have added to their trauma. Now not long after receiving this letter on the 7th of October 2022, I was working at my market stall in Murthy Tidville and I was visited by Mariana Spring of Pararama. Do you understand that the harm that this can cause to the victims who are the survivors of these attacks who are at the heart of those theories who have been targeted? I have told you that I do not wish to speak to you and I have told you why I do not wish to speak to you. We want to give you an opportunity to not... I do not believe you will give me that opportunity because the BBC has a track record of tricking people and I can quote people who have been tricked by the BBC in documentaries and misrepresented such as Dr Nick Collestron. So now I do not wish to speak to the BBC because I do not trust the BBC and I do not believe your motives are what you say. Right? I just want to be able to ask you these questions from the people who have been caught up in the attacks because they have been harmed by this stuff and you have turned up at the houses and hit cameras and things like that and that is really difficult for them. Do you believe that? Right, you are wrong about that and I do not wish to discuss it. How am I wrong? Because you are wrong. I would like you to explain that to me. No, I do not wish to explain it. Why? Because I do not trust your motives. But I am here. I have asked you lots of times I want to speak to you and I really want to genuinely understand that I do not believe you. I do not believe you. Okay. Is there anything I can say that will make you trust me or believe me? No. I would never trust the BBC. So, can you please go? I just want to ask you, you are selling books here, you have your DVD, you are property from the worst day of these people's lives. Do you realise that? How do that mean you feel? Well, if you read my book, all the answers are in there. But I have a book to your book. And in there there are claims about the victim in the country. Right. Well, you are wrong actually. But I do not wish to discuss it any further because I do not believe you will represent me correctly. I have spoken to you. So, could you please leave? I would like to give you a last opportunity if you want to sit down with us. Not here but somewhere else and do an interview with us. I do not wish to do an interview and I do not wish to discuss with the BBC. Thank you for your time and we are great. All right. Thank you. Sorry, I do not want to speak to us. All right. Bye bye now. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Now you can read all of the emails that were exchanged before Panorama came to visit me from this link. But just to highlight that on the 23rd of September I wrote, sorry, I cannot entertain your offer. And on the 26th of September I wrote, please do not contact me again. So that was clear. I did not want to be interviewed and I did not want to be contacted again. After me telling her this, she travelled all the way to Murthitidville with a camera crew and approached me knowingly against my wishes. Right? Is she not doing exactly the same thing that she is trying to accuse me of? And let me tell you that in all the cases I have investigated going back to 2008 I have followed a principle which is that if you contact any person and that person states that they do not wish to speak or they do not wish to be contacted further you cannot then start contacting them again. Right? Because this could be harassment. Right? And I've always stuck by that rule. Now, 18 days after Panorama visited my market stall on the 25th of October which is just 6 days before the Panorama programme was due to air, YouTube removed the Rich Planet YouTube channel which was well over 10 years old and had 85,000 subscribers and hosted hundreds of rich planet videos. Some of them approaching a million views. I felt that I had only posted two new videos in the last two years. One was about British history and the other was about smart money. And YouTube did not indicate that either of these two videos were the problem. Was my YouTube channel removed in relation to the upcoming Panorama programme so that people watching the Panorama programme would be unable to find my work on YouTube? Now I will be making further written comments on my website as this issue pans out and you can track any updates by keeping your eye on this link. I'm going to mention now a few examples of researchers who were mistreated by previous BBC documentary makers. The first person is Dr Nick Collestrom, author of Terror on the Tube who agreed to take part in the BBC Conspiracy Files programme about the 2005 London bombings. So let's look at this BBC reply. What do you want to say about it? Well, because you were in the BBC's programme conspiracy files. So he shares a letter to Mike Rudin who was series produced for the conspiracy files. I mean as far as I'm concerned, my room is a real laugh from hell and he will compromise the people working with him and absolutely lie to them. That's what they did with me as a condition of getting me onto that programme and of injuring me and cutting out absolutely everything. All the hours of intelligent dialogue we had and just trapping me into a situation where I looked ridiculous, breaking all the solemn caster assurances and promises that they've given to me were by I came onto that BBC programme in the first place. The second person I will mention who was mistreated by BBC documentary makers is Anthony John Hill who made an excellent film called 777 Ripple Effect. Again, about the 2005 London bombings. I interviewed him in Ireland in 2012. The BBC were asking you to take part in their conspiracy files programme. 777, yes. 977. You gave them conditions for appearing in there. You got your memory about 777. Yes, it's just spell out what those conditions were. I agreed to take part in their programme with two conditions. The first condition was that they would show my film unedited, the film 777 Ripple Effect unedited on primetime television. The second condition that I gave them was that I would have final editing rights on their conspiracy files 777 programme before it went out because I don't trust the BBC. A lot of people don't. Once you said these are my conditions and they obviously weren't happy with that. They would have refused to agree. They then actually came over to Ireland to try and get you on camera to basically try and debunk you. And we'll just take a look at the clip when they've approached you in Ireland. Ireland. The search for the man behind 777 Ripple Effect has brought us here. From the town of Kells, Muaddeeb has waged a propaganda war to win Britain over to his distorted vision of reality. We can reveal Muaddeeb is John Hill from Sheffield. John Hill, BBC conspiracy files. Can I ask you why you've made a film accusing innocent people of mass murder on 777 with no evidence at all? Can I ask you why you're ignoring the huge weight of evidence against the four men blamed for the 777 bombing? You have made a film which is damaging trust in the British government and is undermining community cohesion in Britain. Is that your intention, Mr Hill? Mr Hill, why do you hide behind the name Muaddeeb? Taking his name from a science fiction film, Muaddeeb, John Hill believes the arc of the covenant is buried nearby under the hill of Tara. Okay, so that's the BBC tactics at work there and despicable. Despicable. Now, can I just point out why I didn't answer them on camera when they... tried to trap me? First of all, the questions that they asked were beneath contempt and I absolutely evil loaded questions and there was no way that I treated them with the content that they deserved. Ignore them or walk past them. But the other reason also was the fact that I had categorically refused to cooperate with them because they would not meet my conditions. So that is why I walked through them and didn't answer any of the questions because I'd already told them months in advance that unless they met my conditions I would not take part in their programme. So what is really going on with this recent propaganda by the BBC? I suspect it is at least in part linked to the online safety bill which the government has so far not been able to get passed through Parliament. This article from September 22 states that why everyone loses if Westminster passes poor online regulation. Pushing the online safety bill through Parliament too quickly will do more harm than good. Broadsheets and online news sites have been filled of late with conservative and labour politicians discussing the future of the online safety bill. While support for the legislation exploded in the past three years as policy makers drafted and redrafted it, the current version is attracting significant criticism from opponents who argue that it sacrifices too many civil liberties in pursuit of safety from online harms. These concerns about freedom of speech are absolutely justified which is why Parliament needs to significantly amend the online safety bill to better balance free expression and privacy otherwise they may have to scrap the bill entirely. The online safety bill is a legislative proposal that attempts to moderate the internet by establishing duties of care that is binding and enforced legal obligations for online services. Practically these duties of care de facto compel search engines, social media and other services focused on user generated content to censor online content that the government deems harmful. The trouble is that to minimise legal but harmful content across internet services the online safety bill undermines the free speech of the UK's many diverse communities and compromises the digital safety of UK users. By altering the language of the bill to moderate only unlawful content and by excluding private messaging services from the bill's scope the online safety bill may be able to do what it says on the tin. I don't think the government want to do that. The legal but harmful language defined as content that is not necessarily illegal but presents a material risk of significant harm in an appreciable number of children or adults in the UK is too vague to foster responsible moderation practices. So in my opinion one of the purposes of the disaster deniers series is to try and influence politicians and policy makers using emotional and psychological techniques so that the online safety bill ultimately prevents anyone from challenging a government narrative on terrorist attacks or on other manufactured disasters. And indeed if this were to happen it could potentially then allow them to have the power to order the removal of any previously produced material that is on the internet which has challenged government narratives on disasters. Now if you are new to this channel you might want to have a look at some of my other investigative films which include the assassination of Jill Dando, the alleged murder of MP Joe Cox, the dead cop murders, the Cumbria shootings and the Madeline McCann cover up all available to watch from these links. And do make sure you watch show number 300 which explores how the future introduction of smart money could impact on every aspect of your life. Remember in a time of deceit telling the truth there's a revolutionary act believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see especially on the BBC I'm Richard D. Hall