Talk:Richard Verrall

some changes...
I have removed the sentence 'this made him a controversial figure of Holocaust denial by the general public and despised by the jewish and left organisations'. The impression given is that only 'jewish' and 'left' organisations (whatever they may be...) were caused to despise him. The finding of the court, however, would have caused a far broader range of people to despise him; and the comment is in any event unneccesary and unsupported: so I have simply set the facts out. The link to Zundel will allow readers to gather more facts and draw their own conclusions. --Adam Brink 14:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The trial seemed to give a slightly better impression of Verral's work than the judge. Biedermann, prosecution witness, of the Red Cross Tracing system in Arolsen, confirmed the quotes that Verral used were correct. The quotes were very irrelevant - like did the Red Cross ever find/hear of a gas chamber - answer was no, etc. How Mr Verral got hold of the Red Cross 1600 page report I, maybe noone knows. It is also sequestered away from the prying eyes of the public, along with all the camp, etc records. The latest huff and puff about releasing the Arolsen files appears to be mostly bluster - you or I will probably not live to see the data - hell the Red Cross is forbidden to do statistical studies on their own files. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.63 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 1 February 2007

WHY NOT PUBLISH THIS BOOK IN ITS ENTIRETYDwnndog (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, it's already been published in its entirety. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

IT WOULD BE GOOD TO SEE THIS BOOK WITH A LINK ,SO PEOPLE CAN READ THIS PUBLICATION ,TO SEE WHY THERE ARE SO MANY HOLOCAUST DENIERS. I THINK THEY(SHOAH DENIERS)ARE STARTING TO OPEN A VERY BIG CAN OF WORMSDwnndog (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

be he living; or be he dead?
The article is cast in the past tense - but there are warnings that the article is about a living person and that he should not be defamed. Which is it? Is he alive or dead? --Adam Brink 15:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

What real evidence is their that Richard Harwood is the author
What real evidence is their that Richard Harwood is the author? Most of what we find is assumption with no sources. The World In Action piece simply says that Tyndall believes the association with Hardwood/Verrall/National Front, is a "left wing smear." In the piece, they show statements by Tyndall throughout, and interviews with him. Regarding the booklet, it is just the narrator stating this which I found odd. The only evidence in this piece is an unknown "expert" stating that their signatures are similar. But other than this World In Action piece, what real evidence is their for him being the author? Preceding posted 13:41, 13 April 2015‎ by User:2.99.27.173

Reliable evidence
I have twice reverted or modified edits suggesting that Verrall disassociated himself from the NF and each time explained that what is said in court is not a reliable source. User:Bob Gollum has reinserted the claim and the sources, writing, "Sworn testimony given in British criminal court, recorded in a decision of the court, and confirmed by separate sworn testimony recorded in a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada, amounts to two reliable sources." My contention is quite simple: the court record is a reliable record for what was said in court; it is not a reliable record for whether or not what was said is actually true. It is obvious to anyone that people lie and disseminate in court proceedings, defendants especially, and frequently witnesses for the the guilty as well. These court records do not say that Verrall broke with the NF, only that someone said he did, and are thus not reliable for the context. Emeraude (talk) 09:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree, and the addition to the article that I made did not say he had necessarily in fact broken with the NF. It said that he had publicly taken the position that he had broken with the NF. It may be that he has secretly preserved ties with him, but, regardless, the position he has publicly taken with regard to them is a piece of information worthy of note in the article. If there is evidence to support the idea that he continued to maintain ties with them, that would be relevant too.
 * The fact that people lie is a relevant concern with regard to any source, court record or no. If the bare speculation of lying invalidated a source, we would have a lot less information and much shorter articles all round. In this case, we have statements from two separate sources made under oath in a particularly solemn context in support of the same fact.
 * In this particular case, by the way, Verrall was neither a defendant nor a witness for the guilty. Bob Gollum (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)