Ridley, Back in Keene, Performs Street Theater as Winston Churchill

Ridley Report‘s Dave Ridley is back in the Keene area and has shot multiple videos in Keene in the last year, though now he’s performing as Winston Churchill.

Here he is in Downtown Keene where he encounters a “Parking Enforcer” and others:

He flirts with some young ladies in Keene:

He criticizes police blocking traffic on Court St. near Central Sq.

It’s mostly just speeches, including him going up against the corrupt courts, taking on Keene Fire Department, calling out the police snipers at Pumpkin Fest, challenging Bank of America, targeting the federal building in Keene, and more. You can follow Ridley on his channel, RidleyReport.

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!


23 Comments

  1. Ridiculous. There is no direction in any of these videos. I know Ridley likes the limelight but I recall, no one really viewed any of his videos when he did these Churchill videos. Anyone who watched them found them rambling on and on with no point to the video.

  2. Hiawatha. He was sticking his camera where it didn’t belong. There were teenagers in the classroom and they were underage. I had heard youtube was going to take that video down. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

  3. Jumping Jacks.

    1 and 2. Look up the Glik v. Cunniffe case and its succeeding developments.
    3. There’s a big difference between hearing something and knowing something.
    4. I get the feeling you’re an underachiever whose bedded more than his fair share of silverback gorillas.

  4. Ridley is too smart for a lot of folks who are shortsighted and don’t care to learn history, I found these videos to be highly entertaining.

  5. Hiawatha – I have mentioned this to others who respond to my posts. You only hurt yourself and your argument when you start with the name calling and childish remarks. It shows you really do not have an intelligent argument.

    He and his camera were poking around and taking pictures of teenagers involved in a club. If you want to educate yourself, look up what club they are in. Don’t think the Glik law pertains to everything. That would be an activist’s response.

  6. Jumping Jacks.

    Got it. So when you’re in a public library there is to be no pointing cameras at silverback gorillas and the like because… reasons.

    One question though. Following this premise, do you think Ridley would deserve the same measure of indignation for walking around the joint and writing down the details of everything he saw?

  7. he should change his actual name to Winston

  8. Hiawatha – If you recall, the rules of the library were no cameras or video recording. Ridley is only there to create a confrontation. If he didn’t have that, there would be no video. Looking at many activists on youtube, They claim education when it’s them creating a confrontation which typically winds up with the PD arriving and throwing them out. All the while these activists with cameras are crying they are the victims.

    Following this premise, do you think Ridley would deserve the same measure of indignation for walking around the joint and writing down the details of everything he saw?

    Why would he? His famous line is, “If you don’t get it on camera, it didn’t happen” He seems to have his camera with him everywhere he goes. There are also copyright laws that need to be watched. If Ridley or anyone else were to take video or pics of copy written material, and then post it on line without the authors permission, that is a copy write violation and also called “piracy”

  9. Jumping Jacks.

    Got it. So Ridley’s deserves what he gets because… reasons. Plus, when he brings his camera into a public building where books are lent out for free, he might accidentally use that same camera to commit copyright violations. Wow. Thanks. Now everything’s coming together.

    I hate to go off topic and all, but do you mind telling me how old you are? Because you think and write like a ten year old.

  10. Again your childish remarks points to frustration on your part and shows an immature side of you that doesn’t appeal to anyone.

    Again, the library has rules to follow. Ridley knew what those rules are but he continued to push it. No one made him do it, he decided that he wasn’t going to follow rules. I already stated why the library don’t allow recording devices. If you have questions then look it up. I don’t know of any library around that doesn’t have a no recording device policy.

    Your remarks keep restating my statements so there isn’t much left to talk about.

  11. Don’t mind jacks. He’ll grow up one day to be a big boy! There is also something called fair use little jacks. It’s basically this thing where you can utilize small bits of other peoples work under a variety of circumstances. Effectively criticism and insignificant infringement isn’t a crime. Even copying a work isn’t generally a crime, but rather a violation of civil law. If Ridly was committing massive piracy only then would it become a criminal offense. That’s just not going to happen as a result of insignificant “copying” in the background of a work and any close up shots are likely fair use. They don’t reduce the “value” of the original, not that this is the only consideration.

  12. I almost forgot. I’m glad to see Ridly producing new content. He’s one of the people who helped attract me to New Hampshire and settle in the area. He’s certainly got a knack for creativity through his unusually wild, dated, and uncoordinated filming techniques.

  13. Jumping Jacks.

    Got it. So don’t be immature, always follow the rules, keep your recording devices in your pants, and never, ever ask questions because… reasons. Phew. That’s a lot to take in. But thanks for clarifying things. I’ll have plenty to think about before our next chat.

  14. kk – “It’s basically this thing where you can utilize small bits of other peoples work under a variety of circumstances”.

    What are you talking about?

    “Effectively criticism and insignificant infringement isn’t a crime. Even copying a work isn’t generally a crime”,

    Yes, copying a copy written book, movie, music CD etc… is a crime. Look at your music CDs and Movie DVDs. It’s one of the first things you see about violating copyright laws. Since libraries deal with these laws all the time, They would know. Don’t forget Ridley was showing minors on his video without their consent that right there is a no no.

    The rest of your ramblings and rants make no sense.

  15. idky he didn’t ever take my advise…when i told him he should do a ongoing bit called “Ridleys believe it or not”….THAT WAS GOLD HE JUST WALKED BY!

  16. “Yes, copying a copy written book, movie, music CD etc… is a crime. ”

    umm no it isn’t jacks. Not typically anyway. Despite what you may have been led to believe it’s not criminal unless you hit a certain $$$ amount. If a single work as described above hits the limit to which it becomes criminal it’s extraordinarily rare. For criminal infringement to have occurred the value of the retail work must “have a total retail value of more than $1,000”.

    “Look at your music CDs and Movie DVDs. It’s one of the first things you see about violating copyright laws.”

    Yes- the warnings exist on these products generally- but that doesn’t make them legally true. In fact it’s been a while since I’ve read the FBI warning you are referencing here, but it wouldn’t surprise me if it included the $1,000 number in it. The intention is to scare people into not copying the works.

    “Since libraries deal with these laws all the time, They would know.”

    umm ok? I have no idea what your point is. Did a library say somewhere that copying is criminal? Or illegal? There is a big difference between infringement and criminal infringement. Your just confused and lacking in understanding of the issues.

    “Don’t forget Ridley was showing minors on his video without their consent that right there is a no no.”

    This isn’t a copyright issue. I’m also unsure what law you are referring to involving minors. There are some protections for minors in certain circumstances such as courts and such things. There are also laws in regards to likeness and publicity “rights”. However none of these things are absolute. You can catch a kid or a celebrity in your video without “infringing” on such “rights”.

    “The rest of your ramblings and rants make no sense.

    If it makes “no sense” to you that is more telling about your illiteracy and intellect than it does about me. I’ve pretty clearly stated why you are wrong above.

  17. Youtube took down Ridley’s video of him recording minors in the library.

  18. JJ: That doesn’t make it a copyright violation. YouTube has to comply with various laws in different countries and it may be that somewhere it is illegal to host videos of minors without a parents permission or similar. YouTube policies are not law though anyway and so you can’t draw any conclusion based on the companies action let alone one particular action- particularly when they aren’t stating the reason for the take down. I can ban users from uploading video to my website, but that doesn’t mean hosting videos are illegal.

  19. It is like Churchhill’s grandson is doing a Ridley impersonation

  20. kk – I never said his video was taken down do to copy write violations. Youtube did tell Ridley why the video was taken down. Complaints were made of his video taping in the library and recording children. Youtube has to follow the law. That is why multiple videos have been taken down or the use of background music violates copy written laws and are taken down so Yes, there are laws youtube must follow. You’re whole youtube page can be taken down if someone posts something that violates the law or youtube policies. Ridley’s video did both.

  21. JJ: You are mixing your arguments. Break your argument into paragraphs and this wouldn’t be a problem.

    I still don’t know what law you are referencing in regards to children as it is not illegal to take pictures of children nor illegal to take pictures or video in public. It might be a violation of a libraries policies. However that is at most a trespass violation if you refuse to leave upon being asked to stop. The filming itself is not illegal.

    The background music argument makes more sense, but I’m doubtful it’s a copyright violation that doesn’t have a justification under a fair use defense. Thus YouTube taking it down is merely to retain immunity to liability and a response by Ridley could result in his videos being retained without modification on YouTube. However Ridley probably doesn’t want to bother with a potential suit that can occasionally follow after such a counter DMCA notice has been made. It’s easier to just let the content be taken down. This doesn’t mean that the video is “illegal”.

    Now you claim that there was a violation of YouTube policies although I’m not even sure that is technically true. YouTube is simply following a law which provides them with immunity but upon which they are not obligated to follow. Companies follow this law because it provides immunity liability issues they’d otherwise have for copyright infringement by users. Thus YouTube implements a take down system where copyright holders can file a take down notice. A take down notice does not mean the end user has committed copyright infringement. It’s merely the claim thereof. At this point YouTube provides a notice to the user and the user can file what is called a counter notice. If a user files a counter notice the video will be re-posted. It could be a violation of YouTube policy however if there was actual copyright infringement that isn’t covered by fair use or similar. Hate speech I think is also banned. That would be a policy violation as a better example. Now YouTube goes above and beyond what is likely required under the DMCA so maybe some of its policies are policies although I wouldn’t jump to the conclusion that it is a violation of the law nor YouTube policy just because a video is taken down.

  22. “Youtube took down Ridley’s video of him recording minors in the library.”

    Jumping Jacks.

    There were no minors anywhere in that video. Only library staff members and one ornery woman who could easily be smoking hot if she’d cut out those extra helpings of mashed potatoes and gravy she has with every meal.

Care to comment?