Monday, 18 December 2017


Because I am trying to host a sane, logical, discussion about the subject of child pornography, I am again being accused of spreading dangerous propaganda and sailing close to the wind.  Apparently my blog is policed regularly for evidence of some kind of misconduct.  Now I feel obliged to give that one regular reader a shout out!  Hiya, hope you're enjoying it thus far, but put your seatbelt on, I'm about to sail a bit closer to the wind. 
Firstly, I am as repulsed and disgusted at child pornography as any sane adult, and I'm not trying to legalise it or promote it.  As someone who always takes the side of the vulnerable and who has taken a stand in a courtroom against child abuse, I defy anyone to accuse me of supporting monsters.  My point, again and again, is why aren't the producers of these films, images etc, being arrested?  How about those actually defiling the kids in the images?  We keep hearing about child pornography, but we never hear about kids being rescued?  Why not?  Why aren't the actual victims, the children, the number one priority?
Every generation, going back hundreds of years, blames the arts, music, literature, the culture of their time, for society's ills.  I'm not claiming child pornography as an Art by the way, but I am concerned that the hysteria about images crosses so easily into The Arts sphere.  When someone claims an image is responsible for a criminal's behaviour, we should all be worried.   Some even want to criminalise cartoons ffs - there goes Family Guy and Herbert the Pervert!  The Arts are a mirror, not only do they reflect our lives right back at us, they capture the spirit of the times for all eternity.  That's why great writers (and wannabes like moi), carve our words with pride. 
Most of us, probably 99% behave with decorum in public, not so much online.  Not because we would be in the dock and held accountable if we didn't, but because that is how we were raised and because that is the right thing to do.  It isn't the Law that keeps us in check, anymore than it is the law that stops obscenities flooding the market?  Free will and the free choice of the majority NOT to view these images or visit these sites, keeps them off our screens.  Nobody wants them. They don't flood the markets because most people have no interest in them.  Supply and demand, the demand isn't there.   
With child pornography and child exploitation, the majority of us are so reviled by the it, that even underground suppliers would struggle and whistleblowers would be everywhere.  Ergo, the market is very, very small, very, very sleazy and always will be.  It's not a clear and present danger, just as the 4% of Muslims who make up the British population are not going to make a hostile takeover. 
The biggest danger to children comes from the home and from people who know them.  That's a fact.  The smallest danger to children is a predator on the internet.  I feel like Father Ted explaining small and far away to Father Dougal using pictures of cows.  More importantly, why is abuse always thought of as sexual?  Physical and mental abuse are far more prevalent and often prove fatal.  'So you were beaten to within an inch of your life, but did he TOUCH you? .  What of those disciplinarians who move in on young families and enforce inhumane regimes?  Those who think they can break a child's will by beating them or locking them up?  Is it OK to thrash a child, but not hug them?
Abuse comes in many forms, but only sexual abuse grabs the headlines.  As if dissecting the graphic details of a 40 year old grope will somehow help those children who are suffering today.  Those children going home to empty larders, empty cupboards and parents pushed to breaking point.  Or how about those refugee children desperately in need of safe home for themselves and their families?
As often happens, the discussion from the last blog has spilled over here.  Not least the ludicrous idea of banning whatever it is that turns paedophiles on - experts apparently can see things in pictures, that we regular people can't.  And I'm quite delighted about that.  Actually, I always look for the beauty around me, it keeps me sane(ish) and I think kindly of most people, until they give me good reason not to. 
However, the idea of pinpointing one generic trigger that fits all, is batshit crazy.  A movie might trigger one raging maniac to go on a killing spree, but it didn't affect all the millions who saw it in the same way.  And who is to say the movie was the trigger, it might have been one of the adverts?  That advert for Haribo sweets with adults talking like children, sends me demented!   I confess.  I did, as a teen watch 'The Evil Dead' after it was officially declared a 'video nasty', as indeed did everyone I knew, it was being passed on daily.  And no, no-one went on a rampage. 
The idea of banning things that MIGHT turn on this very tiny percentage of weirdos is in itself bizarre. How do you compile a  generic list of paedophile turn ons ffs?  would it include ice cream as claimed in the cesspit? How about a saucily shaped banana as cited in the Swedish case of two small cartoon characters?
I once looked after an elderly disabled gentleman, who's turn on was school girls in their short skirts.  Not an uncommon turn on, even among men who wouldn't dream of touching a child.  The netball matches in Lincoln's Inn Field had a very large audience of City gents.  My client's problem was he was very vocal about it.  He also used the internet to look up school girls etc, and he would often go out and photograph them.  He was often brought home by the police.
He was mentally and physically disabled, and couldn't nor wouldn't, ever hurt anybody.  He shared his home with another gentleman who was wheelchair bound, and during the night, he would check on him and bring him drinks.  He had a kind, caring nature, and just couldn't understand why he shouldn't whistle, leer at or photograph schoolgirls. He would cry and apologise and promise never to do it again, but he always did, he had short term memory loss.  Sadly, he would be just the kind of man an angry mob would take pleasure in hanging from a lamppost, there would be no time to explain or ask for compassion for his condition, that is where this hysteria has taken us.  
But going back to banning, should school girls go back to wearing their skirts one inch above the knee, because one poor old guy, couldn't hide his glee?  Should he be lynched?  Or should schoolgirls be aware that there are some unfortunate people in this world who don't know how to behave appropriately. And that they are not necessarily a threat to them.   Is it so difficult to spend a few moments explaining to a child how and why other people are different to them  and they should feel compassion rather than leaving their fears unexplained? 
I spent my early childhood in the shadow of the great Holloway Sanatorium in Virginia Water, and both my parents worked there, it cared for the gentrified mentally disabled and exhausted celebrities.  Visitors, including the Queen Mother, arrived in Rolls Royces.  Our small village was dominated by the Sanatorium, hospital workers and residents out for a stroll.  Both my father and mother instilled it in me to show kindness and compassion to the residents, just as they did. And I was happy to, I met some great characters, I feared no-one, and I learned very early in life that most people, especially the lost and lonely, just want a friend to cheer them up.  It breaks my heart when I see families and children flinch at the disabled, they truly don't know what they are missing.
Of all the jobs I've had, care work was the most rewarding and indeed most enlightening.  Seeing human behaviour in it's simplest form taught me far more than a study of the more complex characters. It was a huge learning curve.  Take a horrible character and strip them of their motivation, their vanity, their self awareness, their complex schemes, and you are left with the nicest basics and the nicest natures.  I just wish people could understand there is nothing to fear, that just because someone's looks different, it doesn't mean they will harm them.   I loved the time I spent with my clients, unfortunately, as much as they loved my 'big kid' antics, my employers didn't.  
I worry that these paedophile hunters and vigilantes do not consider the mental health of those men they go after.  The old guy I looked after wasn't capable of grooming anybody, but imagine if he was lured to a car park by an angry mob?  Unfortunately, history is littered with the mentally disabled being hung in error. 
The best way to protect children is by educating the parents about the very real risks.  The new boyfriend, the over helpful neighbour, the always willing babysitter and yes, the professionals.   Like a mummy tiger helping it's cub out into the world, we must teach them how to ward off predators.  But we should also point out to them those most likely to be friends.  
Just like the animal world, predators are always on the look-out for the weak and vulnerable and steer away from the strong and confident.  The best gift we can give our children is the confidence to protect themselves.   I wasn't in the least bit perturbed when my 13 year old son began an online relationship with a voluptuous 18 year old called Lollypop Happy (yes the name was that unforgettable). He would keep me updated on his daily chats while I and his big brother teased him mercilessly.  I think what finally burst his bubble, was when I pointed out Lollypop Happy was probably a big auld hairy arsed builder in his fifties. 
Kids (mostly) aren't stupid, especially where the internet is concerned.  They have grown up with it, they understand it better than we do, or probably ever will.  Where they are naïve however, is in understanding the behaviour of others, they don't have the life experience to discern what is or isn't appropriate behaviour.  It isn't difficult to teach.  Children are mimics.  They copy everything you do and say.  If you won't allow  yourself to be disrespected, neither will they.  If you treat your child with respect that will be the standard they expect from all others, like the difference between right and wrong   A confident kid will know that it is not OK for an adult to make them feel uncomfortable and they do not have to tolerate it. 
It is ridiculous that the subject of child pornography is not open for debate, by and large, because the sane, reasonable and logical, dare not voice their fears out loud because of what people might think of them.   Resulting in the debate being dominated by hysteria and extremists who think mobs can be driven into a sexual frenzy by a cartoon.   

Monday, 11 December 2017


One of the joys of owning a blog and being single is that I can argue with stubborn, obstinate old men without having to sleep with them, or put poison in their coffee.  Some men, when they get to a certain age, become so set in their ways, they should be hammered into the ground, quite literally.  And it irks the hell out of me as a woman, when a man automatically positions himself as older and wiser.  Truth be told, in most cases I'm wiser, and if I'm not I acknowledge it.  And in the case of you, ZT/Ziggy, that will never happen. 
In response to your latest, patronizing, demeaning attempt to make me look ill informed and lacking in education, here are a few home truths.
Yes, it's my thing now, Trump is the benchmark for everything evil and everything tacky. Well spotted. Trevor Noah? Yes indeed I am a fan, he's  a genius who didn't go to Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard or Yale. I have my own criteria for measuring genius VT, and top of my list are comedians, political ones especially who can take in and sum up an entire situation in one funny line. 
I'm sure I will enjoy movies all the more now I have your approval VT, my film posters and stars can remain on my walls :)  Funnily enough, I told a good friend the other day, I would bequeath her my large portrait of Charlie Chaplin, but I'm not sure she was happy about it.  I think she has her eye on my china tea set.
Movies are educational! How many millions have learned about art, history, literature, music, the lives of their ancestors, famous characters from history, famous incidents from history, the list goes on and on.  I knew all about Oliver Cromwell at 13, because my Dad took us to see it in the West End.  Is it likely any of us would have picked up as many books as films we have watched? Or how many books we go on to read after watching a film.  You will argue that films are not historically accurate, but I would argue they are another interpretation, just as two artists could paint the same landscape, and you would have entirely different pictures.  
We watch a movie, we buy the book, we may take it further.  I may have mentioned I have a deep and passionate interest in the French Revolution, I have even written a couple of screen plays that I really should submit to someone.  Studying it in greater depth is a treat I am saving for my twilight years, when I hope to do another degree. I always say my interest began with 'It was the best of times and it was the worst of times', Dickens 'Tale of Two Cities', but to be honest it was 'Carry On Don't Lose Your Head'.
How many kids learned about the Roman Empire while watching 'Carry On Cleo'? OK, for some kids that's ALL they will ever know about the Roman Empire, but at least it's something.  You cite The Alamo and Schindler's List - in what way were they distorted to benefit someone?  Who was benefitting from the propaganda? Was Schindler's List a lie? Or was it a way to tell generation after generation about the Holocaust? Something the world should never forget.   How many people would have known about Schindler or even The Alamo, if it hadn't been for those movies? 
You have an elite attitude to popular culture that is ridiculous VT.  You cite times past as better times, as though we should be looking backwards instead of forwards.  Your fear of the internet, is no different to the fear of books, art or music.  As if someone might write, paint or sing something that will sent the world into meltdown.  As though people need to be protected from themselves. 
Living in fear is a life choice ZT, you can lay in bed at night worrying about some anonymous troll or shill, or you can switch off by reading a book or watching a movie, like the rest of us.  You choose to worry about weirdos on the internet.  That's weird in itself.   You seem to think we are being brainwashed by some dark, sinister force - Mark Zuckerburg as a CIA Operative was a cracker. 
The internet is the best thing that has ever happened to Mankind.  For the first time in history we are all in contact with each other - all over the globe.  The citizens of one country can talk to citizens of another country in real time!  The internet is not a threat to multitudes, it's a threat to those who hold the power.  Crowds can assemble within moments, unpopular laws can be defeated by the masses.  The best example of the massive shift in the paradigm is the people's choice of Jeremy Corbyn as the Labour Party leader and his growing popularity throughout the country.   
I don't know what your real fears are ZT, you have written volumes but never actually said.  In the whole scheme of things, the internet is relatively new, will it evolve into Orwell's '1984'?  What cheers me is that those young internet geniuses who fight to preserve internet freedom are always ahead of the Authorities.   Whatever they design must be superior to the hackers.  Daily. 
Without knowing what your actual fear is VT, it is difficult to understand.  While each of our names are important to us, they are rarely of any interest to anyone else.  If someone says something nasty, so what? If it matters that much we can respond, or we can ignore it.  Sure as eggs is eggs, someone in the real world is saying something nasty about you right now.  That's life.  Being a somewhat flamboyant and some might say, eccentric, character in real life, I'm used to being talked about. 
But, as another of my Hollywood Icons (the divine Marilyn Monroe) would say, 'If I worry about other bitches, I'd be just like them, another worried bitch'. 
It really saddens me to see people such as yourself spreading this mythical fear about the internet.  The dangers, are hugely exaggerated, especially where grooming young people online is concerned.  Young people today are far more savvy than our generation, they have grown up with the internet, they know more than we ever will.  If they are going to be stalked or abducted, it is far more likely it will be by someone who knows them or an opportunist.  Not an impoverished gang of youths in an internet café in Azerbaijan.  To be honest, I am very uncomfortable with the whole idea of vigilantes' tracking paedophiles' down online.  I am certain there are far more practical and effective ways to protect the young and vulnerable, than cornering an old bloke in a car park with a crowd screaming and carrying baseball bats. 
Not being James Bond, I kind of accept the Dr. Evil threat as a possibility.  Though had it worked out for Blair, I would have marched until I had blisters, as I would if any of his henchmen were elevated to power again.  I accept in the sense, that I know, I personally can't stop it.  That will irk most activists, quite rightly, but don't get me started on the number of causes I feel I should be involved in.  It sets my conscience off.  There may or may not be a Dr. Evil plotting as we speak, but it's beyond my control.  I'm always on the lookout for a calming chant, a favourite for a while was 'Serenity Now' from Seinfeld which involved a lot of arm waving, these days I prefer the more tranquil 'beyond my control'.
More likely than Dr. Evil, is a slow erosion of the freedom of speech we presently have.  And we have that courtesy of those movers, shakers and music makers, who I refer to as the new Masters of the Universe, the owners of the social networks.  I am being castigated on my previous blog for calling Mark Zugerburg the antithesis of Donald Trump.  Gold Plated toilet seat.  I rest my case.
The danger lies in the slow erosion, the calls for policing of social media by the same people selling us scare stories.  These government approved scare stories usually come in on the back of a major tragedy. That is the bans, restrictions and legal enforcements are introduced virtually overnight if public feeling is strong enough.  
Apologies ZT for using you as an example of everything that drives me nuts about men of my own age.  It is not all personal.  But it does irk me that you keep you deliberately keep your eyes shut when it runs counter to your own set in stone beliefs.  You have no, zero, zilch, interest in learning, you think you have reached that point where you know everything, therefore opening another book is not necessary.  How do you learn anything if you are never wrong?
As for my Hollywood the Dream Factory, I learned rather more than the title line ZT, and by the way, doesn't every artist strive to create a dream? How many great works of art are dreams? how about the words of writers who take you into their world, and the songs that take you to an alternate state of mind?
You have a very closed mind ZT, and one I can only feel pity for, because you will never change.   I would give you a recommended reading list ZT, but you would discard it, as not worth  your time.  You are proud of rejecting things you won't even try to understand.  It baffes me but you are far from alone in your demographic. 
I don't feel in the least bit ashamed of my love of movies, because I take something from every film I see (not The Happening, for which I have still not forgiven Mark Wahlberg)*, the movies are an endless source of information and entertainment, I feel sad for you that you will never feel the magic.
*Forgave MW after Ted :)
Apologies, it's very late and I have an awful cold, please forgive any errors or omissions. [Sheepish smiley]

Saturday, 2 December 2017


I have no doubt that when Operation Grange finally comes to end, there will be a Public Inquiry, and among the questions asked will be, did the McCanns’ media campaigns pervert the course of justice and if so to what extent?  This will be followed by a huge outcry and demands that the Government do something about it - ie. Police the internet.
Hopefully, the logical, the reasonable, the sane and the huge Freedom of Speech lobby rally to oppose the irrational demands of the over sensitive.  As my regular readers know, I am vehemently opposed to banning anything, I still have enough belief in the goodness of human nature, to know that nasty, spiteful trolls and anti social individuals are usually defeated by peer pressure.  They are desperate for an audience, why give it to them? 
Ban is my least favourite word in the dictionary, a close second to gusset and gobsmacked.  In fact I would ban the word ban.  I was watching Question Time last night and the discussion turned to banning Donald Trump.  Bizarrely, I was with the lady in the sparkly jacket, let him come, giving us just enough notice to let a few eggs and tomatoes go off.  As a Marxist and a Republican, I've never been particularly fond of the Royal family.  Fascinated, but not fond.  However, I think we Brits have got something in our genetic nature whereby at the age 60 we go all gooey over Royal weddings and babies!  I hate myself for this, and will later go burn my dungerees and bovver boots (also a feminist), but I love Meghan Markle!  OK, I love Harry, Wills and Kate too, and I shed a tear when I think how proud their mum would be. 
Even the old Queen who I have oft called a miserable old bat over the years, gives me a teeny glow of pride.  If a face can speak a thousand words, I am pretty sure hers will have much to say to the Donald.  Or maybe just two words, one beginning with 'F' followed by 'orf'.  The Windsors have more class, more style, more charm and more diamonds than the Hillbillies in the Whitehouse could ever imagine.  Kate and Meghan are naturally stylish, Melania and Ivanka are styled by a 71 year old man fixated on beauty queens.  They dress as an accessory for his elbow, not themselves. 
Mieow, and while I'm at it, it pleases me immensely that Barack and Michelle Obama will be welcome guests of the bride and groom.  Everything Trump and his ghastly family ever dreamed of, riding down The Mall in a gold carriage, goes again to the man he envies the most.  Ok, maybe not literally the gold carriage (sulky smiley), but an elite club from which he will forever be excluded. 
But back to the original question.  The internet is still relatively new.  That is, many of us remember manual typewriters, and some, ink and a quill.  I jest, sorry.  We are not yet fully aware of the extent of it's powers.  The Madeleine story captured the zeitgeist, we were all finding new and exciting ways in which to use the wonders of the world wide web.  For the first time, a missing child could be publicised worldwide within hours of disappearing.  Someone had discovered a 'good' use of the internet, a use that was morally sound.  Searching for a missing child united us - globally. 
It's a bit like Winston Churchill's 'Never have so many owed so much to so few.....'.  He had used it several times before, but it never had the resonance it had when he applied it to the brave pilots who defended the British coastline.  It's like a 'perfect storm', a culmination, when all elements come together at the same time.  The birth of the internet, Spin as an acknowledged profession, a government seeking a way in which to access the public's private internet activity, etc, etc. 
Unfortunately for the McCann family and all their advisors, they could no more see into the future than the rest of us.  The monster that filled their coffers and elevated them to icon status, then went on to devour them.   They foolishly believed they could keep the monster on a leash.  There is an almost childlike naivety in Gerry and Kate, an old fashioned belief in the values of England in the 1960s'.  They have spent all their money on a quest to get a Court to rule them innocent, as if a Court Order would be treated with any respect on a lawless internet.  (And let me be clear here, I love the lawlessness!).  Those days when we all tipped our hats to Judges, policemen and doctors are a thing of the past.  We are no longer told what to think, we can think for ourselves.
The answer to the title question is of course yes.  But there is no legislative answer.  As a curious onlooker of the McCanns' campaigns, I would never make any demands for them to be banned.  That's one of the best things about Freedom of Speech, if someone says horrid things about you, you are free to challenge them and put forward your own argument.  It's a level playing field.  The best answer wins. 
I'm afraid I have little, OK, no sympathy for those who claim the internet destroys lives.  Of course, I have spent my entire life being the outsider, the non team player, so I'm used to people talking about me and whispering in corners.  If they're not, I feel the need to up the ante.  Can we focus on ME please, lol. 
I have always found high profile libel actions hilarious, they always end up exposing things the claimants don't want exposed, and they never end well.  Those who would never have given a second thought to whether you were guilty or not, now believe you are.
Claiming you have been affronted, is all about ego.  The way in which you perceive yourself without first reading the words of Rabbie Burns.  Nobody outside of your head gives two hoots that you were called a bitch online, in the Sun, or wherever.  Most of us think about ourselves 99% of the time, but libel claimants go the full 100%.  Because their obsession is themselves, they are very easy to manipulate with smarmy lawyers queuing up on the doorstep.  Pistols at dawn wasn't nearly so lucrative. 
Those perpetuating the idea that internet trolls are one of the greatest threats to society, are in fact inviting the public to demand the government take control of the greatest source of information the world has ever seen.  They are consciously or subconsciously, telling us we need 1984 authoritarian protection.  In a nutshell, they want us to fear our laptops.
In this big bad world, internet trolls are the least of our fears.  OK, they say nasty things, they even make threats, and write movie scripts for Saw, but the reality is, said creep is probably some bitter, socially inept loner, hiding in his/her room 500 miles away.  Ergo. Not likely to climb in your bedroom window, should you decide not to sleep in a panic room.  They have NO contact with their victims, that's the whole point. They can persecute people from afar without fear of being caught.The  chances of them wallpapering their front rooms with your picture and lurking outside your front door are miniscule, especially if they are stalking you from Kurdistan for example. 
Governments have every good reason to keep the population living in fear, it's a bit like the old protection racket.  They create the fear and then offer to protect us from it.  Media campaigns, whatever we think of them, should not be banned.  And as loathsome as some of the Madeleine forums are, even they should have their freedoms protected. We all have the free will to read and write whatever we want.  Even the dull and the ignorant. 
I am a great believer in the Law of Attraction.  If you put out negative energy, that's what you get back.  Forums like CMoMM drove all the reasonable and rational people away with their appalling manners and hostile attitude.  I doubt there are more than half a dozen remaining.  No ban was necessary, they destroyed themselves. 
The Madeleine campaign was probably the first active media campaign run by the family of a missing child, but it hasn't been done to the same extent since.  Not least because the printing of t-shirts and the holding of candlelight vigils now sets off alarm bells.  The Campaign helped I think by creating the idea that the public overwhelmingly supported the parents of Missing Madeleine, even if they didn't.  Those media monitors in Whitehall etc, then see the 'stats', million likes on facebook, and put the government's support behind the popular cause.  That's why it has always been integral to Gerry and Kate to convince interviewers that the public are fully behind them.  'Opinion is roughly 50/50 Kate', said the Irish host, 'no, no, she replied, it's only a tiny handful, I don't know anyone like that, do you?'. 
Much of this case, as newcomers will have discovered, is full of myths, smoke and mirrors.  Gerry and Kate worked hard to present themselves as the faces of a hidden, giant army of helpers and supporters.  In the early days I seriously imagined a packed sweatshop with trolls working their fingers to the bone fending off McCann critics.  I now think it is just a very prolific handful.
The McCanns made a huge success out of what they did.  I know success doesn't seem like the right word, but they achieved everything they set out to do.  Madeleine became the most famous missing child in the world, and they presented as two erudite professionals to whom something terrible had happened. 
The internet can and will, always sway public opinion, just as newspapers have in the past, but at this point in history, we now have hundreds of news sources to choose from.  The Madeleine story wasn't confined by borders.  The British media were promoting the abduction story, but the Portuguese were reporting something else. And anyone taking 10  seconds to google, quickly stumbled on the news not being reported in the UK.  Not only could the McCanns not control the news coming out of Portugal, nor could the mainstream media. 

Tuesday, 28 November 2017



I am told by many sources, including those that do know, that Nigel Nessling is not Muratfan.  Apologies.  I wrote this blog in the wee small hours, and a skim read of Nessling's website and the cesspit.  As I mentioned, the characters of the more vitriolic trolls are of little interest to me.  While their true characters usually do reveal something sinister and murky, they lack depth, all roads lead to pathetic, socially inept creeps crying out for attention.  They are a sideshow to the main event.

Anyway, I am happy to be corrected, and hope it doesn't detract from the blog's main theme.  Muratfan, Greenink (?), Vee8, Tigerloaf, BB1, Jayelles, Wicatty, Michael Walker etc, they all have the same agenda, the same message, and usually, the same words.  It's as though they are all reading from the same script.  There is no individuality, there is no 'face' of Team McCann, because none of them are willing to reveal the true identities behind the monsters they have created. 

Nigel Nessling, Vee8, I suspect, is the beginning of the endgame.  He may be on the periphery, an outer domino, but that's how endgames usually begin.


Many thanks to posters at 10:33 and 15:36 on my last blog.  Well, well, well!

I have never taken too much notice of the pro McCann trolls on social media, remiss of me, perhaps, but their identities have never particularly interested me. Whenever, or however, they are exposed, the result will be sad. On many levels. 

This, however, for me is a revelation, it kind of confirms something I have always suspected. You see I DO think child pornography is involved, which at this point may confuse some of my regular readers, but bear with me.  I don't believe it is involved in the same way as Bennett, and those freaks in the cesspit putting family snaps under a microscope.

Let me explain, via the bigger picture.  In the olden days - last century, homosexuality was a criminal offence.  For men at least, Queen Victoria didn't think women did that sort of thing.  I don't know the exact laws that applied, but I do know that being exposed as a homosexual could lead to imprisonment and being cast out of society.  In a nutshell it could lead to ruination.  Obviously this put a lot of rich and powerful men in constant fear of blackmail and of course corruption.  Politicians for example, could be forced to forced to pass bills, Judges could be forced to let criminals off.

Fortunately, those days are long gone, but the internet opens up all sorts of avenues for the same kind of bribery and corruption.  That is people who are 'caught' with material of a dubious nature on their computers are open not only to prosecution but to the same kind of social disgrace as those who were exposed as homosexuals in the 1950's.  That is if they are found to have, or suspected of having, dubious material on their computers, they can bribed, corrupted and forced into doing things they don't want to do, for fear of being exposed. 

I can't define material of a dubious nature, because it's not something I have any knowledge of, I don't know how porn is categorised and I don't think I want to.  And in that I a not alone, it is a subject, most of us don't want to think about.  But we should be concerned.  In this climate of fear, taking pictures of your child in a Nativity Play is almost a criminal act.  And of course most underage images exchanged online are teens sending selfies to other teens.  I read of one 18 year old being prosecuted for sending an underage picture of herself to herself.  Whilst the whole subject is so blurry, almost anyone could be subject to a dawn raid and having their computers seized.

But what has brought this subject to the fore, is the unmasking of Nigel Nessling. no blurring of the lines or room for doubt in his case.  That he is now officially a creep comes as no surprise, he is a nasty, prolific troll who patrolled social media under the screenname of Vee8.  A name that sends a shudder through every McCann sceptic who has ever encountered him.  He was the scourge of the 'antis', the hammer of the disbelievers, the thug, who's job it was to patrol social media and scare away anyone who questioned the McCann's abduction story. 

It is impossible to separate him the notorious Myths' sites, and of course the notorious group who compiled the dossier that led to Brenda Leyland's death. For those not familiar with the 'Dossier' it was for many years the foundation of a pro McCann website called Exposing the Myths.  A public website, that named, shamed, and put up photographs of anyone on Facebook or in the forums who did not believe the McCanns.  Facebook pages were raided for pictures of family, and employers were contacted.  It was, effectively a Blacklist, designed to destroy the lives and careers of everyone they named. They had over a 100 pages on me!  It was all deleted following Brenda's death. 

The behaviour of the pro McCann supporters is something that has gone completely unnoticed by the mainstream media, and more recently, by that group of academics who studied the McCann twitter hashtag.  It has also been ignored by the parents of Madeleine themselves, who have never made any attempt to distance themselves from the sheer thuggery of those who profess to support them.  For that reason, the McCanns now find themselves in the very awkward position of their greatest supporter being convicted of making and owning images of the 'highest category'.  It is the 'making' part that disturbs me, how on earth did he not get a prison sentence? From the scant information available, there are no blurred lines about holiday snaps, he is clearly guilty, and given the 'quantity', it wasn't a new hobby.

Of course, the McCanns can't be blamed for the lunatics who support them, but they have always had the power to say, that is not what we represent, pack it in.  They haven't of course, because they knew they faced a social media war from Day, and they are finishers.  There was no word of remorse, regret or sympathy following the death of Brenda Leyland either. 

Yet another stick to beat Gerry and Kate with, I hear my critics cry, yes it is, and one I hesitated to use but then I think, what if Nessling had been an 'anti', or, which would have been manna from heaven for them, a supporter of Goncalo Amaral?  They would have been on the phone to every media outlet and tabloid editor in their overflowing contacts lists.  Stop the Press.

The 'antis' do of course, have more than their own fair share of creeps and lunatics, but that's almost a given.  Unfortunately, all those of us who didn't believe the McCanns for sane reasons, came to be represented in the media by the ugly mug and fire and brimstone preaching of Tony Bennett. I always wondered how it so quickly became taboo to doubt the McCanns, but the answer was there all the time.  We had all been tarred with the same ugly, hate filled brush. 

Nigel Nessling, was quite clearly, a nasty, malicious sociopath, (how did the academics miss that?).  His behaviour was borderline criminal, so why was such a deeply unpleasant character part of the McCann media monitoring team?  And he must have been, because they have never condemned his behaviour.  How did he become involved in the Madeleine case? And in light of these recent revelations, do they not find it a tad creepy that a man like that should be so interested in their missing 3 year old daughter?

I question why Nigel Nessling didn't get a prison sentence, but the questioning doesn't stop there.  How long was he abusing children, and if he was making the images, then the abuse is not in doubt. How did he fly under the radar of CEOP, who given their speciality, must at some point have investigated those with an obsessional interest in the Madeleine case. Ok, fair dues, too many of us, but Muratfan stood out and he was promoting their own Minute for Madeleine* campaign (the one with the Indian Maddie) and selling their message, he would never have got past FBI profilers.  Regardless, this is hugely embarrassing for the McCanns, will they distance themselves from him now?

Sunday, 19 November 2017


Following on from my last blog, and the reasons why this case remains unsolved, Clarence Mitchell I think, deserves a special mention.   
The appointment of Clarence Mitchell as Government Spokesman, is unique I think, in crimes involving British citizens abroad, please correct me if I am wrong, but I have never heard of it before.  I'm not applying sinister reasons on the part of the Government, I expect it was something the very assertive Gerry and Kate asked for when Tony Blair asked if there was anything they could do. 
However, the appointment of a spokesman from the Government to speak on behalf of the family, gave the impression that the British government deemed them innocent and approved of their campaigns and fundraising.  Clarence (government spokesman) made it clear when he said, 'just put the money in brown envelopes and send it to Rothley'.  True, he may not have been a government spokesman at that particular time, but in the eyes of most of the world, he was.  
Helping or hindering the Search?
Clarence has a gift, and that gift is being able to  lie with as many teeth as he has in his mouth. (Carlos Anjos) while coming across as the voice of authority.  He is the go-between,  the Official in 'the know', he speaks for those too important to speak to the rabble themselves.  His first move, was to put a barrier between the press and his clients, a barrier that elevated them not only above suspicion, but too classy to mix with the press, and too dignified to respond to awkward questions.  He turned them from ordinary people into VIPs who's time was worth lots of cash.  How about a bikini pic Kate?  Gerry and Kate enjoyed all the flattery, I'm sure, Gerry especially, who was positively beaming when photographed on the Whitehouse lawn.

Gerry and Clarence undoubtedly clicked.  I'm guessing there was a bonding session as they flew out to PDL together.  Not quite the mile high club, but a bromance based on shared dreams.  Both are narcissistically blown away by their ability to deceive others.  Clarence stayed out in PDL for 3 months, being paid for presumably, by the government.  But who was he taking his instructions from?  The Home Office or the family?  Was he being paid by the British government to smear the Portuguese police and judiciary?  Why did the McCanns even have a government spokesman?

I believe he started working for the McCanns personally, around September 2007, when they were made arguidos.  Who can forget how he stood outside the McCanns' Rothley home, with Gerry and Kate trembling in the background, as he read out a statement on their behalf.It was a staged affair, reminiscent of those sheepish interviews given by politicians on a Sunday morning, while we read vivid allegations about them in the News of the World.

Man in control of hair
Clarence's greatest gift is his ability to .sound as if he has got everything under control.  However, his physical appearance, screams, I can't even get my hair right anymore.  In the early days, when his hair was much more manageable, he was far more confident and dogmatic.  All the events he organised, the press conferences, meeting the Pope, came across to the public, as having an official seal of approval from the UK government, even if it didn't.  The line between who he was actually working for, is very blurred.
Man freed from wind tunnel

Many I think, especially the headline skimmers, took the constant presence of Clarence, as being a sign the authorities did not believe Gerry and Kate were involved in their daughter's disappearance.   And Clarence's gift for sounding important, and making his clients sound important, took this deception a long way.  What would we have thought of Karen Matthews for example, if she had had an official government spokesman? Maybe, if the authorities believe her, so should we?

Changing public perception isn't a crime, nor should it be, advertisers, politicians and bloggers would be out of business.  It was Clarence's job, to make the public think kindly of his clients, and he was prepared to go to any lengths to achieve it.  Whether he should have been funded by the Foreign Office to do this, is another question.  


Wednesday, 15 November 2017


Last night I watched a very sad documentary about the murder of teenager Becky Watts, by her stepbrother and his girlfriend.

Initially 16 year old Becky was reported missing, and at 16 there was every chance that Becky could have been targeted by a predator online, but unlike the case of 3 year old Madeleine McCann, there was no intervention by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection agency. 

In fact, all the criticism that has been hurled at the Portuguese police for their handling of Madeleine's disappearance could apply to the British police searching for Becky.  The borders weren't closed, the crime scene wasn't sealed off, and a lot of evidence could be said to have been lost.

But there is no criticism, nor should there be, because kids go missing for all sorts of reasons, there is very rarely a need to call for an international search within the first few hours, if at all.  Most searches are concentrated on the area where the child disappeared, and for good reason.  Not only is stranger abduction 1 in a zillion rare, stealing a child to take out of the country is rarer still.  Other than in the case of Madeleine McCann, I have never heard of parents of a missing child taking their search global.  In the weeks following Madeleine's disappearance, they were travelling to Morocco and Europe, and Gerry even flew out to Washington.  I've never heard of parents of a missing child doing that either.

The parents of poor Becky, were not so proactive.  They were devastated.  They left the investigation to the police and they co-operated throughout.  They didn't have a spokesman, they didn't have teams of lawyers, and they didn't patent their daughter's name and open an online shop.  All of which the McCanns achieved within the first 3 weeks, roughly the same amount of time it took for Bristol police to arrest Becky's killers.

The behaviour of the McCanns, was seen as heroic by many, not only were they not going to give up on their daughter, but they were fighting for missing children everywhere.  The rest of us  (and the PJ) however, were saying WTF?
The favourite reprimand was, and probably still is, 'no-one knows how they would behave in such circumstances'.  Well yeh, actually we do, and it wouldn't be like that. 

Gerry and Kate are, as we know, mad as hell at the Portuguese police for not finding their missing daughter.  The original investigation is described in the British press as bungled and incompetent, a myth invented by Team McCann that took wings.  But did the PJ respond any differently to police the world over?  I'm going with No, because the majority of children are found within the first few hours and the tabloids would be spattered daily with pictures of kids who forgot what time it was. 

As for the crime scene.  When the first police arrived Gerry, Kate and their friends had already solved the mystery of Madeleine's disappearance.  She had been taken by a stranger abductor who was probably going to take her out of the country.  For them, there were no other options, and no optimistic ones either, because Kate wanted a priest. 

The father of Becky, wouldn't and couldn't, give up hope that she was still alive, like most of us, he envisaged scenarios where she would be rescued, accepting her death, devastated him.  Of course by the following day, Gerry and Kate found that 'hope', but they were still going with the worst thing that could possibly happen, abduction by a stranger, or worse, abduction by paedophiles or people traffickers.  No thoughts of finding her with a kindly neighbour, or sleeping under a bush, no grasping at straws that she might be close by.

I can only imagine the reaction of the first police who arrived at the scene, on being told a child had disappeared, how it happened (through the open window) and she had been taken by a stranger abductor.  Case solved.  'Now off you go and close the borders, we've got a press conference in the morning'.  It would be like a cardiac patient telling Gerry where the left ventricle is. 

The mystery of Becky's disappearance quickly unravelled after specialist police dogs discovered tiny traces of blood on the doorframe of Becky's bedroom, barely visible to the eye, someone had tried to clean up, but the dogs found it anyway.  Within days the killers were arrested.

In the case of Madeleine McCann, bringing in the specialist dogs also led to a change in direction of the police investigation and the even bigger thorn in the parents' side, the alerts of the blood and cadaver dogs.  They have, and probably always will, deny that the dogs alerted to anything - preferring to smear the dogs and their handler, rather than accept their expertise.  In any event, it brought the police search for a live Maddie to an end.  

No matter what Gerry, Kate and their supporters say about specialist police dogs, time and time again, their findings go on to be proved correct.  The McCanns argue 1) there was no blood, or 2) it wasn't Maddie's, 3) if Madeleine had an accident and bled in the apartment, why would that be their fault? 4) people on social media should not be allowed to use the word blood.  Amazingly, with the use of the repetitive chant 'there's no evidence', Gerry and Kate were able to convince a large section of society, that the biggest clue as to Madeleine's fate, those barking dogs, was meaningless.  That those experienced dogs, with 100% track records, were wrong on this occasion (11 times) is absurd, but that's how easy it is to sell a lie. 

More amazingly still, Gerry and Kate managed to convince (that same) large section of society, that they were the victims of an incompetent, third world police force, who were trying to blame them [the parents] so they could get back to their boozy 4 hour lunches.  I find it chilling, that Gerry and Kate were able to spread their hatred of the Portuguese police and Goncalo Amaral in particular, throughout the UK.  And the glee with which some presenters and journalists latched onto the McCanns' prejudice revealed much about their own characters. 

The killers of Becky Watts weren't very clever.  They didn't delete their texts, they didn't clean up properly, and they didn't write out timelines so their stories matched.  And I doubt they could afford expensive lawyers who would have told them to stop talking 

But, more importantly, the loving parents of Becky, didn't undermine the police by contacting the press and launching a publicity campaign. The idea I am sure, would have been hideous to them, as it would, to most parents who have lost a child. The thing is, no matter how hard you try, the actions of Madeleine's parents do not fall within the parameters of 'normal' behaviour, in fact, they were batshit crazy, or should that be crazy like a fox?  Taking the search away from PDL, was all part of the strategy.  So too, encouraging fruitloops worldwide to jam the police switchboards.  Confusion is good, said Gerry. 

So what put a halt to the original investigation into Madeleine's disappearance?  In the majority of unsolved crimes, when the dogs alert, the police are then on a home run.  In this case, the opposite happened, the investigation hit a brick wall.  The witnesses stopped co-operating with the police.  The case was shelved.

For Team McCann, Madeleine was again alive and findable, and anyone using the words, death, blood or dogs, would find themselves in the dock.  Those pesky dogs may have cost Gerry and Kate, the support of the Vatican and a few hundred thousand supporters, but they were able to restart the campaign, as victims, not only of an abductor, but of the Portuguese police and the British press.  I always wondered what they said to DCI Redwood or indeed any of the officers from Operation Grange, when asked about the dogs.  But, silly me, they were  never asked.  Not because OG are incompetent, but because the only witnesses who can solve this puzzle have been lawyered up since 2007.

When we look back on this case, and the looking back is not that far away, it will be in wonderment that a small group of people were able to create and perpetuate such an almighty whopper, it's almost as if Goebbels himself lent a helping hand.  Many will be squirming, and so they should be, perhaps asking themselves 'was I  a fool to believe two British suspects' over a foreign police force?'. 

Goncalo Amaral is right, at some point the world will know The Truth of the Lie, and that day is drawing nearer.  The recent revelation that the McCanns and the Tapas group have not given further statements to the British police is a game changer, they are clearly not co-operating with the police as we were led to believe. 

Looking at the speed with which the killers of Becky Watts were arrested, and the 10+ years that have passed since the disappearance of Madeleine, there is one element that stands out above all others.  That is, maybe parents of a missing child should not be encouraged and indeed funded, to create a travelling circus and sabotage a police investigation.  Most of course, have the dignity and good taste not to, and there is no need for legislation, this is a one off, lessons have been learned, we hope.  Most notably, the difference between a missing child investigation being solved within a month, or one that we are all supposed to call a mystery 10+ years later. 

Saturday, 4 November 2017


'If Ros publishes anymore posts from you saying there was blood spatter up the walls...............  I will report Ros to every authority I can to have this blog closed down and for Ros to be taken to Court'.

And there we have it folks, another glimpse of Team McCann's heavy handed threats to silence those who don't believe the abduction story. 

Though I have come under many attacks from Team McCann over the years, they have not been able to accuse me of inciting hate, or any other legal violation that would land me in the dock. One, because  it is not in my nature, and two, I am a published author who knows exactly how a 'legal reading' works.  Three, I'm not attention seeking like Bennett, and Four, I'm not stupid. 

The problem the poster on the last blog has, is the mention of blood spatter on the walls.  Specifically, the use of the word 'blood', which apparently if referred to as an unknown body fluid, gets the McCanns off the hook.  The sane among us, can of course see the snowball in hell analogy - as if playing semantics will delete all those images of yellow post-its on the walls, curtains and sofa we have all seen in the police files.  It reminds me of an iconic scene in Dallas, when Sue-Ellen catches JR in bed with another woman.  'Do I believe you or my lying eyes' she yells.  Quite.

I am an intelligent, educated woman 'Unknown', not only do I stand by my words, I am proud of them - unlike yourself, who hides behind anonymity to issue bullying threats.   My blog is not libellous, nor is it a vendetta against the McCanns - I am the only forum that hosts both sides of the argument. 

What are you going to get me in the dock for Unknown?  Not censoring posts that give an unfavourable image of the McCanns?  Is this still a reputation thing, or have you moved onto arguments for the Defence?  It wasn't blood M'lud.

*Seinfeld fans will recognise the soup Nazi,  No soup for you!