Wednesday, 19 October 2016



It seems to me that Freedom of Speech is under more threat today than it has been for a couple of hundred years.  It has been replaced by the Right to be Offended, some are even going so far as to ban words from our lexicon, the words in the Red Flag should now be sung 'while namby pambies flinch, and people with alternate opinions, sneer' we'll keep the Red (no offence to ginger people) flag flying here. 

Take this whole issue of misogyny. As an old bird (I can call myself that because I am one), I often have a chat and giggle with other old birds, and all of us (without exception), loved getting wolf whistles, saucy winks and offers to join the mile high club (Ok, made the last one up, but it remains on the wish list).  Too few men as it is, have the guts to suggest a quicky before work, ffs, the last thing feisty gals need are more laws to nobble the rest of them. It's no wonder most dating is done online these days, 'come and see my etchings' would see a young man imprisoned and placed on the Sex Offenders Register.

Of course, there will always be the creepy types out there who think flirting copping a feel and drooling 'cooorrr' is a turn on, eg. Donald Trump, but this is where stilettoes and elbows should be put to full use.  Actually the DT reference kind of negates my argument, I can't think of anything more traumatising than being groped by Donald Trump. 

But back to Freedom of Speech.  It's like everything George Orwell predicted is coming true.  Words are being erased or their meanings changed.  The freedom of information brought to us by the WorldWideWeb, has given a voice to everyone.  There are no valid or moral reasons for the 'authorities' to deprive individuals of internet access (their ultimate goal) and they couldn't even if they wanted to.  The only way in which to challenge those online who hold subversive views, is to accuse them of 'trolling'.  The more they convince the public that 'trolling' is an evil and heinous crime, the more likelihood of passing laws that will enable them to police the internet and round up their targets. 

Which takes us back to Freedom of Speech.  I am unashamedly a fan of Celebrity Big Brother, but I found the eviction of Christopher Biggins, deeply disturbing.  I didn't agree with his views or those of Renee (?), but I would have liked to see the discussion develop as it would in real life and as in real life, the better argument would win.  I'm afraid I have little time or patience with people who go through life carrying their Right to be Offended like a banner.  They leap on their opponent's argument, sifting through it with a fine tooth comb, or a wordsearch for Woman, Jew, Race, Age etc.  Who was that wailing creature weeping for, the entire Jewish race or her need for camera time?

As for CB's views on bisexuals, OK, they don't go along with popular opinion, but for all the bisexuals out there (and those who have dabbled), it would have made an interesting and enlightening discussion.  Quite clearly CB is not a hate preacher, and no doubt his views would have mellowed or changed if offered alternate opinions.  Unfortunately, CB's views are representative of a small minority, who's prejudices will no doubt continue because their views were stifled rather than challenged. It's like smacking a toddler without telling them what they did wrong. 

But the CBB incident is but a symptom.  Those who demand the Right to be Offended are starting to outnumber those of us who couldn't give a monkey's and it's their rules that going to be enforced.  Having been trolled, stalked and harassed for almost 10 years, I can confidently confirm that it is only detrimental to your health and well being if you allow it to be.  Once you understand the problem lies with the misfit, weirdo, chickenshit, not yourself, everything falls back into perspective. 

I find this move to prohibit words, language, comedy, lively discussion, sinister and undoubtedly motived by something evil.  For example, I would much rather see the Labour Party have a healthy debate about anti Semitism, Misogyny etc, unhindered by rules that restrict the language and the words used.  This whole idea of nicey, nicey politics, backed up with penalties appears to have gagged politicians to the point where the only means of communication they have left is a right hook. 

Stalking or harassing another individual online or anywhere else is against the Law.  There is no case for new Laws or the strengthening of existing laws to weed out those deemed subversive.  All those offended by what they read online have the right to reply, as we all do and they have the means to block the offenders.  Having your enemies imprisoned shouldn't be an option.

To those pleading the Right to be Offended, I would ask, why should the social media use of billions worldwide be restricted because your haven't got the social or internet skills to handles yourselves online.  You may choose to live in a sanitised bubble, but that would not be the choice for most of us.

Sunday, 16 October 2016


Following the McCann case has often led to one of those big life questions, 'is it me, or is it them?'.  Considering I spend most of my life out of step with the rest of the world, it wasn't a particularly big deal, but I have to say, it was quite unsettling to discover the 'antis' hated me almost as much as the Pros, if not more! 

And I don't just mean mild dislike, I mean pure unadulterated hatred of the creepy kind.  They don't seem to realise that all that hatred means nothing, they don't know me, but it is probably eating them alive.  It's why I have been less mean of late, I actually pity them, hanging onto that anonymity may become very difficult in the days that lie ahead. 

I have to say, that the way in which the 'anti McCanns' became so reviled, so quickly, confused me.  I put it all down to the unbelievably successful McCann Media campaign.  Hands up, it has taken me a number of years to fully understand why those defending the McCanns were so emotive, and why they were so angry at McCann critics.  I'll admit in those early days, I was caught up in the excitement of unravelling a crime, and I actively sought out websites and forums who could see the same as I could.  It was a topic you could not discuss at the water cooler or a party without starting a fight!

Every national newspaper's comments sections were buzzing, the Mirror especially, and when Clarence had them shut down, thousands flocked to the 3 Arguidoes and then onto other forums as the founders of the 3As fell out.  All and any accusations by the McCanns that there has ever been an 'organised' campaign against them would be ridiculous, most of the antis hate each other as much as they hate the McCanns. 

I didn't dare post in the Mirror forum, I felt completely out of my depth, I had already got my fingers burned in the CBB chatroom, and bookchat had FA to do with books, but the McCann world was a battleground!  I cut my teeth in the completely uncensored free for all that was the AOL Europe Board. As old and wizened as I was, I had no idea there were so many lunatics out there disguised as normal people and UKIP voters.  The board was very right wing and mostly made up of neo Nazis and McCann supporters.  In retrospect, describing myself as a Marxist/Feminist in my profile was never going to make me popular. 

As horrendous and God awful as it sounds, the place became completely addictive, you could get a row with anyone any time of the day or night.  The antis were mostly made up of angry mums and nans, who made no bones about their feelings towards Kate and Gerry. I often found their comments a bit strong, but I liked them nonetheless and during especially bloody battles I was glad to have them as comrades in arms!  The pros (McCann supporters) were alternately known as the 'Selecteds' - that's because we caught them out trying to set up a private forum that excluded the rest of us!  How dare they!  The whole Europe and YGL sagas went on for at least 5 years!  We did however have truces during the holidays when we would try not to be obnoxious, happily they never lasted. 

But I have digressed.  Back in 2007, thousands of the antis were as angry and sickened by the McCanns actions as many are where crimes against children are involved.  It was not only necessary, it was imperative that the McCanns and the 'group' were protected.  As human beings we have to understand that. Because what can happen, and what did happen, was the story was taken up by a wild eyed extremist who wants the return of hanging and flogging to our town squares. 

All those angered and appalled at the blatant injustice in this case have been drawn in and manipulated by people who claim they want justice, but in reality, are only seeking fame and infamy for themselves.  They want to be the one who 'cracks' the case.  Bennett thought he could tag onto the golden egg that was Madeleine's name by setting up the Madeleine Foundation.  He wanted a slice of those 50billion hits the McCann website were getting.

This case has also attracted those who are interested in the cases of historic sexual abuse.  I too had a link because of my memoir Cry and You Cry Alone, I lived in a children's home run by two psychopaths, an ex Jesuit monk who practiced Opus Dei for everyone, the boys especially, and sexually frustrated nun who had the hots for him.  My abuse wasn't sexual, it was the batterings I took for not kowtowing to their freaky rules.  

I've never given any credence to the whole 'paedophile ring' theory in this case. These people were going out of their way to get other people to look after their kids, including trained nannies.  Abusers keep the kids hidden away, they don't risk them having conversations with 'outsiders' and they don't organise sporty holidays where the kids are rarely in their company! What most parents of young children need, more than anything else, is a break from the kids!  Again, don't excited Textusa, I'm talking about the mental stimulation of adult company. That doesn't make them bad people or even bad parents.  As a young mum, I never wanted to miss the craic, my motto was happy mum = happy child.  

So why did the public hate the 'antis'?  I try to imagine how I would feel if a forum or a group of concerned citizens attacked, Kerry Needham, for example.  I would probably be very angry with the attackers, the words shame on you, comes to mind.  So now I must apply that train of thought to those who truly believe the McCanns are innocent.  Their belief may be based on the biased headlines of the MSM and successful marketing campaign of Team McCann, but if they don't want to listen to alternate opinion, they won't.  Some people have very closed minds, it's gutting, but something we have to accept or go crazy.      
Where several infamous antis have gone way off track is by their deluding themselves that their hmmm, 'research' has solved this case where two police forces have failed. I have no doubt Bennett already has his Nobel Prize acceptance speech at the ready.  Much as I hate pointing out again and againTony Bennett is as mad as a box of frogs, too much of his nonsense is still around misleading those who are searching for the truth.  Richard D. Hall was his biggest, and most gullible, mark. 

But the purpose of this blog was to pick up on a point made by John Blacksmith in the previous comments.  These 'researchers' (pretentious twats) have invaded the lives of the innocent citizens who gave statements to the Portuguese police.  They believe calling their stalking and harassment of witnesses in a criminal investigation 'research' somehow validates their vile and immoral behaviour.  It doesn't.  Nowadays, we can all pretty much stalk whoever we want, but we don't.  Why?  Because the majority of us have a moral compass and the empathy to understand how our actions will affect others. 

Unfortunately, whilst there were thousands and thousands questioning the justice in this case, we were all judged by the antics of the malicious and despicable Tony Bennett. First with his spurious private legal against the parents, then with his distasteful publicity seeking antics handing out leaflets in their home town.  We were all tarred with the same brush and despised from then on.

Bennett boasts that CMoMM is the best McCann forum on the www.  But it isn't, it is the most grotesque.  Now that every intelligent poster has been banned or kicked out, all that remains are the lobotomised diehards.  Their legacy will be in there with Stop the Myths and JATKY2, bloodsucking ghouls looking for victims. 

I found it quite poignant when JB asked 'what can the nannies do'?  Indeed.  As witnesses in an ongoing investigation, they cannot say anything.  My heart goes out to them, as it does to all those targeted by CMoMM.  I have nothing but respect for them and in fact all of those put through hell by the conspiraloons. Their quiet dignity has not gone unnoticed. 

It may be when this is all over that those libelled by Bennett and CMoMM will have recourse to justice of some kind and who could blame them.  However, they seem to have the good sense to know their best course of action is to avoid these vipers like the plague.  Even the two words, fuck off, would send them into a feeding frenzy. 

I honest to God do not know what Operation Grange are up to.  I don't quite buy into the 'they are all involved in the cover up' theory.  I still have enough faith left in human nature, and indeed the police, to believe that the victim, Madeleine is still the focus of their investigation. 

Tuesday, 11 October 2016


[In response to comment on previous blog]

Many thanks 22:07, I don't bother very much with CMoMM these days, whilst it makes a good study of psychopathy, it's stuck in an endless cycle of rehash and there is rarely anything of interest.

I had a look at that thread and the letter sent by 'Jill' (Bennett) - obviously everything signed off by him goes straight in the shredder, lol. OMG, my sympathy lies with the recipient, imagine having to read that pile of old bunkum? I'd rather have my toenails extracted one by one, or go waterboarding in Guantanamo Bay!

Who the fffff... do they think they are? Its like a crowd of drunks having an extended game of Cluedo then presenting themselves at the local police station, saying we've solved it!  It was the butler in the pantry with the dagger, hic.  The lack of signatures to their petitions shows they are not representative of the public. And what is it they want?  I'm afraid this is where we get into pitchfork territory.  Given the hostile and aggressive manner of the CMoMM forum, it is clear that several of them are taking this matter far too personally. 

Because this case involves a small child, it is emotive and attracted extremists and vigilantes.  Some people feel so passionately about child protection that reason and logic flies out the window.  We are programmed to protect our young, it is not a bad thing, but some unscrupulous people will go out of their way to harvest that anger and need for retribution.  That is, they will use it to stir up an angry mob.  In the case of Madeleine, that manipulation of public opinion is prevalent in both camps.   

There comes a point where we all have to ask ourselves why we are still here?  As a manic depressive with OCD, my own 'addiction' was a way in which to blot out the real world.  My need to solve the puzzle that was Madeleine's disappearance, was as strong as my need to get to the final page of an Agatha Christie novel.  I have to say I reached the 'beyond reasonable doubt' stage many moons ago, but like everyone else, that final 'how they did it' part remains elusive.  

I think like many of the antis, that there is something integrally wrong in our society when a little girl can go missing without explanation.  We are civilised people who defend the vulnerable from the wicked, it makes us human.  Had the McCanns been honest at the beginning, the world would have been gentle with them.  Accidents and even crimes of passion, happen - the McCanns claim Kate was offered a 'serve 2 years' deal, a compassionate option if true.

However, it is all the crimes committed since that irk the most.  The way in which they paraded themselves as victims and used the loss of their daughter to amass a large personal fortune.  None of the public's very generous donations have been used to assist anyone outside of the 'family', in fact, it would seem, the bulk of the fund has been used to protect the reputation of the parents.  And worse, much has been used to destroy the name, reputation, family and life of the detective who was simply doing his job, looking for Madeleine.  They continue with their sheer bloody minded agenda to destroy Goncalo Amaral, as it appears they have now lodged another Appeal. 

For myself, and I'm sure with many others, this case has opened our eyes to a  whole new world.  Six months into reading everything I could find on this case, I began to see what a phoney society we are living in.  It was a revelation moment.  Not too dissimilar to when I entered higher education in my late 30's and discovered religion was bollox, movies send out hidden messages and our society is ruled by newspaper barons.  Who knew? 

Despite all of that, I still believed that we had the greatest justice system in the world, the best police and the least corrupt politicians (60's indoctrination education) and a basically free press.  Can't believe I was once that na├»ve. This case has demonstrated how easy it is for the establishment, or indeed anyone with a proactive family, to manipulate public opinion using the MSM. 

Unfortunately, for them, the internet has done away with borders and for all the UK tabloids publishing McCann propaganda, the real story from Portugal was getting through and spreading like wildfire.  Ergo, for the last ten years we have been watching McCann and McCann .v. WorldWideWeb.  I mean ffs, who employs lawyers to watch social media 24/7?  How come two doctors don't have any friends or colleagues with the guts to use the words 'paranoia' and 'bottomless pit'? 

Those who ask why we are still here, don't seem to understand that what has been seen cannot be unseen.  We have watched in astonishment as undeserving people have been elevated and enriched by this tragedy.  The parents especially who are still demanding £400k from the former detective and public recognition for their supposed good works.  These parents have been fundraising since the moment their daughter disappeared.  Whilst the locals and holidaymakers physically searched for their missing child, they were plotting on how to make Maddie's face go viral.  'Did you go out there and physically search?' 'well we wanted to, but we were really busy' says Kate.  Wtf takes priority over searching for your missing child, grrrrr. 

But I try to avoid getting personal, gawd knows, the McCanns and their wider family have enough to worry about, but hearing that they are continuing with their libel actions against Goncalo Amaral, sticks in my craw. I cannot understand how those police officers working on Operation Grange can stay silent whilst another detective, just like them, is being persecuted by this manipulative couple.   I do of course appreciate the police have a duty to protect everyone, including the McCanns, it's their failure to stop and prevent crime.  The Fund continues, gullible people are still being fleeced (every penny will go on the search) and the financial claims against Goncalo Amaral are immoral, if not illegal.  Not to mention of course, the ruthless way in which they demanded that an example be made of an innocent member of the public and the deed was done. That should scare all of us.

Anyhow, returning the multi paged diatribe of Jill Havern (Tone the Bore), I seriously hope the government department tasked with reading the tripe (poor sods) have a loons and nutters post bin marked 'read later - if ever'.  With Tony Bennett a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.  He has managed to hone his targets down to civil servants who are, by the law of this land, obliged to read his lengthy epistles.  We can only hope the suicide rate among that particular demographic doesn't rise dramatically.  If I were them, I'd choose head in the gas oven every time. 

The only one who doesn't realise Bennett is talking complete twaddle is Bennett and maybe Richard Hall and a small assortment of (harmless, we hope), right wing psychopaths and loons.  Given the volume of correspondence from Tone the Bore, I would imagine the recipients give them little regard.  I noticed on that thread, that another poster had received a more detailed reply than 'Jill', which I found a tad amusing. 

Bennett is drawn to this case because he believes some sort of deviant sex is involved.  In his loony creationist head, he believes he is surrounded by sinners enjoying a lot more carnal knowledge than himself.  He is fire and brimstone, a preacher without a pulpit or an audience.  He deprives himself of television and popular culture, and he wants it banned for everyone else.  

Who can calculate the amount of damage he has done to the official search for Madeleine.  I have no doubt his antics alone built the wall around this case. The constant bragging that he has a huge audience of angry justice seekers is effectively a nasty threat.  The authorities have no option but to increase the McCanns' protection.  The McCanns have struggled to provide evidence that they have been targeted or threatened as a result of the Goncalo Amaral's book, all they had was Bennett's Madeleine's Foundation.

The truth is, the majority of people who do not believe the McCanns have not made retribution against the McCanns, their life's work.  That would be creepy.  They want to see justice for Madeleine, by they want to see it via the democratically agreed justice procedures.  Many, myself included, have a real distaste for vigilantism, it seems to attract all the wrong kind of people. 


Thursday, 6 October 2016


[in reply to a comment on the previous blog]

Thanks for reminding us of the Summers and Swan 'McCanns are innocent get it' book, with its chapter dedicated to the scourge of the 21st century, internet trolls.  Doubt Summers and Swan will be too happy to be reminded of their sell out, it was hardly their finest hour.

The whole purpose of the S&S book seemed to be to stir up public hatred against the critics of Kate and Gerry McCann. They officially introduced the word 'hater' to the English lexicon, to describe anyone who refused to be taken in by the obvious faked abduction and subsequent cover up.

The S&S book was in fact laying the groundwork to purge the internet of McCann critics, it was hoped through the eloquence of their words, S&S would sway public opinion back to the way it was in 2007. Not only to revive the unprecedented generosity to the K&G Fund, but also to incite anger and hatred towards anyone 'trolling' the officially cleared parents online. I use the word 'trolling' very loosely here, because it is one of those 'catch all' words that will be used constantly by those who want to police the internet. And of course Gerry and Kate claim not to use social media, ergo, strictly speaking, they cannot be trolled.

The campaign to keep Madeleine (or themselves) in the public eye, was made up of several components, the most vigorous faction, headed by a megalomaniac who believed he had the power to control the internet and the news, and who demands that any criticism of himself and his good wife should lead to instant arrest.  The sane among us would have told him to get a grip and maybe have a lie down with a mind improving book.  Those on £300 per hour however, tell him it's perfectly feasible, and would he like to pay by instalments. 

The launch of the Summers and Swan book was timed to coincide with Jim Gamble's clamp down on the internet trolls who keep reminding the world that Madeleine wasn't abducted.  In Martin Brunt's feature, Mr. Gamble, in his strict, authoritarian Policeman mode, told all the critics of Kate and Gerry, we are coming to get you.  Unfortunately, S&S failed to turn public opinion around, their definitive book on the Madeleine disappearance was met with scorn and derision, each and every one of their 'parents are innocent' assertions swiftly deconstructed and ridiculed by real experts, in their Amazon reviews.

The McCanns however seem to have a thing for runaway trains, so part II, Sky News went ahead anyway with Mr. Newsman himself, Martin Brunt exposing the evil behind those members of the public posing as ordinary people.  Mr. Gamble could not hide his sheer glee as he congratulated Martin on twitter for exposing public enemy number 1, a quiet, unassuming, middle aged lady in a pretty Leicestershire village.  Unfortunately, no-one was saying, thanks Jim, thanks Martin, we can all now sleep safely in our beds, they were horrified that Sky News even considered this non story as being of public interest, and appalled at the cruelty behind it. 

Summers and Swan may be that rarity, well heeled writers, but that one book has now made their entire body of work unreadable. For me at least, I am an absolute stickler for the truth, if an author distorts even one aspect of the facts in order to fit their own conclusions, I stop reading.  My reading list is so extensive I have to be discerning and nothing irks quite so much as having my time wasted. I was once having what I thought was a sensible telephone conversation with a McCann 'anti' when 45 minutes in, she told me Madeleine was a clone.  It was one of those 'doh' moments, and 45 minutes I will never get back.  I'm afraid I view the S&S Madeleine book in the same way. 

I have to say there is a certain amount of pleasure watching the McCann spin team tie themselves up in knots, but the plan to wipe out the McCann sceptics online was cold, calculated and cruel.  Despite the fact that S&S were unable to stir up an angry mob, Sky News went ahead anyway. It chills me to the bone that not one of them were compassionate enough to consider that what they were doing could have such a tragic outcome.  And let's not be in any doubt here, Brenda Leyland was to be the first of many, the death dossier contained dozens of names, in my own case they had over 100 pages on me.  The death dossier, or as it used to be known, the blacklist, was publically available for years, an additional CV if you like for any employer checking out candidates on social media.  The McCann supporters have always used threats of exposure to silence online critics. 

Have to say, I was a little disappointed not to have been included in the 'troll' section of the S&S book, especially as their researchers had provided so much information.  It could be because I am a survivor of the Catholic care system, bipolar and known for past alcohol and substance abuse and a smidgeon of promiscuity.  I was a bit of a party girl, what can I say? hic.  Of course the dossier compilers have used all of the aforementioned to pillory me for years, in their Amish heads, anyone who lives outside of the designated Christian man, woman 2.4 children combo, is quite clearly a lunatic.  Unhappily for them, I wear my lunacy with pride, not only do I not regret my wild past, I wish I had done a bit more. 

It may be that my CSA survivor status spared me a public door stepping by Martin Brunt, but I think it is more likely to have been my big gob. I'm what my friends and family euphemistically describe as 'a loose cannon'.  My sons have actually compiled a list of things I can and cannot do and say when out with them in public!  I cannot be too critical of them because I remember compiling a similar list for my own mother, and just like her, I'm having great fun doing the opposite ;)  I'm too honest for my own good, my dad used to tell me, and he was right, it's been positively detrimental, among my funeral songs, I have 'Whyyyyyyy can't I keep my big mouth shut', from the batterings I took in the convent, to the batterings I take online, my honesty always manages to offend someone.  I will have to include in that offended group, several past bosses.  It seems the question, 'aren't you getting paid £200 an hour to do this?' takes you straight past Go,  and out the revolving doors.   

But let's get back to the next part of the spin doctors cunning plan.  It was hoped through the S&S book, the public at large would once again feel overwhelming sympathy for eternal victims Kate and Gerry, and their outrage would be captured in a call for a clampdown on internet trolls.  However, apart from the shrill mean spirited comments of Carol Malone, the best they managed to stir up was 'who gives a feck'. Kate and Gerry have hogged the front pages for years, how much more do they want ffs?  The love the public felt for Kate and Gerry in the summer of 2007, is now worse than hate, it is indifference.

Ten years on the publically funded investigation into Madeleine's disappearance continues.  Whilst it is true that the McCann family and indeed all of those involved must, as far as humanely possible, be protected from a media storm on the scale of that which took hold when the story broke.  No matter what we on the internet know, or have discovered, we are not the Law.  Quite rightly, everyone is innocent until proved guilty, and everyone deserves a fair trial.

However, it is wrong on every level to sweep those wicked crimes under the carpet.  Especially a crime that reached the scale of this one.  All the great and good who rushed to Mr and Mrs McCanns assistance must somehow squirm out of their past gushing enthusiasm.  For myself, I no longer believe a word Donal MacIntyre or Mark Williams Thomas says, crime experts, pah! Dr. Sharon Leal, how far back have you taken the science of lie detection?  It's the assumption that we the audience are idiots that I find most offensive. 

If Operation Grange remains live to preserve the myth that this was a stranger abduction, then questions must be asked of those signing the cheques.  Aren't there current, solveable, cases they could be working on?  Why are they wasting resources and manpower on a dead duck?  It is not the job of Scotland Yard detectives to preserve the dignity of politicians and ex police chiefs, their job, first and foremost, is to uncover the truth behind Madeleine's disappearance and bring those responsible to justice.
As for Gerry and Kate, they are already living in a prison of their own making, so too all those closely involved in that fateful holiday.  That kind of hell must be akin to Edgar Allen Poe's Tell Tale Heart, something we wouldn't wish on our worst enemies.  In a strange way, I actually feel sympathy for them, they can never go back to being the care free thirtysomething doctors they once were.  In choosing the path of deception, they sealed their fate.  They have plastered their own faces all over the globe, and not in a good 'A' lister film star way, but in a way that castes suspicion over themselves for ever more. 

However, before I start getting maudlin about the infamous pair, I have to remind myself that they have maliciously and vindictively set out to inflict misery and fear on anyone who crosses them.  Their happy clappy, Christian charity fund raising persona is just as phoney as that of Jimmy Savile and Lance Armstrong.  And for a while there, they had a good thing going.  The Fund was growing into a large corporation, and Gerry was styling himself the UK John Walsh. With the Mr and Mrs as the faces of Missing Children, they were looking at a multi million industry charity with Madeleine becoming the face of Christmas (and all major holidays) with badges and t-shirts available. 

In not bringing any charges, or disclosing the results of their investigation, Operation Grange are effectively allowing the cover up to continue.  That is the raising of funds and the persecution of their Portuguese colleague, Goncalo Amaral.  This fine mess cannot continue ad infinitum.  There are other crimes that need solving and other children that need finding. 

Tuesday, 4 October 2016


Two years ago this week, Gerry McCann, the father of a missing child, demanded that an example be made of the internet 'trolls' he claimed were hounding and threatening his family online.  The McCann family or a 'group of concerned citizens' had compiled a dossier of 'offenders' and ex head of CEOP Jim Gamble and Sky's Martin Brunt took it from there. This was Jim Gamble's cleansing of social media at it's finest and a taster of his own particular form of justice.

The victim they selected, Brenda Leyland, hadn't in fact committed any crime, she, like myself and thousands of others simply refused to accept the establishment line that Madeleine McCann was abducted by a stranger.  The McCanns and those who assist them, truly believed they could stamp out all their critics with a gang of thugs patrolling the internet and via hard cash in the libel courts. To be fair, for a while there they succeeded. 

Unfortunately for Gerry McCann, Jim Gamble and Martin Brunt, their jackboot, vigilante tactics appalled the public, whatever Brenda had done, she did not deserve a public execution.  They selected Brenda because she was 'ordinary', but it was that ordinariness that made her everyone's mum, nan and aunty - the McCann couple, already seen as cold, were now chilling.

It is bizarre that two years on, Operation Grange seem as far from a conclusion as they were at the outset but probably not surprising.  The grisly details of what happened the night Madeleine disappeared have become the back story, it's what happened from that night onwards, that will make the Chilcott report look like a couple of hours of light reading. 

The incumbent Blair government perverted the course of justice.  There is no nice, or euphemistic way of putting it.  It was obvious to the first two Portuguese policemen on the scene that the abduction was staged, and ten years on, to anyone who looks at the facts without the 'but they are such a nice couple' blinkers, it still is.  The problem Operation Grange have, is that once they point the finger at Gerry and Kate, the entire house of cards will collapse.

What was said during Gerry's one to one chats with PMs Blair and Brown?  Or indeed between Kate and Cherie?  One thing we can be sure of, every word will be kept verbatim.  Are we to believe that two British Prime Ministers, with all the country's top advisors, police and Special Branch, were taken in by Gerry and Kate?  Not only were they taken in, they put the full services of the establishment at Team McCann's disposal.  That's an Oops right up there with Okily Dokily Mr. Bush.  

How many New Labour cabinet ministers were schmoozing the McCanns?  Or police chiefs attending their fund raising events?  Will the highly experienced and decorated Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe and Jim Gamble explain how they were so misled by a couple of tricksters the average housewife could spot within seconds?  The unveiling of a fake abduction would reveal a sea of red faces and a scramble by those who should have known better to find excuses for supporting such an obvious scam. 

I kind of get the predicament Operation Grange finds themselves in and the difficulties they must have in releasing public statements.  At some point they will have to pee in the pot or get off it.  It has been clear for some time that OG are not looking for an abductor, which translates, 'we know who's responsible but we don't have enough to prosecute'.  Gerry's 'Nooooo evidence' mantra seems to be holding up quite well, but you can't keep throwing public money at an investigation that's going nowhere. 

Unfortunately, while the silence of Operation Grange might temporarily hold back the floodgates, (who dare publish while Gerry and Kate have so much on so much power over so many - including Amazon?), the walls of the dam could give at any time, and the entire team could look like procrastinating fools. You can imagine the water cooler chat, 'Seriously! Scotland Yard's finest didn't know?', following The Sun's serialisation of Kate's latest memoir 'Gotcha You Mugs!'. 

Those of us who know more about this case than is healthy, would argue the 'No Evidence' point quite vigorously, a quick google of Madeleine McCann, will not only throw up every rational argument for why the parents were involved, it will do it in alphabetical order and with pictures. 

Whatever is going on behind the scenes in an effort to limit the damage when Madeleine hits the headlines again, should not be used to take out members of the public.  And vigilant groups, even if they are 'establishment' ones, should not have the power to destroy lives. 

If I were Brenda's family, I would still be mad as hell, but I respect their right to privacy.  I think unless you understand the full horrors of the abuse of power in Madeleine's name, we 'McCann geeks' will always seem a little strange. My own adult sons think I am quite bonkers.  When justice finally arrives for Madeleine, Goncalo and all those 'destroyed' by the McCanns and their henchmen, I want to see Brenda's name cleared, public apologies for those vile troll headlines that drove the poor woman to her death.  The use of the word 'troll' has sinister undertones and it will be used unscrupulously by those intent on policing the internet and targeting dissenters.  In the case of Brenda it was used as a warning to others that spectacularly backfired. 

I think on this sad anniversary, it is important to remember the ghastly way in the full might of the establishment and the media were used to destroy the life of an ordinary woman who dared to question an obvious lie. 

RIP Brenda Leyland


originally posted 5th October 2014

So Sky's rolling news day on McCann trolls has resulted in the death of Brenda Leyland (Sweepyface) a middle aged lady angered by the lies of Gerry and Kate McCann. Seven years on, despite being suspects in the eyes of the rest of the world, in the UK they are still being treated like victims and being compensated financially.  No amount of money will satisfy Gerry and Kate, they have had over £4m, they also want the Laws to be changed so their crimes will never be reported.  We have had a news blackout in the UK for the past 7 years.  Why?

The McCanns didn't have any threats against them or their children.  Their witness claimed this in the Lisbon libel trial, but could not substantiate it.  Several months on, no-one has been arrested or charged for threatening the McCanns.  A bit like the abductor.

The biggest threat they could find to the McCanns was poor old Brenda, an obviously shy, timid lady who clearly presented no danger to the McCanns whatsoever.  But she was to be the scapegoat, the face of the cruel campaign against an innocent family.  She was the line of least resistance - had they doorstepped any of the more outspoken among us, we would have given them an interview they couldn't broadcast, on the hour, every hour, etc without Carter Ruck jumping down their throats - now re-employed by McCanns it seems and kerchinging nicely. 

Did Martin Brunt threaten her? If so, what with?  He had pretty much done the worst thing imaginable, but it clearly left her in great fear.  She fled from her village.  More doorstepping perhaps?  Her past raked up?  Did she have mental health issues?  Did any of her family?  Was she a vulnerable adult in any way? Surely Sky News would not have carried out such a catastrophic public attack without making a few basic checks? 

Were the McCanns going to go after her financially, as they have done with Goncalo Amaral, demand that she sell her house?  Was she facing threats of financial ruin? How could a regular person stand up to Carter Ruck? Her limited 'I thought I was entitled to' - portrayed her as ignorant, but what else did she say when she took the crew inside her house?

What did the police say to her?  Afaik, she was not arrested or cautioned, but did they give her a 'stern' taking to? And how stern was that talk?  Normal people with no criminal record or dealings with the police would be terrified. What Laws did Brenda break, if any?  Lets hope the police taped their interviews with her, if I were her family, I would demand they be revealed at the Inquest - and there should definitely be an Inquest.

However, Jim Gamble's hope of using 'outing' as a device to stop people asking questions about the McCanns, or indeed anything, has spectacularly backfired.  The consequences of such sinister threats have become all too apparent.  I would imagine legal talks are frantically underway as we speak, Sky News cannot just brush this off, they must at the very least, issue an apology to Brenda's family.  No Court in the world (maybe N.Korea or UK under McCann Rule) would have found Brenda guilty of anything.  If worse tweeters exist, then why didn't Sky go after them, why go after a fragile, quiet lady in a pretty village, who clearly posed no threat to the McCanns whatsoever.  The cynic in me pictures the McCanns looking up the property prices as one reason, but more likely the subliminal message was 'it could be you'.  There were threatening undertones in that news report, and more than a tinge of cruelty in the way the story was reported.  They couldn't hide their glee at exposing a respectable middle aged lady as a vicious internet troll to all her friends, family and neighbours. It was pitchforking at its very worst.

However, any gleeful thoughts Gamble and McCanns may have of outing people on a regular basis must now be treated with the seriousness it deserves, as Brenda's tragic death has proved.  The punishment Brenda received (based on no evidence) was way beyond anything a Court could have dished out.  It seemed more like payback, than a genuine news story,  Her face, and home, was broadcast every hour, on the hour, as she was publically labelled as a 'Hater', continually hounding the family of Madeleine McCann.  She wasn't.  She was angry at this blatant miscarriage of justice as many are.  Nothing she did deserved the kind of punishment she received.  The death of a child is always emotive, especially when those charged to uphold the law appear to be covering it up. Sky News acted as Judge, Jury and Executioner.  Brenda is dead because of what she was accused of, not because of what she did.  She probably said a lot more in that Sky interview than 'I thought I was entitled to', but will we ever know?  They wanted to label her as evil, and they did.
Brenda, bless her, knowingly or unknowingly, may well set off a chain of events that will bring about the final downfall of the McCanns and their minions.   Jim Gamble and the McCanns wanted to use her as an example of what will happen to anyone criticising them, but her suicide has turned the tables.  Now they have to justify what they have done to her. 

Monday, 3 October 2016


Unfortunately immigration is usually discussed from a negative perspective, because it's a political hot potato.  Especially if an unscrupulous government want a scapegoat for their own failures and a common enemy to unite a disgruntled population.  Divide and rule, as long as those in need are fighting each other, those responsible for managing and administering the economy have free rein to do as they wish. 

Obviously, an influx of new people into any community will be a drain on services that were designed to cope with several million less.  This isn't the fault of the immigrants or the ageing population, the fault lies in the failure of successive governments to invest in line with the changing demographic. If the UK were a commercial business it would not cut back as demand grew, it would expand in line with it's customers needs.  It would be like Ronald McDonald saying too many people are eating burgers, so lets shut down loads of branches, cut back on staff and make the service so shit, it will drive all the customers away.   

As for there being a surge in the population.  I'm not convinced there has been, and if there has, what does it matter anyway?  People come and go as they always have and as nice as our neighbours might be, we cannot hang onto them forever.  They might move, or we might, the whole neighbour thing is pretty much the luck of the draw and there is nothing we can do about it.  And even if we could, do we really want to be the kind of people who fear outsiders and strangers? 

Since time began, man has had the urge to travel, and these days it's a lot easier, for everyone.  No society or community is static, people no longer spend their entire lives in one small town.  Kids grow up and move on, sometimes to the other side of the world, older people are upping sticks and buying a place in the sun.  Without immigrants, I am not really sure how communities could continue to run efficiently when the younger generations move on.  What exactly are the anti immigration lobby aiming for?  Do they simply want to shut Britain's doors because the country's full up and we're all doing nicely ta very much.  Are they trying to draw a line under evolution, stop the world, so we an all disembark in the England of Dad's Army?

How can the UK possibly have a fixed number for the amount of immigrants entering the UK?  And how can a number be reasonably fixed at a time of humanitarian crisis?  The number of people coming into (and going out of) the UK will vary from year to year.  As compassionate human beings we have to respond to the circumstances that exist at any given time and there should be no question that we give refuge to those in need. 

As a child of immigrant parents, my dad was Scottish, my mum Irish, it was only as I got older that I began to appreciate just how brave and go getting they were.  And I feel much the same with regard to all immigrants, they are a constant reminder that this is a land of opportunity.  My own home town, devastated by the effects of austerity, continues to tick over mostly because of all those immigrants who have taken a chance on starting up new businesses have the drive, ambition and belief that seems to have been lost among the indigenous population.  They haven't come to the UK, because they want to sponge off the Welfare State, they have come here because GB still has the reputation of being one of the most advanced civilised nations on the globe. We were once pioneers, and those who join us believe we still can be.

Migrant workers are a good thing, they have existed since the beginning of time.  Some might say it is in our genes to follow the work and during times of growth outside help is essential, see Egypt circa 1200bc or the influx of Irish into the UK in the 1960's.  There is a good argument to be made that economic migrants lower wages by working for less, but the lowering of the wages lies solely with the employers.  Since the Tories and Tony Blair indoctrinated everyone with the idea that bosses are nice people and we don't need Unions anymore, they can pretty much treat their employees as they choose, and they choose to get as much work for the least amount of pay as they can.  When they sing about those Satanic mills, it is with fond memories. 

Those who want to restrict freedom of movement, send shivers down my spine. The first thing that comes to mind is the Berlin Wall and, god forbid, Donald Trump's Mexican Wall.  Where does it begin, and [shudders] where does it end? If we limit the number of new citizens coming into the UK, will other countries reciprocate and turn our kids away?  Should UK citizens have priority in the job market, even if they are not necessarily the best person for the job?  

But let's turn to the most common arguments against immigration?

I've got nowhere to live
My child can't get a place in the local school
I had to wait 10 hours in A&E

The answer to all of the above: lack of investment in vital public services by successive governments, this one especially.  Somehow they have managed to win two elections pitching austerity is good and let's hear it for the wealth creators.  (same pitch as Liz Kendall and plotters).  Investing in people and communities is just plain crazy, yeh? or, it can only be done when their pals, the wealth creators feel benevolent enough to pay some taxes.  No obligation of course, only if they feel like it. 

Let's smash this 'Austerity is Right' argument back on it's heels.  It is not right, it is pointless, and worse, it is cruel and inhumane.  To put it into perspective.  at a time when this country was virtually on its knees, and the last time we had food banks, was just after the second World War.  Yet, out of the devastation, the Clement Attlee government built the Welfare State and the NHS.  In the 21st century and as the 6th richest nation in the world, the above 3 complaints should shame every right wing politician especially those Labour politicians who continue to believe that austerity is right. 

It is not the fault of immigrants, or the sick and disabled, it is the failure of government and local authorities to provide the facilities needed for a growing population.  A 'New Deal' funds itself.  New homes, schools and hospitals create new jobs, which creates spending power, which boosts new business. If a system is collapsing because too many people are making demands on it, the answer isn't to cut down on the people, it is to expand and improve the system!  

I love our multicultural society because I have always taken great pleasure in meeting people from far off lands, for me, it is the next best thing to visiting the place myself.  As a small child in the early 1960's I was fortunate to grow up in a community where all my playmates came from a huge variety of ethnic backgrounds.  We were all children of immigrants who worked in the huge hospital opposite our row of houses. From those who worked in the kitchens, to the doctors and nurses, there were no class barriers either.  My best pals were a little Indian girl called Konni and a little German boy called Heina - I learned at a very early age that if I wanted to make friends with someone 'wanna make some mud pies' was pretty universal. 

My own experience of a mixed, inter racial childhood was a positive one, and one that I can say has enriched my life.  I've never had that fear of foreigners that I saw in others as I got older.  Those parents who worry that their children's education will suffer because of any influx of immigrant children into local schools, should set their fears aside.  Firstly, the parents of these immigrant children are made of pretty stern stuff.  Some have crossed oceans to get here.  They know and understand the benefit of a good education and they will actively push their children towards high achievement.  Which makes them pretty good friends for our wayward kids to pal up with. 

Secondly, they offer our kids a window into a whole new world that neither parents or teachers could ever hope to achieve.  Small children don't have prejudices, all the little people around them are their friends and always will be.  And if they are fortunate to grow up untainted by the world around them, they will be pacifists.  They will understand and respect other cultures and traditions rather than fear them.  Children who grow up in a multicultural environment will not go into any negotiations from a nationalistic stance.  There is hope for the future.    

Immigrants are not a threat to our society, they are a lifeline.  They are working their socks off to build a better life for themselves and their children.  They want what we want, and they are, arguably, more determined to get it.  They still see the potential GB has, the kudos of a British education and a NHS background. Even in the toughest times, they have optimism and vision, where we old cynics see a landscape of despair, they see opportunity and hope. 

The housing crisis, the lack of good school places and the appalling staff and bed shortages in our hospitals, predate the current refugee crisis.  They are the result of trying to run public services on a shoestring.  Those with charge of the public purse have not used our taxes and national insurance to maintain and upkeep the National Health service, they have cut vital services to the bone and spent the money elsewhere.  Limiting the number of people who come into the UK will make no difference to the lives of UK citizens.  As long as those who manage the economy squeeze vital services to breaking point, there will always be shortages and it is the general public (including the immigrants) who will suffer.  None of us are getting the services we pay for. 

The majority of people with immigration fears are not racist, they have been placed in a position where it feels as though they are competing with their neighbours for homes, jobs and school places, because lack of investment means there is not enough to go round.  Sadly, using an ethnic minority to carry all the blame for society's ills, is a political tool that goes back to the beginning of time.  It was cheap and devious in biblical days, and it is cheap and devious now.

Our neighbours are not our enemies.  The problems we have lie solely with
mismanagement by those at the top.  Those communities hit hardest by the double dip recessions and austerity, have far greater problems than new people coming to their areas. They have been run down by decades of under investment and forward planning.  Sure Start gave them a glimmer of hope for a while, but the Tories swiftly put an end to that.   

As for these small groups of new people, we should welcome them into our midst.  I remember as an 11 year old asking my history teacher what England, or more specifically Englanders would have been like if it had never been invaded.  She then painted an image of blond haired, blue eyed 'angels' from Angeland that I actually found quite charming - even though I didn't fit the Aryan criteria myself.  I didn't understand the sinister connotations and I hadn't seen Children of the Damned, it was a Catholic girls school, what did I know.     

I think any kind of legislation to preserve a society in it's original form is a tad Amish.  Those fighting against immigration are actually fighting against change, they cannot accept that the world around them is doing as it always has done, it is evolving.  The whole idea of gates, walls and stricter border controls takes us back to medieval times.  In fact walls have got a terrible history altogether (who can think of a good one?), they are symbols of tyranny and restrictions on freedom of movement are the foundations on which they are built.  Society does not become a better place by forming elite groups and excluding people.

I try to make a point each day, of chatting to and giving warm smiles, to the newcomers I encounter.  I want them and their children to feel welcome and I want them to know that the far right extremists do not represent the majority of us.   In the words of Maya Angelou, people will forget what you said, and what you did, but they will never forget how you made them feel. 

Thursday, 22 September 2016

Bar Brawl or Sing Off?


Well I'm kinda glad the whole Leadership battle has come to an end, or at least it has hit that quiet moment when you are actually inside the eye of the storm and the real fall out is still to come.  In this case, in the form of the forthcoming Labour Party Conference, which shows every sign of turning into one massive bar room brawl.  Many of those speaking will have to curb their language to fit the new 'instant suspension' rules, so by the time they reach refreshments, they will have steam pouring out of their ears.  Ahh, who remembers the old Union meetings, when a speaker would put a fiver in the swear box and then get their money's worth. 

A lot of people from the losing side will be very angry and many will blame Owen Smith.  He just didn't campaign hard enough some might say, others wtf were we thinking, the rest, Owen who?  The member for Pontypridd not only failed to make a dent in Jeremy's popularity, he increased it.  As the face of the Blairites who still see tory voters as their target demographic, he stood for everything the grass roots members had already rejected.   

Everything went horribly wrong when Jeremy refused to resign.  The more organised and competent plotters didn't have a Plan B.  Did they have a 'Leader' waiting in the wings, or indeed flying in, or was Tom Watson going to take over indefinitely?  An election forced them to put up a candidate they did not have, well not one who wanted to face a leadership election against the phenomenally popular Jeremy Corbyn.  And to be fair, they haven't got a 'crowd puller' among them.  They put up the best they had last year and look where that got them?

I can't decide whether Owen Smith got the short straw, or the one a bit longer than Angela Eagle's.  So inept were the plotters, that they didn't see the irony of having two unity candidates until someone politely pointed it out.  Angela was hopeless, first that whiney voice, the mountain made out of a brick and an office block window and her inability to act like a mature adult in the face of the childish abuse almost every internet user encounters online. 

Which brings me nicely onto Momentum, the popular movement that has grown out of Jeremy Corbyn's two campaigns for the Labour leadership.  Momentum have been portrayed as bullies and thugs intent on turning the Labour Party into a protest movement with no desire to form a government.  I suppose the bigger and more ludicrous the lie, the more likely it is to make the mainstream headlines.  The whole backing campaign for Jeremy is geared towards winning the General Election in 2020, and courtesy of the chicken coup and Owen Smith, the 40k+ activists have now had two practice runs.   

I watched both documentaries the other evening, expecting the worst!  The reporter we were told, have worked undercover in Momentum for 6 months, and, it seems, uncovered absolutely ziltch.  No misogyny, no anti-Semitism, no abuse, and nothing that could remotely be described as sinister.  They all came across as thoroughly good eggs, and I actually felt a motherly tingle down my spine, assured that the future was safe in their hands.  My own home town is a shell of what it once was, and it is heart breaking to see it so run down, and so many young people seemingly abandoned.  I was so inspired by these youngsters, I missed most of Panorama because I was signing up for Momentum online! 

If I could wave a magic wand, I would wish the forthcoming Conference to have that 'JezWeCan' spirit that kicked this all off.  The most inspiring message to have come from Jeremy's Leadership campaign, has been Hope.  The country clearly needs and wants, change and the Hustings has enabled Jeremy to explain in detail the viable alternative he is offering.  His charm and sincerity have done the rest. 

One would imagine that any political party that had hundreds of thousands of enthusiastic new activists would be jumping for joy and seeing the potential for an overwhelming win.  When Tony Blair won in 1997, he had the support of Rupert Murdoch at a time when a Sun front page could swing an election. Twenty years on, tabloid news has been crushed by the internet, social media and better writers.  Phone hacking and Leveson have exposed the questionable relationship between political leaders and newspaper moguls.  With Jeremy, everyone, Left, Right and Centre, know that he will not be schmoozed by private jets or start demanding Limos like Tony Blair. 

As for all those centre ground MPs who are feeling threatened, they are pretty much hoisted by their own petards. They are at odds with the party members and activists if they continue to see the tory voters as their target demographic and Jeremy Corbyn as their enemy.  They cannot expect the support of the members if they see them as trots, rabble, dogs, Nazis and thugs. Nor can they expect them to campaign on their behalf.  Why on earth would they?

At the moment, they have reached and gone past that Oops point and they are on that 'not gonna end well, right dead right road'.  They would prefer to crash into a wall than admit they might be wrong.  They have asked the audience and this time the audience have responded with a megaphone.  Jeremy Corbyn has nothing to threaten these MPs with, when it comes to selection, because the voters will decide and it's unlikely they will vote in someone who wants to continue with the infighting.  At the moment fear is a completely wasted emotion. It's like worrying about being caught, after you've been caught.  Tis done.  They can't take back their ill chosen words and dastardly deeds.  Everyone will remember how their hourly resignations were intended to break Jeremy as a man.  They spoke of conscience, but what kind of conscience allowed them to take part in something so manipulative and cruel?

Personally, I would welcome an influx of new blood, and going by the recent documentaries, there is a huge amount of talent out there.  Too intelligent and too conscientious to have bought into right wing doctrine, these activists, young and old, have the energy, enthusiasm and the will to revamp society and rebuild our communities from the bottom up. 

Sadly, I don't think it will matter how many olive branches Jeremy offers, because the sore losers will be plotting revenge.  No doubt they will go out of their way this weekend, to spoil any victory celebrations by claiming they are being victimised and abused.  Ruth Smeeth is taking a bodyguard and Jess Phillips may appear via satellite from her panic room.  All a bit pointless in my opinion, Jeremy Corbyn's campaign has always been about Hope for the future.  A victory for Jeremy will a celebration because change is coming and now is the time for action.  All those movers and shakers, I imagine, will be talking long into the night about their amazing plans to restore the NHS, build a million homes, and breathe life back into all those communities devastated by years of austerity. 

Those embittered MPs I fear, will be sorely disappointed as the spotlight fades because it is no longer about them.  Winning armies focus on the future, not the past.  Owen Smith, Angela Eagle et all, will have to win over the electorate just as Jeremy has to and see where their negativity gets them. For a country that is crying out for change their battlecry 'Labour can't win blah, blah' doesn't compare to 'JezWeCan'. 

So will the gentler style of politics and the Compliance Unit's cleaning up of the Labour Party lexicon carry through into Saturday night and end with a rousing chorus of 'when cowards flinch and 'bleeps.....' sneer', we'll keep the Red Flag flying here.  Somehow, I don't think that's going to happen, and  there is probably a good each way bet to be had on John Prescott or Ruth Smeeth's minder lamping someone.  As much fun as a full scale bar brawl might be, I think the more peaceful approach might be a karaoke battle with leading figures singing title appropriate songs, maybe:

Tony Blair:                            It has to be My Way
Alistair Campbell                    I'm too sexy for the Left
Neil Kinnock                           It's my party and I'll cry if I want to
Owen Smith:                         Return to Sender (asap)
Angela Eagle:                        It should have been me
Jess Phillips:                          Why can't I keep my big mouth shut
Iain McNichol:                       Every breath you take and every tweet you make
Jeremy Corbyn:                     I get knocked down, but I get up again 
John McDonnell:                    He ain't heavy, he's my brother
Diane Abbott:                        R.E.S.P.E.C.T.
Margaret Hodges:                  Another (Prada) suitcase in another hall
Len McLuskey:                       You'll never walk alone
Tom Watson:                         Tears on my pillow

Please feel free to add or amend, I'm sure there's a better song for Tom out there!