Wednesday, 15 June 2016


Kate and Gerry are horrified that Clement Freud has been unveiled as a paedophile, and they have raced to the front of the angry mob with a big bag of mixed rocks. Instantly forgotten is the wonderful kind man, as described in Kate's book, who befriended them in PDL, as they salivate at the thought, that finally, there is new Suspect to blame for Madeleine's disappearance.  So he was a friend, so what? For the ruthless, callous Jail dodgers he is the patsy they have been praying for.

Before Bennett and Hall go rustling up another 20 hour sermon, lets get things into perspective.  I do not dispute Clement Freud was a paedophile, in fact I would go so far as to say he was a 'classic' paedophile.  That is, he abused children he had access to within his own home.  That is what the majority of paedophiles do.  They don't hide behind the bushes, in seedy bedsits or opulent mansions by the sea stealing the toddlers of holidaymakers who are reckless enough to go out and leave them on their own.

 There is no evidence to suggest that Clement, or Cliff, or any of the wealthy inhabitants of the Algarve ran a 'Marc Dutroux' style paedophile ring. When an evil paedophile gang are active, children disappear or are found dead.  As far as I am aware, there has never been any need for a state of emergency to be called in the PDL area.  If there is a practicing paedophile gang in the Algarve, then the police forces in Portugal and the UK are being criminally negligent in 1. Not informing the public and 2. Taking all the time in the world to bring it to an end. 

Let's keep it real.  At the time of Madeleine's disappearance Clement Freud was 83 years old, he was in England and I think we all agree, he looked nothing like Smithman.  And seriously, why would he burgle holiday apartments, or be part of gang who burgled holiday apartments?  That's if they are sticking with the burglar story, but I sense a change of tack coming. Kate and Gerry don't care who is accused as long as its' not them.  A paedophile gang suited them on the first night, and it will suit them now. And this is where the twain shall meet, the McCanns will be singing in harmony with the conspiraloons. 

I haven't looked at CMoMM or indeed Textusa's, but suddenly all their suspicions of deviant sex, paedophile gangs and swinging parties are finding legs. Bennett is probably checking Freud's flights to and from the UK and making up reasons for any 'changes in plans' or 'sudden' departures. I expect they are in a frenzy of 'what ifs' and 'Oooh errs', as they join all the dots (via Anne Summers) and get lost again.    

I'll leave them to it, lol.  Of course, as a great friend of Gordon Brown's,  Clement making contact with the McCanns should raise questions and eyebrows, but it isn't evidence of anything other than the bizarre and creepy way in which the establishment sucked up to Kate and Gerry and their Pear's winner Missing Poster Child, Madeleine.  As the friendships did not continue (we want an interview with the PM, but all we are offered is low level consuls*), we can assume the McCanns had served their purpose, and the VIPs just moved on. No-one is closing ranks to protect them now.  They have been thrown a bone with the Clement Freud story, it's a great distraction and it feeds the McCannmade myth that PDL is awash with perverts and predators, but it won't go the distance.  That's the problem with myths, todays audiences want tangible proof - and in 9 years there isn't any.  No predators on the Algarve and no abductor.     

As with much Kate and Gerry do, I find their reaction to the Clement Freud news distasteful. The speed with which they were 'horrified' was undignified.  Note the lack of comments from other notable figures - it's called class. Most people think closely and carefully, before publically turning on their friends.  Especially when they only have a limited amount of information.   

Still it amuses me to think of Clarence's predicament at this moment.  How can he serve two Masters?  The family of Clement Freud must be sickened by the wild accusations that are already emerging and sickened too, that the couple they had been so kind to have said nothing to stem the rumours.  From a professional (and economic) perspective, he would do better to side with the Freuds (you would have to nuts to go up against them) than with the sinking Team McCann. 

I guess what we are seeing is Karma in action.  All those who rushed to befriend Kate and Gerry are tumbling at an alarming rate and if people like Gordon Brown's best mate are being exposed, there must be many among the living who are trembling. 

*Clarence Mitchell, Vanity


  1. The speed in which they were reportedly horrified was alarming, but it's never directly from the McCanns. It's always 'a source close to them' or 'a friend said they are'. I read these articles and I think, who is saying this?

    Do the McCanns pass on a message? Do people call the papers and say "I was just with K&G and they are horrified"? Or is it all just spun by the papers?

    Unless I see them say it themselves or a direct quote I'll take any "reaction from them" with a pinch of salt.

  2. Well said, Christobell! The focus should nearly always be on those closest to the missing child, as stranger abductions are very rare indeed.

  3. Ros says "If there is a practicing paedophile gang in the Algarve, then the police forces in Portugal and the UK are being criminally negligent in 1. Not informing the public and 2. Taking all the time in the world to bring it to an end."


    "an elite paedophile ring, which included a former ambassador and a prominent television celebrity, Casa Pia orphanages were something entirely different. They were supermarkets stocked with children to abuse. Yesterday, at the conclusion of the longest trial in Portugal's history, seven defendants were convicted of using the orphanages to rape and abuse scores of teenage boys in a case that has sent shockwaves through the country's political elite and raised serious concerns over the efficiency of Portugal's judiciary. Six of the seven were given jail terms of between five and 18 years.

    The trial, in Lisbon's top criminal court, is thought to be the largest ever undertaken by Portugal's court system. Over five and half years, more than 800 witnesses, including 32 alleged victims, gave evidence detailing how a paedophile ring used the orphanages to source children for wealthy and influential clients. The sentencing document alone, of which judges spent most of yesterday reading a summary, runs to 2,000 pages."

    1. I suspect what was found at Casa Pia would be similar in orphanages throughout the world, including here in the UK. As you say, orphanages are 'supermarkets', so too young offenders, and children seized by the authorities. If each orphanage were investigated the numbers of victims, defendants etc would probably be similar. I spent several years in a 'orphanage' so speak from experience.

      I fully accept that abuse went on in orphanages, usually more of a physical than sexual nature, but that doesn't grab the sensational headlines.

      I don't see any connection between Casa Pia where the victims were teenage boys and the disappearance of Madeleine. An orphanage has a 'stock' of vulnerable children, they don't need to steal more.

      There are reasons for children in care being targeted. They don't have parents to protect them, or the rights of the parents have been taken away.

      Powerful men have far more opportunity to access kids, than say, a lone opportunist. They can pay for secrecy and discretion, they don't to risk climbing into the bedroom windows of British holidaymakers.

    2. "Secrecy and discretion"

      The total opposite of the McCann event.

      All these theories about high profile abusers being in cahoots with the McCanns make no sense for those reasons - secrecy and discretion.

      The fact the McCanns themselves don't shut up about paedophiles makes them the worst people to be in cahoots with.

      Some say "hiding in plain sight" !!!
      Do high profile abusers with lots of money really have to take that risk? I don't think so, but that's just my opinion.

  4. Well said, Ros. It won't do much good because paedophilia, like the disappearance of Madeleine McCann herself, makes people, even nice people, lose their marbles and become incapable of rational discussion. They're all going to be disappointed yet again.

    1. Perhaps you could send an email to Ros with details of what aspects of paedophilia you would like to discuss so she can do a blog just for you?

  5. Ros says: "Instantly forgotten is the wonderful kind man, as described in Kate's book, who befriended them in PDL, as they salivate at the thought, that finally, there is new Suspect to blame for Madeleine's disappearance."

    Where have you read that the Mccanns are salivating and claiming that Freud is a new suspect to blame? I must have missed it - please point me in the right direction.

    (I know you don't like doing research for others but maybe on this occasion, as you have made the accusation, you could provide your source)

  6. I have read this latest blog entry of yours several times now Ros. No-where do you pass comment on Freud for his alleged activity - no-where do you criticise him or say what a despicable creature he was. Instead you use the news as another opportunity to post your hate against the Mccanns.

    Shame on you Ros.

    1. The fact that I am not jumping up and down with a pitchfork in my hand, does not make me a paedophile or a paedophile supporter 20:23. I treat this news story as I treat all others, that is, I won't judge people on snippets of information. And seriously, who am I to say he what a despicable creature he was, I never met him!

      To be honest, I find those who become hysterical at the mention of the 'P' word quite strange. It's as though they have to go that extra mile to show how much they hate paedophiles in case they get tarred with the same brush.

    2. So Ros - you don't judge people on snippets of information.

      Perhaps then you will tell us how you decided that the Mccanns are salivating and claiming that Freud is a new suspect to blame?

    3. How do I know? Because once again, their names are in the news and all over the headlines - in the past they have had to pay 500k for that kind of publicity.

      Not to mention of course, the fact that several months have gone by with NO OTHER SUSPECTS than themselves. Social media is now going nuts with talk of VIP paedophile rings and Operation Grange have been notified of the Clement Freud connection.

      Kate and Gerry have long since run out of people to blame, this news for them is manna from heaven.

    4. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton15 June 2016 at 21:48

      so you don't know - you made up the salivating remark.

      Now you are saying this news is manna from heaven - where do you get the information from that the Mccanns are blaming Freud?

    5. The very efficient Team McCann publicity machine. McCanns never say anything directly, they have minions.

    6. So you admit - you have no information that they are salivating and blaming Freud.

      You made it up.

    7. I'm sure the dahlings will be 'buoyed' by the news.

  7. Who could forget "The best risotto I have had before or since" And he was, "Instantly likable" comment of the celebrity seeking McCanns, just TWO! months after Madeleine's "Abduction" by "paedophiles"

    You are the people you surround yourself with.

  8. "As with much Kate and Gerry do, I find their reaction to the Clement Freud news distasteful. The speed with which they were 'horrified' was undignified."

    The TV show - which is going to be on soon, has been in production for ages. How do you know that the Mccanns were not advised about it a long time ago?

    Or is that another one of your hateful guesses?

    1. So what are you saying? Kate and Gerry were horrified several months ago, but are only mentioning it now?

  9. Once again Ros spot on. The stand out quote is " Lack of comments from other notable figures" - its called class."
    wonderful. God Bless you.

    1. So the fact that his wife, rather than react with horrified outrage and denial has apologised escapes you?

      Had this been a bolt from the blue the family would be jumping up and down ( or at least PR on their behalf) to deny and protect the memory of this man. They are not. I think that tells you everything.

      As for McCann apportioning blame to Freud, just another if Roz's I'll thought out soundbites which gives her an opportunity to have another tedious pop at her perceived nemesis.

      So predictable.

      For the record, I do not believe child abuse is responsible for poor Madeleine's demise however this latest revelation only adds to the list of unsavoury individuals the Mccanns allied with.

      I must say I find it more than odd that, having been declared arguido and unable to attend dinner at chez Freud, they went for 'drinks' at an hour where they found mein host in his night attire.

      Being made suspect in the enquiry of your own missibg child I would have thought they had more pressing things to occupy their time.

    2. 13:08. How the Freud family deal with these revelations is entirely up to them.

      I am only responsible for myself and my own words. I didn't know Clement Freud, therefore your demands that I condemn him and call him names are ridiculous.

    3. Where did I 'demand' you condemn him ans call him names.

      You see the master of twisting yet again.

  10. "If there is a practicing paedophile gang in the Algarve, then the police forces in Portugal and the UK are being criminally negligent in 1. Not informing the public and 2. Taking all the time in the world to bring it to an end."
    Let me remind you Roz the UK police are not responsible for informing the public about what happened or is happening abroad. That is the job of the Foreign and Commonwealth office.
    I'm now off to look for "names" within the foreign office circa 2007.

    1. From a moral perspective Thomas, it would wrong not to inform the public that a gang of child predators were operating in the area - whether it be in the UK or abroad.

      If Operation Grange have details of paedophiles or child traffickers in the Algarve it would be unforgiveable of them not to inform the Portuguese authorities as children would be at risk.

    2. Morality and the law are two very different things.
      As the self professed priestess of freedom does Roz not think it would wrong to 'alert' the public to peoples who, if roaming free are at that point not guilty of any crime?
      Would that not leave these people, regardless of previous convictions, open to the actions of vigilantes?

      Think before you contradict yourself again.

    3. You are being argumentative for the sake of it, and it's tedious. If there are dangerous child predators on the loose, then it would criminally negligent not to inform the public. Use a bit of common sense.

    4. There are dangerous child predators on the loose in all walks of life.
      You use a bit if common sense. I can't recall the last time the police issued warnings.
      Perhaps you can enlighten me?

    5. There have been many police warnings over the years, especially when there is a serial killer on the loose.

      If you want to know the reality of what happens in an area targeted by a paedophile gang, I suggest you read up on Belgian serial killer and child molester Marc Dutroux - children were literally being snatched off the streets.

    6. Duh! We all know police state the obvious when a serial/armed killer is on the loose. What they don't do is warn the public if a paedophile is in the area.
      A warning about a known active criminal committing known crimes and a generic warning to public are two different things.
      Nice try Roz but you were wrong and as usual unable to admit it.

      BTW you are not the only person who reads and is aware of the crimes of Marc Dutroux.

    7. I'm not talking about a lone paedophile living in an area, I'm talking about an active GANG of paedophiles stealing children off the streets, or as has been alleged in Madeleine's case, stealing them from their beds.

      If a predatory paedophile gang are operating in an area, the public have a right to know as their children would be risk.

      On the night Madeleine disappeared, Gerry spoke about a paedophile gang, and no doubt he would have continued with that claim if it hadn't caused so much damage to fund donations - donations are dependent on Madeleine being alive.

      In 9+ years no such gang has been uncovered in the Algarve, either by the Portuguese or the British police.

  11. It's interesting that the media has emphasised the link to the McCanns. Most people wouldn't even have been aware that there was one.

  12. People say the story is unraveling, but I see more layers being added. This Freud "revelation" does not add to existing theories it is creating new ones.

    "They pimped her out to the elite"
    WHAT? Yeah, let's just forget about all the other "evidence" as this one link changes everything - according to some.

    It's a link that leads only to more confusion. He wasn't even in the country at the time. What possible link makes sense here?

    I don't see why any high profile elite would welcome this much exposure if they were directly involved in Madeleine's fate.

  13. An interesting post made amongst all the drivel on UK Justice Forum. I hope you allow it here Ros


    Your child dies whilst you're on holiday and (for reasons best known to yourself) you decide to hide the body, stage an abduction and launch a fraudulent fund supposedly to be used to find your missing child.

    As a result, you attract the attention of the world's media but more importantly the police forces of both the country in which you were holidaying and from your own country.

    The police are suspicious, the media which was supportive in the early days has turned on you, printing all sorts of uncomfortable headlines heavily hinting that you have done something untoward with your child.

    Eventually you are made chief suspects in your child's disappearance and every aspect of your holiday, your releationship with your child and family and friends, your comings and goings etc is put under the microscope. The police bust a gut trying to find some evidence that you hid your child's body.

    Meanwhile most people in your home country and in the country in which you holidayed are convinced you're guilty of something.

    Eventually, after months of investigation and trying to build a case against you, the police concede they have a lack of evidence against you, and you are no longer suspects. The case is shelved indefinitely. You sue the media for libel and settle out of court - a nice big juicy payment for your bank account.

    Now, at this point you'd be forgiven for going to ground, issuing one final statement to the media along the lines of "we have come to terms with the fact that our daughter is gone, and just want to be left alone to grieve", then sliding away into obscurity to spend all that lovely lolly you screwed out of the public and the papers.

    But no. This is not what you do.

    Instead you spend a small fortune on various private investigators, you write a book which gets serialised in the country's biggest circulation newspaper, you appear on TV chat shows, all allegedly to keep your child's profile high in the public consciousness even though you know her body went to some foreign rubbish tip years ago.

    Then to cap it all, 3 whole years after the case was shelved you go to the highest man in the land, the prime minister, by sending him a letter demanding:

    "a joint INDEPENDENT, TRANSPARENT and COMPREHENSIVE review of ALL information held in relation to our child's disappearance".

    You are granted your wish and the country's most esteemed police force is drafted in to sift through all the evidence all over again, at great cost to the public purse.

    You make yourself available for more TV appearances, Crimewatch even, appealing for people to come forward who may have actually seen you carrying your own child's body through the streets of the holiday resort where she went missing.

    The question I have to ask you is:


    If not, what is your motivation for doing all of this?"

    1. It's a great post that raises a lot of interesting questions. Especially the last one - what is their motivation for doing this?

      But maybe we are looking at this the wrong way.

      I mean, the McCann seem to be able to say and do whatever they want. Who is allowing this? Who is giving them such preferential treatment and WHY?

      Maybe the motivation to continue does not lie with the McCanns. Maybe they are serving a purpose.

      Why didn't the PM / SY say to the McCanns 'you need to come to terms with what has happened'? Why didnt they say 'we can't spend millions for a SY review for one missing child case'?

      Why are the McCann given such preferential treatment even though almost everyone who has followed the case suspects them in some way?

      They alone CANNOT hold so much sway with so many.

      I know how it appears but I can't believe that Gerry thinks - I'm getting sick of these trolls - and then phones the news who let him say whatever he wants. Or think - I want Cameron to get SY to review the entire case - and then it just happens.

      There must be a purpose to all this or the McCanns simply wouldn't be allowed to continue. They would be told to mourn / accept their situation and try to move on - like the countless other families.

      But the McCanns are different. They have been from day one.

    2. @ Suspicious Minds18 June 2016 at 00:19

      Do you want to be taken seriously after your performance on a recent thread when you stated that Brenda is alive and living amongst us and the whole story about her was a lie?

      Your comments have no credibility at all.

    3. I did NOT state that Brenda was alive and living amongst us. That is an outrageous and deliberate misinterpretation of what I was saying. The fact you would misrepresent my comments is such a way only puts your own credibility in doubt.

      There is absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever with questioning the information. The fact you cannot consider any other possibilities besides the ones you are presented with says more about you than anything else.

      If we were all like you then we would just accept whatever the msm told us. I will not be told what to think. I can do that for myself. Valid questions. Credibility intact. Despite YOUR closed mind on all subjects.

    4. Can I just add, I am so pleased that I don't think the same as someone like you. You were probably one of those people who thought all the Hillsborough campaigners were conspiracy theorists who couldn't accept the truth.

      You seem to believe 100% whatever the msm tell you. And you question the credibility of anyone who questions what the msm tell us !!!!!!

      Are you for real?

    5. Thankyou for confirming that your comments have no credibility at all.

      Hillsborough leads you to Leyland - incredible!

    6. Brilliant post 18:19, thank you for bringing it here.

      If I were a pro, I would probably give it a round of applause. It is indeed an incredulous story, but not so hard to believe if we accept that people do lie, thieve and murder. Such odious creatures can and do live among us. More often than not, they are shapeshifters, the character they present to the outside world is a compilation of what they believe are nice traits - the church going, the sporting activities, the responsible parenting. Inside they are seething with resentment, and it can't help but slip through.

      Is all of the above possible? Hell yeh. Who would have imagined it would take over 2 decades to get justice for 96 football fans? Who would have thought that our MPs were abusing expenses?

      This age of information has brought with it revelation after revelation. Anyone who still believes we are ruled by the just and the righteous should watch a few episodes of Armand Ianucci's 'The Thick of It'. Power corrupts.

      Why have the McCanns maintained a high profile? Well that's one of the most fascinating aspects of this case. It is not unique to them, there are many examples of parents suspected of staging an abduction, using publicity to 'prove' their innocence. The argument being that if they were guilty they would not be appealing to the public to look for their child, it takes the focus off them as suspects and is actually a very common ruse.

      For the McCanns it is has been far more successful than most. Possibly because they have had a lot more assistance. This is such an incredible story it was bound to stay in the MSM's radar, it is a simmering pot with the potential of weeks of sensational headlines and stories. 'How They Did It' will top the charts.

      Intriguing points though, and again thank you.

    7. @Anonymous 19/06 19.43

      "Hillsborough leads you to Leyland"

      Yet again you destroy your own credibility by deliberately misinterpreting everything I say.

      At no point EVER have I said that Hillsborough leads to Leyland.

      If anyone here want to read my thoughts and those of others re. Leyland they can simply go to the 'Was Brenda Leylands death suicide' blog. There they will find a discussion between numerous people and full explanations of a shared opinion.

      They will also find your numerous and ridiculous "retorts". Even though you post anonymously your ignorance of all explanations makes you stand out a mile.

      In light of your ignorance, misrepresentation and distorting of opinions makes your questioning of credibility as meaningless as it is ironic

    8. "Suspicious Minds7 June 2016 at 14:23
      The official sources lied about Hillsborough. Did that make it the truth? NO !!!"

      You made that link to Leyland and Hillsborough. On the Leyland blog.

      You then went on to say

      "Suspicious Minds7 June 2016 at 20:52
      If the POLICE and the MEDIA can collude and tell despicable lies about the victims of Hillsborough (which they did) they can do anything. And compared to Hillsborough this is nothing."


      And on this topic you have said:

      "Suspicious Minds18 June 2016 at 09:42
      You were probably one of those people who thought all the Hillsborough campaigners were conspiracy theorists who couldn't accept the truth."


      So maybe you would remind me of who mentioned Leyland and Hillsborough?

    9. In reply to anonymous at 18:19, what is the motivation in carrying on with this? 1 word simple answer... Greed

      They had got used to the celebrity lifestyle and having all that money. Then then money ran out. Yes they should have gone to ground then, we'd probably all have forgotten about them by now.

  14. That's what baffles me, Suspicious Minds. Anyone else would have been told where to go in no uncertain terms.

    "Why didn't the PM / SY say to the McCanns 'you need to come to terms with what has happened'? Why didn't they say 'we can't spend millions for a SY review for one missing child case'?

    Why are the McCann given such preferential treatment even though almost everyone who has followed the case suspects them in some way?"

    1. Exactly Meredith. These are all valid questions that leave us baffled.

      All I am doing is offering possible alternatives for the reasons behind this preferential treatment.

      Amongst all other missing child cases this ONE has been elevated beyond reason. From the beginning it is something we have never seen before and still, after 9 years, the McCanns are given privileges that others can only dream of.

  15. "Anyone else would have been told where to go in no uncertain terms."

    And the evidence for that statement is?

    The McCanns' request was for a "review". Cameron granted their request, they got their review and the Yard and Portugal opened new investigations. What on earth is wrong with that?

    You're determined to be baffled by your own assertions and pre-conceptions, not the evidence. By the way, have you ever heard of a missing child or missing person case in the UK not being pursued on cost grounds? Do let us know.

    1. As you have said elsewhere:

      'we find interactive “internet debate” worthless and repulsive'

      Better not to engage in it perhaps.

  16. @ john blacksmith18 June 2016 at 13:29

    Shock, horror, disbelief - I never thought I would say this, but for once I agree with you.

  17. I notice the family of Jo Cox were smiling on TV today.

    Something the Mccann family are not allowed to do.

    1. Correct. They would rather do their laughing and giggling away from the glare of the cameras, like Gerry did on that balcony just a few days after - according to him - his 3-year-old daughter had fallen prey to 'a gang of predatory paedophiles.' He didn't realise the six-seconds piece of frivolity was being secretly filmed.

      You're damned if you do, and damned if you don't. So the McCanns have decided to laugh, take the money, and be damned!

    2. 02:48 Only a McCann supporter would come out with something so distasteful, shame on you!

    3. After re-reading the above posts, Ros, it appears to me as if 19:07 is pro-McCann, and 02:48 is coming across as anti-McCann.

    4. Agreed, both are slightly ambiguous, but the first was distasteful as it brought the McCanns into something that was nothing to do with them.

  18. Cristobell Author ‏@RosalindaHu 6h

    Cristobell Author Retweeted Teddy

    A good read, people filled with hate have no idea what they are projecting!

    Maybe you should learn by your own words!

    1. I'm not filled with hate 19:47! My favourite literary character is P.G. Wodehouse's Uncle Dynamite. Like Uncle D, I like to spread sweetness and light - and maybe a little chaos :)

      If you are referring to the Madeleine case, I don't hate Kate and Gerry. The subtext of all my commentary is why? why? why? I'm interested in the reasons behind the actions, the human behavioural aspects - opportunities to study crimes (and characters) of this nature, as the plot thickens and unravels are probably once in a lifetime.

      For me, and I think for most people, hate is fleeting, transitory, it is usually combined with shock, anger and outrage. Right now I hate the man who murdered Jo Cox, but I know that intense feeling won't be with me for the rest of my life.

      It must be said I have found Gerry and Kate to be deeply unpleasant people - they seem to treat everyone around them as underlings - there to serve them. Whilst in PDL they even turned their family into secretaries, childminders and goffers.

      I also dislike their huge sense of entitlement and constant whining. No matter what the subject they always manage to get it back to how hard done by they are.

      I found the money raising for the 'search' obscene - I don't think I have ever seen such unfettered greed! Who knows how many millions have passed through their 'Fund' - yet little Madeleine doesn't even have so much as a memorial bench.

      I hate the malicious way Kate and Gerry have used all the power and money they have had to ruin the life of the former detective who searched for their daughter.

      I hate that Kate and Gerry are so callous towards the life and memory of Madeleine. Whatever happened before Madeleine's death may have been 'a moment of madness', but everything that has happened since, has been cold, hard and calculated.

      But most of all I hate the 'power' that lies behind the cover up of this child's death, and the way it has been used to persecute and intimidate innocent people who will not accept the abduction story.

  19. John blacksmith you rock lol. I just wondered do you think given the timing of the review ( just after the book was published) was it really in response to a request by the mccanns or do you think that the British government knew that it was ne'er going to go away until a proper review was carried out. I know there was all the pleading letter on the front page and the threat to Teresa may but it all seamed at the time and still does appear too convenient to allow SY to do a review without it suggesting that they found it far to fishy

    1. Hope you don't mind my interjecting 02:51, I think the request for a review was a publicity stunt for Kate's forthcoming book. I don't think it was meant to have been taken seriously. It was accompanied by a Petition with a target of 100K signatures, something that could have taken years to achieve.

      The review they wanted was based on the guidelines of Jim Gamble's report to the previous (Labour)Home Secretary. It was sitting gathering dust as they told us on their Autumn 2010 fundraising tour when they were going broke.

      I think it very unlikely that the review granted in May 2011 was based on the old CEOP report. By then, Theresa May and Jim Gamble had had a very public falling out, and Gamble was no longer head of CEOP.

      As we know, Kate and Gerry are incredible risk takers, in their minds, the odds were in their favour; 1. Their request would be turned down 2. It would be based on the report prepared by CEOP. 3. Rank outsider - A full and legitimate review.

      Methinks this was a case of be careful what you wish for! But, like yourself, would interested to hear JB's views on this.

    2. Thank you cristobell that makes a lot of sense. Kate and gerrys motivation in calling for a review certainly wasn't option 3 but the PM used it to ensure that it was the preferred option. Thank you for your reply

    3. "... do you think that the British government knew that it was ne'er going to go away until a proper review was carried out? "

      I'm sorry, I didn't read your post carefully enough before replying and so I didn't actually answer your question in my rather speculative reply. Yes, that is exactly what I think. And yes, you and I seem to be thinking along similar ines.

  20. Hello. I disappoint a lot of people by not believing that the McCanns have had any government protection but there isn't much I can do about that.

    Often the McCanns' motives are very easy to read but I don't find that the case here: we know almost nothing about the course of the McCanns' requests and discussions and the "scoping" document etc. and what we have heard comes almost exclusively from the two liars. There seems to have been a determined and apparently successful attempt by the pair to have contact at government level in secret - but letting it be known that such contact had occurred. Why?

    Well one definite possibility - and it is only that - is the reverse of what most people seem to believe: that it was the McCanns attempting to entrap the government into discussions precisely to make people think they were capable of "blackmailing" governments and getting their own way behind the scenes, just as they did by bigging up their minimal and harmless contacts with Gordon Brown. Don't forget that in Madeleine the couple made a clear threat that if their demand for a review was not met they would "have no option..." but to take action themselves. I think that also was BS, designed for public consumption to make them look more influential than they are.

    Unfortunately for my reputation also I happen to think that David Cameron is completely straight, not that bright and genuinely uncomplicated(!); like the rest of us he doesn't quite know what to make of the pair, while Theresa May clearly doesn't trust them an inch.

    So, as with the granting of a referendum, he gave them exactly what they were asking for, thus pricking the whole bubble. Despite the rumours the McCanns are not exactly boasting about what the review and Grange have achieved for them. Do they look like people who've got what they wanted to you?

    Still, it's speculation on my part. Never mind, I think we'll be getting some output from Grange soon.

    1. I think you are right John, the McCanns have always bragged about their powerful contacts and used them as protection, but as with their 650k facebook likes, there doesn't appear to be any substance to them. Where were all their wealthy friends when they were struggling to reach targets for their sporting feats? Even an impromptu appearance by Gerry on Lorraine's show before his decathlon did nothing to increase his sponsors.

      For me, Clarence's statement to Vanity Fair summed up the Government protection. 'We tried to get an interview with the PM or Minister and all we were offered were low (may have been 'mid') level consuls'. That couldn't be any clearer - the government assistance had stopped.

      Even in Marxist Feminist mode, I agree with you that Cameron is a 'Tim, nice but dim' politician in matters that don't affect his, or his chums' wallets.

      Occasionally, tory ideology can be closer to protecting our freedoms, than the ideology of the Far Left or Nanny State Brigade. They don't want to give any ruling elite the right to poke their noses into their business, or indeed anyone else's. Cameron still hasn't implemented the recommendations made by Leveson, and he's never likely to.

      Bizarrely, and I will probably now get slated lol, I like the way Theresa May stands up to Jim Gamble and the Police Federation. She reminds me of those formidable Margaret Rutherford stiff upper lip women who roll up their sleeves and get things done. She is not the type to hide in a corner whispering and plotting.

  21. I think you both sum it up well. People who have limited input into the case often quote the fact that they "campaigned" for a review as evidence of their innocence. I often see the McCann mentality at work at home in Northern Ireland. People get behind some nobody because he/she identifies with an issue that they feel a strong emotional attachment to. The nobody then forgets that the support is for the issue not them and start to believe their own spin. Like the mccanns they believe that the public support allows them to push the boundaries in which we all have to live and that enviably leads to people with real power developing strategies to sidestep them and restore their own power. I think the granting of the 3rd option a full and legitimate review was a way of restoring power were it belonged.

    1. "If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent" (Pat Brown - May 3, 2016)

    2. I don't think Pat believes Operation Grange is legitimate 08:32, and I'd be astonished if she believed the 'the McCanns are likely innocent'.

      However, as JB said above, do the McCanns look they have got what they wanted? The Review and the Investigation have done nothing whatsoever to clear them - it now looks more likely they were involved than when the Review began.

      If Operation Grange is intended to clear Kate and Gerry they are going a very strange way about it. The infamous Crimewatch shattered their public support, how could it not with a giant picture of Gerry as the chief suspect? Then we had the digging in the vicinity of Apartment 5A. The idea that a burglar or an abductor would bury his victim DURING his escape is of course ludicrous, even though Martin Brunt made a valiant attempt to tell Sky viewers, that's what happened.

      Operation Grange are not searching for a live child and there is no sign they are still looking for an abductor. Significantly, they haven't given Gerry and Kate anything that would steer suspicion away from them. And if they had anything, it would be cruel not to.

    3. Rosalinda @09:30

      "I don't think Pat believes Operation Grange is legitimate"

      Of course not. It is your 'option 3' however.

      "The Review and the Investigation have done nothing whatsoever to clear them"

      Not for want of trying: 'crechedad' introduced, David Payne deleted.

      "The infamous Crimewatch shattered their public support, how could it not with a giant picture of Gerry as the chief suspect?"

      If you replay the original TV footage, rather than the stills mocked up for 'Twitter', I think you'll find that scene missing.

      "Then we had the digging in the vicinity of Apartment 5A."

      The digging was not specifically in the vicinity of 5A. It could be argued that the sites excavated were those familiar to the perpetrator, as is often the case when the disposal of a body or bodies is involved - subsequent to an escape, not during btw.

      "they haven't given Gerry and Kate anything that would steer suspicion away from them"

      Ditto my second answer above.

      According to your special guest: "we'll be getting some output from Grange soon."

      In the wake of a 'legitimate review' I suppose that will be something along the lines of: "The McCanns have been detained for questioning".

      You say in your article: "Kate and Gerry don't care who is accused as long as it's not them"


      You view the speed with which the McCanns were 'horrified' by the Clement Freud news as 'undignified'

      Have you considered it might also indicate they were expecting it?

    4. 11:48 in response:

      'Not for want of trying' - crecheman is McCanns strongest evidence, OG may have eliminated him, but K&G haven't. As for Payne, who says he is now ruled out?

      Regardless of what the public did with the image, OG put the giant image out there. The McCanns didn't want those images out there and they threatened legal action against the Private Eye that produced them.

      As for the McCanns knowing about Clement Freud's past, I'm not sure what you are implying. Is it:

      1. they have always been in league with him? or
      2. someone tipped them off? If so, who?

      Whether they knew or didn't, horrified would imply didn't, it makes no difference, it was a disloyal reaction to someone who was their friend.

    5. Gosh, 11.48, you almost sound like Mr Bennett.

      And then we have "Not for want of trying... It could be argued that the sites excavated...In the wake of a 'legitimate review'...I might also indicate".

      Plenty of belief, plenty of supposition, plenty of implying without evidence. Facts? Just one, the layout of a TV studio.

      Goes with being an anon, I guess.

    6. John Blacksmith 14:17

      Ditto my earlier comment (18.6, 18:34)

  22. Cristobell Author ‏@RosalindaHu 11h11 hours ago

    featuring JOHN BLACKSMITH

    ROFL - do you think that is an attraction?

    1. I know it is! JB has a large following, he has been one of the few voices of reason throughout this long saga. I have a lot of respect for his opinion, so too do many who read here.

  23. I didn’t know I featured until now Ros. I don’t mind but you’ll probably get even more abuse from both sides with me being mentioned.

    For readers here: I started making occasional comments on this blog - the only one I read regularly - because it’s full of common sense, moves with the times and, if I may say so, has really found its feet in the last year or so and become more or less required reading.

    “Moves with the times”: there is something sad about the way so many sceptical bloggers and commentators are completely stuck in 2007 – the same mindset as then, the same pointless trawling through old press articles for the wonder clues that will crack the case – and the same complaints that “everything has been said”.

    But it hasn’t, far from it: With the chances of the child being found alive unfortunately now zero the course of the McCann Affair after May 2007 – what it reveals about the couple, about ourselves and those around us, high and low – is much deeper and more significant than what happened in PDL that night, tragic as that event was: the latter essentially concerned only one family and their friends while the former has raised questions for almost any thinking person, as its journey from Anglo-Portuguese diplomatic incident to Parliament to Leveson to Downing Street demonstrates.

    “Full of common sense”. Ros deals with those questions as they arise in a way that clearly resonates with a lot of pretty sensible readers. About the anonymous insulting comments she allows there is little one needs to say: whether they come from the libellers in the sewage camps or the supporters, come what may, of the parents, they have lost the argument, as their abusive and slightly self-pitying tone constantly emphasises: their claims and theories are not in accordance with revealed facts and there is nothing they can do about it. And it will get worse for them.

    1. Many thanks John. I do like to keep a 'where we are now' theme running through my blogs. The McCann press releases are intended to distract and confuse and many are intended to plant the idea that a paedophile gang were operating in the area.

      Unfortunately, the paedophile gang thesis is one that many of the antis have seized onto in order to explain the extraordinary cover up. For them, it is the only thesis that makes sense.

      Bennett, Hall and indeed Textusa, are convinced deviant sex lies at the heart of this child's disappearance, and their ears and eyes are shut to anything else. To them I would say, if child abuse was the agenda for this holiday, why did they go out of their way to spend as little time as possible with the kids?

      As for the facebook groups and the forums, to be honest, I got bored senseless talking about the clues, the discrepancies and the 'tells' - for those who have gone beyond reasonable doubt about the McCanns' involvement, we want to know why and we want to look at the wider implications.

      There are many forums I no longer post on because I refuse to be censored. The HideHo facebook group for example banned several of my blogs because I took the discussion 'outside the police files'.

      Other groups are appalled that I don't see anything sexual in any of the Madeleine pictures, not even the make up ones. My failure to see anything sexually deviant in a little girl dressing up somehow makes me a McCann apologist.

      As for the Clement Freud connection, my astonishment there lies in the fact that these traumatised parents were able to go out to dinner with a celebrity. I can only imagine what the response to such an invitation would have been from the parents of April Jones, Sara Payne or Holly and Jessica. When you look at genuine grief, it becomes all the more grotesque, especially the strawberry vodka and the nymphomaniac remark.

      The objective with the Madeleine case is not to cover up child abuse, it is to promote the myth that child abuse is everywhere and our kids are in constant danger. If we believe our children are at risk of being stolen from their beds by predators who have targeted them on the internet, we will be demanding the government set up a task force to police the internet.

      Those antis who believe the McCanns or even the entire village of PDL are involved in some murky paedophile ring that runs right through the heart of two governments are singing from the same hymnsheet as the witchfinders. They have bought the 'we are surrounded by predators' story, hook, line and sinker and they are living in fear.

      Anyway, once again, many thanks John. I rarely post anywhere else now because I can't be doing with censorship, nor can I be restricted to 'approved' topics. I want the truth, not an account of the truth, or the truth according to the conspiraloons.

      As for the comments I allow - I want to be challenged, I don't fear the pro trolls, I have been ready, willing and able to debate with them years, but they don't seem to have anyone capable of keeping a civil tongue. If they have better arguments than I do, let's hear them. Tell me just one fact that will convince me I am wrong. If they had valid arguments there would be no need for the personal abuse.

  24. I do think paedophilia is a feature of this case in one way or another. But, as with any type of abusive behaviour, the danger lies not so much with strangers but with those known to the child. Family, friends, others who have access to the child on a regular basis.