Saturday, 25 June 2016


In response to a question on previous blog, Why the cover up?  I sort of picture one of those classic [in] 'The Thick of It' moments 8:05.  Someone in Whitehall picked up the phone that fateful night and it was such an appealing case they decided to give it full government support. As the facts emerged in the full light of day, they were beyond the point of no return. The scenario kind of reminds me of those end of world movies where all the leaders and diplomats are dead or unavailable and the underlings and lunatics take over. The initial mistake must of course lie with Tony Blair, who by 2007 was so used to telling almighty whoppers that this one was probably minor by comparison.  

And it suited the incumbent labour government - they were pushing for ID cards and a national DNA database. Fear of child abduction can be very persuasive when trying to convince the public to have their babies microchipped.  Almost any Law goes if someone shouts 'Think of the Children!'.  It is all very 'Big Brother', but BB is already here - we have CCTV everywhere, most of our personal and private information is readily available to anyone determined to get their hands on it. 

For the Charity Missing People, it was the gift of a poster child.  Most missing kids are spotty, unattractive, belligerent teens who have gone off in a huff.  But, as Jon Corner said, Madeleine was 'special', the cherubic tot in her party dress tugged at hearts and wallets.  The iconic picture of Madeleine in her red dress sends a very powerful, emotional and almost hypnotic message.  To explain.  The picture of dear little Holly and Jessica in their football shirts, arouses emotions in me that are, quite frankly, scary.  As a lifelong pacifist with a horror of violence, I know that if I came face to face with Ian Huntley I would not be able to stop myself from physically attacking him. It would be beyond my control.  Ditto, the evil bastard who killed Jo Cox.

The sweet little face of Madeleine has been used to stir up that spirit of hatred and rage in the watching world toward paedophiles, or more accurately towards those mythical bogeymen every generation uses to frighten their kids into shutting up and doing what they are told.  Those same mythical bogeymen are now being used to frighten all of us by those who offer us protection.  The case of Madeleine proved these creatures do exist and the call to root them out couldn't have been more popular. 

You can kind of see how easy it is rustle up an angry mob when an attractive child is involved.  It is a classic narrative device, beautiful child stolen by monster, villagers hand round pitchforks and storm the 'castle'.  For some reason, little blonde princesses are always held captive in plush surroundings rather than dingy hovels, except in D.W. Griffiths' Birth of Nation, but the premise is still much the same.  Putting the villain in a Castle makes him one of the hated rich, making him black makes it racist. 

Most of us are able to control our rage against these monsters, we are able to keep it in perspective and allow justice to take its' course. But for many, as we have seen with the McCann case, that sense of anger and need for retribution has never gone away.  That is, it remains as intense as it was 9 years ago and maybe even increased by the fact that all these years later no-one has ever been charged. 

Many antis, like myself, have become attached to this case because we have a heightened sense of injustice.  It simply isn't possible for us to forget it and walk away.  The words of Edmund Burke ring in our ears.  If the only person punished for the disappearance of Madeleine McCann is the detective who searched for her, then justice as we know it, no longer exists.

For most of us, hopefully, the rage has subsided and turned into a quest not only for justice but for enlightenment.  We want to understand, we don't want to build bonfires in the village square.  We want justice by those who, we pray, know what they are doing.  In the cold light of day, we don't really want to rip monsters limb from limb, because that would make us monsters too.  Right now, I wouldn't want to be Kate and Gerry for all the tea in China.  Having been indoctrinated with Catholic guilt as a child, I remember the torture of examining my conscious every night, and the fear of knowing for certain that 'I'd be in for it' the next day.  Fear of being found out is crippling.  In retrospect, I should have titled my earlier memoir, 'Catholicism made me a manic depressive loon

But back to that perfect Stepford family and the cover up.  The well groomed, articulate professionals, Drs. Gerry and Kate McCann, were the epitome of the aspiring British middle classes.    Great ambassadors for the UK.  Note, Karen Matthews didn't have convoys of government officials to speak for her or protect her from the press. 

A spin doctor could not have created a more perfect family. The hard working, church going couple have no flaws.  No drink, drugs, or colourful pasts, they had planned and followed their lives and careers to the letter.  All the boxes were ticked, they couldn't possibly be guilty.  For Gordon, they became representative of his dream of the ideal British family with Methodist values.  Like himself they had climbed the social ladder through diligence and determination.  They were PLU (People Like Us) and that, in a nutshell was their appeal to journalists like Lorraine Kelly, Tony Parons, Piers Morgan etc.  They really like their own kind, and because they identify with the McCanns, their first thought is 'it could have been me'. The McCann case illustrates how little Lorraine Kelly thinks of her audience, she immediately fell in with the McCanns' mantra - people only suspect them because they are jealous of what they have achieved.  She just cannot see beyond her own blind prejudice, perhaps she thinks all her viewers are jealous of her too.   

This case reeks of class division.  I don't know of any other parents caught in traumatic circumstances receiving direct telephone calls, from not one, but two, Prime Ministers.  I find it hard to believe that the government support continued for as long as it did.  I think however, the 'dodgy' support stopped around June/July 2007 when Clarence was unable to get Kate and Gerry a meeting with Gordon Brown or any other high level minister.  From then on, they had to rent their own villa but they still had Clarence (in his recent lecture he said he was out there for 3 months).  I don't know if he was still being paid by the Home Office at that time, but if he was, then questions need to be asked. 

Poor little Madeleine has been a big earner for all those who took up her cause.  Spin doctors, police agencies, charities and untold lawyers have all profited since the off.  Then of course we have the Media.  The tabloids have been using Madeleine's name ruthlessly in order to increase sales.  Sensational McCann stories always shift copy.  Maybe not quite in the same way as they did in 2007, but there is another big pay day on the way.   

But back to that cover up.  Paedophiles are this century's witches, they are universally despised and no-one cares very much how they are treated by the police and the authorities.  You only have to look at the way in which Cliff Richard has been treated.  I'm not a fan of Cliff's and I have no idea what he did or didn't do, but the suspicion has been enough to tear his life apart, the allegations being enough to make him the victim of those paedophile hunters who relish going that extra mile.  He may be an odd chap, but seriously has he been, or is he, a threat to children?  I've said it before, but I'll say it again, children are at risk in their own homes and from people who know them, not random pop stars.  How many at risk children now are being helped by the police pursuit of ancient celebrities for crimes allegedly committed 40 years ago?

The 'powers that be' need the population to be living in fear.  The case of Madeleine has been ruthlessly exploited to exacerbate the terror of child predators in our midst.  We are given inflated figures of the number of children going missing, enough to fill several schools each year, but without the follow up that the majority are found very quickly and in 'innocent' circumstances. The pretty, innocent little Madeleine could have been any of our kids - at that stage when they are cute, vulnerable and in most need of our protection.  And she was stolen from her bed!  Not from dysfunctional, drink and drug addled parents who put her at risk, but from respectable, responsible doctors!  If it could happen to people like Kate and Gerry, it could happen to anyone.  That message alone is worth its weight in gold.

If I hate Kate and Gerry, and it's hard not to, I hate the fact that they have robbed so many kids of the joys of 'playing out'.  So many parents think that their children are not safe anywhere, they dare not let them out of their sight.  This generation are being raised within the safe confines of their own homes and approved leisure activities, or chaperoned everywhere by a responsible adult.  They will never know the freedom of becoming besties with a random kid in the park just because you share a love of hanging upside down on the climbing frame.  This fear of predators has imprisoned our kids, far too many are being raised to be timid, fearful and fat!  They don't grow up streetwise, because they have never been out on the streets.  They are being led by the hand past that essential development milestone by over protective parents covering their eyes.  The best protection we can give our children is to educate them!  Beginning with Part I, Common Sense. 

For the first time in history EVERYONE has access to information.  It is unprecedented and the speed with which it has arrived has made it uncontrollable for anyone.  It is, as Grace Dent pointed out 'lawless'. Gone are the days when awkward problems could disappear with a dodgy handshake and a gentleman's agreement.  All those ancient libel and slander laws might just as well be moved to the mediaeval section of the Natural History Museum for all the relevance they have now.

This is an iconic moment in history and it's nothing to fear! Imagine explaining it to your mums, dads and grandparents?  And to those of us who remember manual typewriters! lol.   It is a new renaissance, a move from the dark  to the light ages.  The WWW is bringing about the biggest shake up and threat to the 'Establishment' and the Ruling Classes, that the world has ever seen.  Society works by keeping everyone in their place and social media is a leveller, literally anyone can shout their case in 140 characters, and it can be read by the highest and the lowest in the land.  People like 'lawless internet' (sic) Grace Dent want to keep it for the elite, and those who agree to play nicely. Jim Gamble wants trolls (how do you define troll?) in the dock in front of a Magistrate.  The McCanns want the press gagged and financial compensation for every time they are dissed. 

It is the duty of all of us to hang onto this freedom for as long as we can.  Happily, the social media moguls are humanitarians and philanthropists, and there are too many hackers who can stay one step ahead.  The authorities would like to make them Public Enemy No. 1, but happily it has never worked.  'Do Not Share' is almost a guaranteed 1000 retweets. 

The internet has given the General Public access to information.  Something we have never seen before, there is no empiric evidence for what happens when the dialectic shifts so dramatically.  The Madeleine case demonstrated that news could not be contained by borders and censorship.  The public have seen for themselves, via our kind friends in Portugal, that the details they were reading in the British newspapers did not correspondent with the details available in Portugal.  The Madeleine case, more than any, may have boosted the sales of tabloids but they have shown the general public that their newspapers lie to them and it will be a major contributor in their eventual extinction.  We can now read what we want, where we want.

The balance of power has shifted.  As the riots in the Middle East and indeed here in the UK demonstrated, mobs can be gathered in an instant.  And with today's Brexit result, we are likely to see many more.  Who remembers the poll tax? 

The internet has changed everything.  Imagine for a moment if a ruling government or indeed a sinister Doctor Evil, had access to a database of the entire population's private and confidential details?  Finances, health and criminal records, even private exchanges of messages, texts, emails between family and friends? Think of the potential for corruption and the potential for blackmail.  Effectively, anyone considered subversive (and who is to judge what is subversive?) could be arrested on any trumped up charge.  Receiving a picture of grandchildren on the beach for example, could be construed as 'exchanging child porn'.  (yuck, yuck, yuck, I know, but that's where we could be heading).  

Jim Gamble as we know wants a task force to police the internet. Ostensibly to track down paedophiles, but depending on the powers he might be given, he could pry into anyone's internet history. He just has to convince us there is a need for it.  Happily the huge social media moguls of Facebook, Twitter, Google etc, told him to sling his hook, but his campaign continues.  Mr. Gamble remains a leading light in the politics of those who want to police (censor) the internet, people  They rely on the argument that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear, but it doesn't matter if you have anything to hide or not, you and future generations should have the right to the freedom of privacy. 

The public emotion that is aroused by the tragic story of Madeleine has been exploited by, well, almost everyone.  The innocence stolen is a reminder of the mythical dangers that exist all around us and our 'need' for government protection.  When police agencies pitch for higher funding, they have to produce evidence that a threat exists.  That's what happens when you run a public service under capitalist guidelines.  The more popular the cause the more money ploughed into it.  As Kate said at the beginning, she had no idea of how vast the problem of child abduction was, and she has been trying to convince the rest of us ever since.  The US missing children's Centre is a multi-million dollar corporation, and the 'Madeleine Fund' could have been too, if it hadn't been for that darn detective. 

The world's response to Madeleine's disappearance was a phenomenon we have never seen before.  Millions had access to instant paypal buttons, collection buckets and the assistance of major Banks to express their outrage with cash donations.  The Madeleine's Fund became the fastest growing money spinner the world had ever seen because all those who knew how to exploit a major disaster were first on the scene.  It became a phenomenon via the internet, but the internet has eaten it up.  Where they succeeded in the legal claims against the tabloids, they had no chance against the World Wide Web, thinking they did is perhaps another example of the megalomania that lies at the root of this case

The case of missing Madeleine McCann, more than any other, has given substance to those who claim the internet and Freedom of information is a dangerous thing.  Firstly, by bending over backwards to persuade us that internet was somehow involved this 3 year old's disappearance.  The computers of Robert Murat, and who knows how many others, were seized within days.  Finding a group of weirdos exchanging pictures would have been a major coup for an organisation such as CEOP.  Despite the fact there has never been any evidence of an internet connection or a paedophile ring in PDL in 9 years, the rumours still persist, and bizarrely, they are mostly promoted by the antis! 

Ps.  I'm still too traumatised to comment on yesterday's Brexit result, and ashamed to be British.  In WWI, my great, great grandmother from Dundee, had 6 sons on the Western Front, only two of them came home, for the others, she got plaques.  Dundee lost an entire generation of young men.  Men who fought for freedom alongside their European friends and allies.  Now we are the little Englanders who took our ball back so we could play on our own, not having to share with anyone else.    



  1. The McCanns were lucky it was Thursday 3rd May and Rachel Oldfield was on holiday with them.

    Without these two things the Macs would have never got away with it.

    Thursday 3rd May was election night in the UK and all the politicians were up and about throughout the night and available in the TV studios so when RO rang her friend James Landale of the BBC at approx 22.43, the wheels began to turn.

    The Labour politicos had their poster child and the farce began.

    Within 24 hrs the government and the BBC knew the whole case was dodgy but nobody wished to admit to bad judgement.

    There was no high level conspiracy, just the usual BBC and MP's covering up their stupidity and gullibility.

    Nothing changes.

    1. Good point JJ, and something I hadn't considered. As you say, an amazing stroke of luck, genuine luck that is before the conspiraloons go off on another tangent.

      As early as 22:43 eh? Three minutes after call to police was logged! That sent a shiver down my spine!

  2. Rosalinda

    The irony of your Postscript is clearly lost on you.

    You do understand, I presume, that your distant relatives, like millions of others, sacrificed their lives 'fighting for freedom alongside their European friends and allies' whilst fighting other Europeans and their allies - all as a direct consequence of binding treaties; the very mechanism which has shaped the present EU (e.g. Rome, Maastricht, Lisbon)? Do you recall being asked to vote on any of those btw.?

    While we ponder the complaint of today's younger voters that they have been 'cheated of their futures', comparing this with the rather more absolute cheating of an entire generation a century ago, let's also consider, shall we, the implication of our own binding treaties once the EU succeeds in the establishment and ratification of an EU army - a proposal which, like that alluded to yesterday by Scotland's first minister, is very much 'on the table'.

    To put it bluntly, albeit futuristically, what are you going to say when the shooting starts - I didn't intend for us to be involved in that? Unfortunately, as a fully paid up member of the club we'd have no say in the matter.

    1. So you think GB should saved their own and stood aside during World Wars I and II? Is it OK with you if other European counties with values similar to our own, get overthrown by tyrants and dictators?

      Those are the politics of small minded cowardice. You think if we cut ourselves off like an Amish community whilst the rest of the world evolves around us, it will keep us safe? So we don't help them and they don't help us, is that what you want?

    2. Are you 'appalled' by EU policy of keeping Africa in chains & poverty? Are you appalled that in case those uppity Kenyans have any ideas about developing their own communication systems the benevolent EU has threatened to tax Kenyan exports out of the market?
      Perhaps instead of believing all the 'our children's futures are blighted' crap you need to do some real research & discover what a Neo Nazi organisation the EU really is.

      Or do the futures of brown children not matter?

  3. Can't believe your comments about Brexit. You write an article defending internet and freedom of information and railing against Big Brother and you SUPPORT the EU? Incomprehensible!!!!! Several of my uncles and grandparents died in both World Wars. Do you think your and my ancestors died fighting so we could be governed by 20 unelected, undemocratic, unaccountable Euro commissioners? The only people who are small minded and cowardly are those who would give our hard won freedoms away to a bunch of crypto fascists who run the EU. Yesterday was a GREAT day for anyone who believes in the cause of ordinary people, democracy and the right to run our own affairs. Britain can now take her place along proud, independent (and wealthy) nations like Switzerland and Norway. Millions of little people like all around Europe are immensely proud of the Brits. Those who feel shame over us choosing democracy can always move.

    1. 'A bunch of crypto fascists' is a bit of an oxymoron. Fascists, especially those with dictatorship ambitions, usually work alone. They are not fond of sharing anything, especially power.

      The chances of 20 countries being overtaken by fascism are pretty slim. The chances of a single nation turning into a fascist state, are considerably higher. Some might say Great Britain, now known as Little England, is on sale to the highest bidder.

      The exit vote had nothing to do with the cause of ordinary people, it was a xenophobic kick back at the desperate people seeking refuge in our country. The so called fascists who run the EU want to give humanitarian aid to this tragic exodus of displaced refugees, Little England doesn't. Are you proud of that?

    2. Rosalinda @19:48

      You seem not to appreciate the definition of the term 'crypto-fascist'

      "Fascists...usually work alone"

      Don't be ridiculous.

      "The chances of 20 countries being overtaken by fascism are pretty slim."

      About as slim as their willingly renouncing sovereignty, wouldn't you say?. (Oh, they've already done that)

      "Some might say Great Britain, now known as Little England, is on sale to the highest bidder"

      "Now known as 'Little England'".

      By whom? 'Remainers' such as yourself no doubt.

      "The exit vote had nothing to do with the cause of ordinary people"

      Tell that to the fishermen of Tyneside and their dependents (book your hospital appointment in advance perhaps)

      "It was a xenophobic kick back at the desperate people seeking refuge in our country."

      It's far easier to talk in emotive terms of 'xenophobia' than to come to grips with the process of osmosis and its socio-economic variant.

      The UK's portion of the EU population (our membership has not been summarily annulled) is currently 65+ million - and we are already struggling to cope.

      Notwithstanding population growth through domestic birth rate (we are living longer into the bargain) we have Albania and Turkey waiting to board the EU bus. In the context of 'free movement within the EU', which direction do you imagine future economic migrants will take? (hint: Albanians already see the UK as a Shangri la)

      The problems we are facing now, and those we stand to face in the not-too-distant future, are not specifically associated with nationality, race or religion, nor even 'desperate people seeking refuge', but with ‘number’ pure and simple.

    3. Oh do calm down 21:51, you seem to have got yourself into an awful tizz.

      Firstly, let's address your understanding of economic migrants. All migrants could be described as economic, and what is wrong with that? Those fleeing war torn countries do not risk hell and high water so they can come to the UK to doss on a couch watching Jeremy Kyle. They want safety and security for their families (again, what is wrong with that?) And they want the opportunity to improve their lives and the lives of their children.

      Diversity enriches our lives, it doesn't take anything away from us. Your assumption that all these desperate people see the UK as a free ride on a wishy washy benefit system have had their perception totally distorted by hate.

      The 'number' issue is a false flag 21:51, countries can accommodate an influx of sudden guests, just as a family can squeeze more in the two up, two down, when all the relatives arrives.

      There is a crisis in Europe and these people need our help. We should be helping them, not scorning them, that's why I'm ashamed to be British.

    4. "There is a crisis in Europe and these people need our help. We should be helping them, not scorning them, that's why I'm ashamed to be British."

      There is a crisis in the UK and people here need our help. We should be helping them, not scorning them, that's why I'm ashamed to be British.

    5. I agree wholeheartedly it is shaming that so many people living below the poverty line in the UK, this is the 21st century, it is wrong on every level.

      However, as serious as our problems are, they are not quite so desperate as those of families fleeing for lives.

      I'm old enough to remember the aftermath of the holocaust, and the sombre chant, even in the 1960s, that 'this must never happen again'. I find it heart breaking to see so many people holed up in refugee camps in Europe, while nations argue about who is going to be lumbered with them. It sickens me. So too the dehumanising of them by the far right by portraying them as rapists, scoundrels and criminals. They are people in need, there 'but for the grace of God', could be anyone of us. Giving them refuse shouldn't even be an issue.

      Do you honestly believe that by giving less help to foreigners, those in need in the UK will get more? Have you ever seen that happen?

    6. Eek, last line in penultimate paragraph should read 'refuge', not refuse. Oops.

    7. Here's an idea Roz. Let EU stop supporting & fomenting war around the globe. Let the EU stop bending over to blackmail by Erdogan. Perhaps,then there would be no crisis migrant, economic or otherwise. For someone who asserts they are 'switched on' you are incredibly naive, obviously unable to see past the headlines.
      Ask the Greek people how well EU membership worked for them while the eurocratic elite order the compulsory sale of all Greek public services to private vulture corporations. The EU policy of squeeze 'em 'til they bleed is working well for ordinary citizens don't you think? It's austerity policy (banks,excluded of course. ECB can print plenty of € to prop those zombies up) is working fine don't you think? Coming to a nation near you soon.
      All this 'workers & human rights' rubbish being bandied about is absolute rot. Ask the French worker how 'protected' his rights have been considering he has had to take to the streets in his millions.
      You are like a whining 6th formerly can't or won't look at the bigger picture.

    8. I agree with you John, my vote to leave was partly for my father who fought in WW2 to keep us from being ruled by Germany.

  4. Oh the irony of bennett - currently triumphant at the leave EU vote.

    He has a very selective memory.


    "A press statement from The Madeleine Foundation, 07 June 2011

    The European Commission on Human Rights is currently investigating a claim by Madeleine Foundation Secretary Tony Bennett (63) that Britain’s notoriously draconian libel laws interfered with his human right to free speech, guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights.

    Tony said: “If Britain had had a similar law, I could have afforded to defend the McCanns’ claim that my book on the case and leaflets published by the Madeleine Foundation libelled them."


    So the EU is OK when it is to his potential advantage!

    1. Bennett should be granted his wish. Someone should built a 10ft fence around him and attach a 'do not feed' notice.

  5. Rosalinda @14:46

    That is a shameful misinterpretation!

    I made NO reference to WWII, and you clearly have NO understanding of the international politics that led to WWI - an inevitable consequence of the various treaty alliances that preceded it. (Notice the word 'treaty' - the factor I emphasised and which you have studiously ignored).

    You are long on invective and short on facts and your ranting about isolationism, security and collaboration, NONE of which are pertinent considerations, sounds as if you swallowed a 'Remain' leaflet with your cornflakes.

    The UK will remain a member of NATO and the WTO. And didn't 'Barry' give us his assurance yesterday that even the 'Special relationship' would not be affected?.

    Do you imagine for one moment the Germans will want to stop selling us their cars, the French their apples and the Spanish their oranges (while erecting artificial trade barriers of course)?

    Does it not concern you that the destiny of entire nations can be (and is being) decided by people whose names are not even known to those outside their sanctuary in Brussels, much less whether they have not been voted into office (which of course they, the commissioners, have not).

    The EU parliament, so called, is not a legislative chamber. It is no more than a giant common-room.

    Bizarrely, Nicola Sturgeon yesterday referred to Scotland's withdrawal by default as 'democratically unacceptable'.

    How perverse is that? Who in their right mind would secede from a democratic union in favour of retaining their place in another where democracy is not even an option?!

    And let's not pretend that a 'secret ballot' to elect a President (when there was only one candidate on the ballot paper) represents democracy.

    While you are struggling personally to come to terms with the mind-set of more than 17 million 'little Englanders', maybe you could offer some less than histrionic explanation for how we came to join a 'Common Market' but voted just a day or so ago to leave a 'Union'.

    The difference is far from academic.

    1. You may have strong views on the uk need for independence from the EU and it's what you might actually believe but the vast majority of people voting leave on Thursday done it for the reasons that Ros said " little englanders" and because they have to live beside people who were not born in the same street as them. Take a look at what's happening now Boris Johnston and the rest of them are shitting themselves. This was suppose to be a protest vote and they have F**ked it up. Good on Scotland for taking proactive steps to leave you narrow minded people behind. Hopefully N Ireland will do the same. I'll take a quess and say that you are over 50. Its the age group of people who even though they were coming close to the end of their careers choose to make decisions for young people who still have a lifetime of work and who will suffer. You mention Switzerland and Norway. They never were in the EU so there was no reason for the EU to be vindictive about trade deals with them. The leave campaigners said that trade deals could be made with EU countries unless the EU became vindictive about it. The speed in which the founder members meet today and told us to get out as quickly as possible graves you some indication of how vindictive they might be.

    2. How much longer is this 'pity party' going on for? You've had your vote, you lost, so just fu-ck off!!!!!

      Oh, Ros, some good points made in your post about the McCanns have been completely lost by using your last paragraph to mention the referendum, now that's all people seem to want to comment on.

      Well done.

    3. Not even a week has gone by, so your reference to a pity party is a tad premature. And telling myself and my readers to just fuck off is ignorant and rude.

      I'm very liberal with the comments I allow as you know, I feel anyone is entitled to voice their opinion on anything they want. Fuck off isn't an opinion, it's an end to argument because the person using it has run out of things to say.

      As none of us are going to fuck off, you have kind of put yourself in stalemate. The Remain arguments aren't just going to disappear, and those opposed to Brexit aren't just going to shut up. It may spoil your jubilation, but that's life.

      As for the points I have made about the McCanns, they are being lost because so many antis cannot accept that the circumstances of Madeleine's death might not involve paedophilia or deviant sex.

      And I can see why they would think that. The extend of the cover up is unprecedented. There is no doubt whatsoever they had government assistance, many VIPs were falling over themselves to be seen helping the McCanns, as in 'look how kind I am, helping Kate and Gerry'. Gordon Brown and Lorraine Kelly especially.


    4. Unfortunately, those looking for the truth in the Maddie case are presented with so many conspiracy theories, it is difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff.

      People like Bennett have been able to push forward their own agendas because in the early days because credible commentators avoided this case like the plague.

      For Bennett a simple accident has never been an option. For him the case involves child abuse, probably on a massive scale. He sees a trail of paedophiles and perverts all the way from PDL to Whitehall, and if he has to twist the evidence here and there, so be it.

      See 08:58, it's really easy to get back to the original topic, and I'm happy to discuss it if you are :)

  6. You are traumatised? Because over 17 million Brits simply re-asserted their right to have their own democratically-elected government, to make their own laws, to control their own destiny? You should be cheering!

    1. We are a population of 65 million, so not sure how your quoting 17 million assist your argument?

      Over 45 million don't want their destiny controlled by an elite bunch of Bullingdon Boys who's only goal is to increase their family fortunes.

      You have been 'had' 23:58, by a bunch of odious grinning clowns who have used your own prejudices to manipulate you.

    2. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton26 June 2016 at 09:20

      check the referendum results again and don't invent figure.

    3. YOU WRITE..............You have been 'had' 23:58, by a bunch of odious grinning clowns who have used your own prejudices to manipulate you..........

      I think it's you that's been 'had.' You believe that the whole BREXIT campaign was about PREJUDICE? Hate to educate you but it was about Brits wanting to control their own lives through ELECTED representatives. It's called DEMOCRACY!!! You are the one who has been 'had' by a '' bunch of odious clowns '' and been manipulated into believing it was all about Johnny Foreigner . Don't you see that that's exactly what they wanted you to think . It was about DEMOCRACY , silly woman.

    4. You may say it was about democracy 18:08, but you are ignoring the huge part played by the evil, racist tactics of the far Right. The Leave campaign was based on deceit and fear, and now they have won they don't know what to do.

    5. 17 million voted LEAVE ... 16 million voted REMAIN.

      Of the other 32 million you quote, over half will have been under the legal voting age, the rest couldn't be arsed voting.

      The way I see it is, it was a shock result, but a fair result.

    6. Rosalinda @19:50

      Why do you persist in joining the ignorant 'racist' chorus? We Europeans are ALL Caucasians, i.e of the same race, whether we live within the EU or not.

      Inform yourself:

      "Europe, the Near East and North Africa are the ecosphere of the White race"

    7. 22:59, Why do I persist? Maybe because I refuse to be shouted down by people like yourself.

      I couldn't give two hoots about the colour of a person's skin, I was never raised that way. With a Scottish father and a Irish mother our family lived and worked within a small multicultural immigrant community that allowed 'blacks and Irish' and even dogs. My childhood pals were black, white, freckled, Asian, Polish and German and it didn't make any difference to any of us.

      We were as ostracised for our Irish accents as our friends were for the colour of their skin. I remember at my first school, St. Anne's in Virginia Water, being led up onto the school stage as an 'example'. In the middle of a rant about lowering standards, the headmaster held the microphone to the mouths of my big brother (aged 6) and myself (aged 5), so the assembly could hear our voices. I don't know what kind of shock, horror reaction he expected, but what he got was laughter. My brother and I had been taught to 'perform' by our Irish grandmother since we were in nappies, we loved making people laugh and we loved the limelight! I'm delighted to say the sadistic headmaster's attempts to demean and humiliate us failed miserably. And in retrospect I should probably thank him, I now speak like the Queen*!

      Colour seems to mean an awful lot to you 22:59, which is a shame, because your narrow mind deprives you of so much that is good in this world.

      *except when drunk and singing Irish rebel songs.

    8. "22:59, Why do I persist? Maybe because I refuse to be shouted down by people like yourself."

      Who's shouting?

      Enough of the 'holier than thou' nonsense thank you. Your family history/background is of no more interest to me than mine to you. You don't even know the colour of my skin.

      You glibly accuse others of narrow minded racism when you seem not even to understand what the word 'race' means or the term 'racism' implies.

      With the exception of 'naturalised' individuals of African, Oriental or other racial types (a very substantial minority I would suggest), economic migration of Europeans within Europe concerns people of the SAME RACE, i.e. caucasian.

      No one genuinely concerned with this issue should be accused of racism under any circumstances. It is inflammatory and plain wrong.

      Do not therefore presume to lecture others from a position of ignorance.

    9. Oh god! Roz having one of her false memory attacks again. How come, whatever the subject, she has an 'experience' as an example. Now she reveals herself as a victim of racism and....shock horror she wad only a child.
      You couldn't make this rot up.

    10. 14:15, it is my experience that those most vociferous about immigration tend to be loud, shouty people, apologies if I have misread this.

      Regarding my personal experiences, I draw on them as they are the basis of my views and opinions now. We are all products of the environments in which we were raised 14:15, even you.

      I note your point that it is 'white' immigrants you are complaining of, though I am not quite sure how that assimilates with the refugees from Syria. In any event, I have never felt the need to quite so specific with regard to the issue of 'race' and I've certainly never needed a colour chart.

      As for lecturing from a position of ignorance, I'm afraid I find that statement a trifle rude, even the dull and the ignorant are entitled to an opinion, including yourself, because as you will I have published yours.

    11. I'm not an android 05:53, like everyone else I had a childhood, why would you assume my memories are false?

      I'm a writer 05:53, I store my anecdotes and I use them to make analogies and observations, most writers, artists do, it is all part of the craft.

      If they are unpleasant for you, may I ask why you read them? I am at an age where I have zero tolerance for anything or anyone who doesn't interest or amuse me. Time is running out, I must be discerning, lol.

      Either yourself or one of your peers has suggested I research the politics of the EU, lol, yeh, I'll make that a priority, ha ha.

      I openly confess that my research focuses on subjects that interest me. These have never included dusty old law books or people who speak as if they are reading directly from a pulpit.

      As a Lecturer, and indeed a mother, I always advised my students (and kids) to look for the shortcuts. Whilst it is noble to read the entire works of Descartes, you cover a lot more ground if you get the bite size versions of ALL the philosophers.

      Ditto Shakespeare (get the Charles and Caroline Lamb version), and for Greek and Roman mythology I recommend 'Puffin'. There is nothing wrong with shortcuts, I am sure with Google and Wiki, we are all becoming walking encyclopaedias. And isn't that a good thing?

      I really dislike this elite attitude to education, the claims of the older generation that being able to deconstruct Jane Austin, somehow makes them superior to a kid with a Media degree. Young people are leaps and bounds ahead of us in the scope of information they have at their fingertips. And in areas that are relevant for the 21st century. Don't underestimate, they have the good sense and will to change the dominant ideology, it was bound to happen.

      There is too much information around for politicians like Owen Smith to be assured of a leadership win, even with the full force of the media and establishment behind him. Times, they are a changing.

  7. Brexit is just like the McCann case. People making 'facts' up as they go along.

    The ballot, for remain or leave in the polling booth, is secret.

    There is no way anyone can state honestly what age group voted in what way, it is total bullshit, produced by Lord Ashcroft (Cameron's best friend) and the BBC.

    Anyone believing pollsters should be banned from voting, as mentally deficient.
    I have spoken to dozens of people under 35 in the North East and not one was voting remain. I am sure if I asked people in Hampstead there would be a different opinion.

    You can believe they are right or wrong but nobody can state what age group voted which way.

    The remain group lied and the leave group lied and the result will stand.

    The McCann case is full of "experts and researchers" quoting facts that do not stand up to scrutiny and now we have people quoting and arguing over the voting ways of age groups, with no proof whatsoever.

    Nothing changes.

  8. JJ @10:10

    An unusually restrained comment from yourself on this occasion, and valid into the bargain.

    There is something of statistical science attaching to 'polling' in general, but I agree, in this instance, that people have been far too keen to stare into their own crystal balls in the hope that they might seize other people by theirs (of the non-crystal variety).

    The view of recent events from the other side of the world (excepting the USA which has a pronounced vested interest in the integrity of the EU) is likely, I think, to be one of complete astonishment - People falling on their swords all over the place (or being pushed onto them in Corbyn's case) and a near mass panic in certain quarters, as if we're fast approaching Armageddon, when really all that has happened is that the people of this country have been given the opportunity to express an opinion (wish, if you'd rather) concerning the nation's current status as a member of the EU. That's it.

    The immediate consequences are NOT that the GB has been summarily shown the door, that Scotland will inevitably seek to leave the UK, that international businesses based here will either instantly or eventually move elsewhere etc., etc. No. The immediate consequences are the expulsion of more hot air from politicians up and down the country than Montgolfier could ever have dreamt of, amongst the most risible being Nicola Sturgeon's acting as if Scotland were already free to make its own decisions (she wished!) - opportunist BS, no more, no less.

    It will take 2 yrs. minimum for us to leave the exit tunnel, in which time the horizon should come into clearer focus. I doubt we will see a sharp decline in the number of Mercedes/BMW/Volkswagen/Skoda cars on our roads thereafter.

    And if the Germans wish to keep selling us their cars....

    1. I keep hearing this after we leave the EU the Germans will keep selling us their cars. I quite sure they will but I think the issue we might have is that a lot of our trade deals were we sell our goods to EU countries might be at risk. I suppose pointing out that wee point we lead to another f&&k off comment

    2. Trade is all 'quid pro quo' . If they don't buy from us , they don't sell to us . Simples. Welcome to the world of Economics.

    3. And what are we producing 19:52? Scottish rasberries, Cornish pasties - what world renowned manufacturing industry do we own? In case you hadn't noticed, most of our factories have been moved to third world countries where the minimum wage and health and safety means nothing.

      The steel industry has gone, the coal industry has gone and successive government have failed to invest in the science, knowledge and technology that once made GB a world leader. Where is our Silicon Valley?

      Migrants bring with them a sense of hope, they are looking for the opportunity to improve their lives, and they see business opportunities all around them. Most of our shops and restaurants are owned by people who have migrated to our area. They come here to work hard and to give their children better futures and they contribute far more to the economy than they take from it.

      But back to your lesson in economics, so what do we have to sell 19:52? What do we have that is superior to anything produced in Europe, the Americas, Africa or the Far East?

    4. "what do we have to sell 19:52?"

      If I were 19:52 I'd suggest the answer lies in the 44% of our exports which go to the EU currently.

    5. You are one uneducated lady:
      The following export product groups represent the highest dollar value in UK global shipments during 2015. Also shown is the percentage share each export category represents in terms of overall exports from United Kingdom.
      1.Machines, engines, pumps: US$63.9 billion (13.9% of total exports)
      2.Gems, precious metals: $53 billion (11.5%)
      3.Vehicles: $50.7 billion (11%)
      4.Pharmaceuticals: $36 billion (7.8%)
      5.Oil: $33.2 billion (7.2%)
      6.Electronic equipment: $29 billion (6.3%)
      7.Aircraft, spacecraft: $18.9 billion (4.1%)
      8.Medical, technical equipment: $18.4 billion (4%)
      9.Organic chemicals: $14 billion (3%)
      10.Plastics: $11.8 billion (2.6%)

      Aircraft and spacecraft were the fastest-growing among the top 10 export categories, up 18.2% for the 5-year period starting in 2011.

      In second place for improving export sales vehicles which were up 10.2% led by cars and work trucks.

      UK pharmaceuticals posted the third-fastest gain in value at 8.4%.
      You really should do more homework

    6. Was there any need for the gratuitous insult? I'm clearly not uneducated, so your narrative begins with a lie which lessens it's impact.

      Well done on gathering statistics. Though what you have failed to take into consideration is the fact that most of our exports for the past 4+ decades have, through the EU, had 'guaranteed' sales. Those who bought from us in the past will not necessarily buy from us in the future. They are now free to shop around for cheaper/better options. Barack Obama has already said the US will give priority to the EU over the single United Kingdom. Take a few moments to let that sink in.

      Nobody knows what the impact of leaving the EU will have on future trade. You can produce all the past statistics you like, but they are meaningless as no-one can predict what the future out of EU statistics will be. This is all new, uncharted territory, and we haven't even got a sane person at the helm.

    7. 14:20. See my reply to Caroleann. That 44% of exports to the EU were guaranteed. Now they must compete in a global free market on equal terms. The regular customers have gone and there are hundreds of nations out there who can do what we do, only cheaper, and better. So I'm not seeing much economic security there.

    8. "Nobody knows what the impact of leaving the EU will have on future trade."

      Including you.

    9. Jesus H Christ but you do talk bilge!

      Your own question: 'What do we have to sell?' was answered in detail by caroleann above as you sulkily acknowledged.

      Now we get "44% of exports to the EU were guaranteed"

      By whom FFS!

      "The regular customers have gone"

      Did they leave under cover of darkness over the weekend then? Give it a rest. We have yet to put in a formal request to leave the party even.

  9. There is no proof or evidence of a cover up - just speculation/conspiracy theories.

    1. 13:46 In 9+ years, no-one has been charged, that surely is evidence enough there has been a cover up.

    2. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton26 June 2016 at 16:37

      and that's the evidence that you have???

      there are plenty of unsolved cases - are they all a cover up???

      You have made a very long blog entry of a cover-up and as usual you have just expressed your opinion with no proof/evidence whatsoever. Having an unsubstantiated opinion does not make it true!!!

    3. But it's not an unsolved case is it 16:52, all but the brainwashed know who dunnit. The initial crime was on the way to being solved in 2007 by the PJ, but Kate, Gerry and their Tapas friends refused to co-operate with the police. That it is still not solved 9+ years on, suggests they are still not co-operating.

      And yes I do indeed know that many staged abductions go 'unsolved'. That is, the police know who the culprits are, but can't prove it. However, once the police in these cases stop looking for abductors and live children, the suspects are obvious.

      I don't know what evidence you want me to produce 16:52, I am not a detective and this isn't a Court of Law. It is in fact a blog in which I give my opinion, as you will see in my tagline, I muse.

      I don't have the information to 'solve' this case, and those armchair detectives who think they do are totally deluded.

    4. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton26 June 2016 at 18:27

      If you don't have the evidence or information then you should quite simply stop accusing people of a crime that you have no proof they committed.

      Do you understand this simple principle?

      It is the rule of law in this country and describing it as musing is despicable!

    5. Do you remember the Daily Mail's campaign against the killers of Stephen Lawrence? Were the Daily Mail guilty of breaking the Law?

      You don't seem to understand the principles of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. It is the duty of journalists to root out injustice and the case of missing Madeleine is a prime example.

      As in the Stephen Lawrence case, the 'Law' has failed its' victim and the more people who are aware of that, the more chance there is of the victim, Madeleine, receiving the justice she deserves.

      That is how a free press works 19:49, and a lot of people have shed a lot of blood to ensure that freedom for all of us.

  10. You have so gone down in my estimation with your Brexit comments. So we're all Little Englanders, Xenophobes and Racists are we? So so predictable . I think it was Gove who said that democracy is the removal van outside number 10 . Try getting rid of the unelected Euro bureaucrats if you're unhappy !!
    Incidentally it's going to be interesting times ahead. Juncker and the rest of the team are calling for a quick Brexit and would like to punish us. They fear the 'domino effect' that much. Merkel meanwhile with Germany's economy in mind is being very magnanimous towards us . I expect there will be tensions between them but we shouldn't worry. We all know who is in charge.

    1. I'm still shocked by the result 17:39, and it must be said, a little emotional. I despise walls and borders and the small mindedness of the thinking behind them.

    2. I feel the same Ros I feel Jo Cox died for nothing. I feel I should apologise to the Migrants who came here for a better life who work hard and pay their taxes. I weep for the loss of freedom of movement throughout Europe of our own children. I weep as the rest of the world looks on in astonishment and sees us as narrow minded little englanders. I weep when I see the good work done through the EU to improve our workers rights and ensure equal rights for all. Most of all I weep when I see so many people who aren't able to see past their own prejudices

    3. Rosalinda @18:33

      Are you 'small minded' enough to lock your front door when you leave your house, or do you demonstrate your liberalism by leaving it open?

    4. And I weep when I see postings from people who cannot see past their own little prejudice towards democracy. I weep when I hear about the EU's contribution to workers' rights in this country and lack of youth employment in Spain, Greece and Italy. Who cares what the rest of the world think? We have control now to make this country a better place. Incidentally the EU record on women's rights is atrocious compared to what was already enshrined in British Law before we entered that disastrous union.

    5. It is a sorrow that will take a long time to recover from 19:11, and right now I cannot bear to think of the implications. The racist abuse and attacks have already begun, this is a dark period in British history.

      I'm appalled too at the backstabbing labour MPs who are trying to oust the most popular Leader they have had in decades. It's almost as if, the people love him, he's got to go.

    6. Of course I lock my door 19:47, I'm not stupid!

      I did however, prior to the convent, grow up in a home with an open door, everyone welcome, policy. My mum and dad were fun loving people who enjoyed sharing what they had with friends, family and neighbours. No-one was ever excluded.

      It was a fun way to grow up, but I'm at an age where I am free to enjoy my privacy (and the right to watch whatever channel I want)and I'm free to choose the company I keep. Freedom includes the right to privacy so I really don't get your door unlocked analogy.

    7. "Of course I lock my door 19:47, I'm not stupid!"

      No, you are prudent. Whereas a nation that might appear to behave in the same way is to be viewed as anything but?

  11. Remain a member of the European Union 48.1%
    Leave the European 51.9%

    you don't like democracy after a fair vote do you Ros.

    1. Even democracy has its' failings 19:57. Scotland for example, voted overwhelming to remain, so they are not getting what they voted for.

      Unless you hadn't noticed 19:57, the leading politicians don't know what to do next. We are a country in crisis. Do you really want an eejit like Boris Johnson, or gawd forbid, Nigel Farage leading us?

      Democracy is one of the fairest systems of government 1957, but this event has demonstrated that it can only work if it is administered by people with common sense.

      For example; why was no provision made for such a narrow result? Nicola Sturgeon warned Cameron beforehand, and I agree with Alex Salmond, she was the only who came to the party prepared.

    2. "Scotland for example, voted overwhelming to remain, so they are not getting what they voted for."

      That is an expedient misinterpretation and obviously echoes Nicola Sturgeon's attempt at special pleading. A referendum is not a constituency vote.

      So UK nationals resident in Scotland tended to vote (not 'to a man' (or woman)) for remaining in the EU. That is no more a basis for demanding, or even suggesting, Scottish independence, than a similar majority in the Capital might be expected to justify a special case for London.

      The Scots own 'independence' vote took place a whole year after Cameron had publicly announced that a nationwide EU referendum was on the cards. They nevertheless voted for unity WITH ALL THAT THAT ENTAILED.

      Sturgeon's case is entirely fallacious.

    3. Roz defending Scotland as a beacon of democracy. This would be the democracy that has appointed every family it's own spy 'for the children ' Give me strength!

  12. Do you understand Democracy Ros?

    1. Probably a lot more than you do 20:33.

    2. NOPE I don't think you do.

  13. Anonymous @19:11

    "I feel I should apologise to the Migrants who came here for a better life who work hard and pay their taxes"

    You could do that very cost-effectively in Birmingham, one of the most culturally diverse urban areas in the country and which voted in favour of leaving the EU!

    The persistent desire of public figures and others to refer to the migrant problem (which perhaps you haven't noticed) as an 'immigration issue', thereby subtly conflating it with the present citizenry is disgustingly cynical.

    Our social infrastructure is groaning under the pressure of demand for services, etc. increasing at a faster rate than supply - a result of government indifference over time and a problem which cannot be rectified overnight.

    It is in the interests of ALL who live here CURRENTLY that the housing shortage be corrected, the NHS be both supported AND expanded, and benefit beneficiaries actually be HERE and not THERE.

    You cannot make good flood damage without first turning off the tap. But the only way your child or children will lose their 'freedom of movement' throughout the EU is if someone confiscates their passport!

    If you think 17+ million people are motivated by prejudice then I suggest you examine your own.

    While you've been asleep successive UK governments have 'rolled over', as the EU has morphed into a dictatorial superstate whose legislation has had an adverse effect, directly or indirectly on all our lives.

    Unfortunately, while so many people experience just minor irritation they fail to investigate the symptom more closely and remain ignorant of the disease - until they die from it.

    With the 'common market' operating successfully since its inauguration in 1957, why do you suppose it needed a name change along the way? And what 'project' do you think Angela Merkel is referring to when she articulates the risks exposed by Brexit?

    Had the referendum vote been 'remain', by the time you and others like you realised the answer to such questions your children (and mine) would already have freely moved into an economic prison (Magna Carta - what's that?)

    1. Have you ever wondered why all our past Prime Ministers stayed in the EU? Or why the most recently departed have campaigned on the remain side? Even after one, or two, terms in office.

      Those who campaigned to leave have no idea what they have let themselves in for. Johnson and Gove are visibly tearful and probably looking for someone with a time machine.

      I agree that public services are not keeping up with the demand, but that isn't the fault of the immigrants. That fault lies with the lack of investment in housing, medicine, education and all the support services growing communities need.

      This should be a period of growth and advancement, the need is there, but not the investment.

      The Great Depression in the USA was defeated by Franklin D. Roosevelt's NEW DEAL. That is, rather than responding to the Depression with austerity, he chose to invest in the USA and its' recovery. His program to build houses, towns, roads, hospitals etc, boosted the economy, because everyone was back in work.

      If people are working, they have money to buy essential and luxury goods thus boosting the manufacturing and retail industries which boosted the leisure industries, etc, etc. It was investment, not austerity that made the USA the multicultural superpower it is today. They welcomed the 'brains' fleeing war torn Europe, most of their greatest industries and employers were born of immigrants.

      I really struggle to understand the mentality of those who want borders. What century are we in? Our small island may be popular right now (and isn't that a good thing?) but in a few decades time we may be as deserted as the Shetlands.

      Anyone with even a basic knowledge of history, will understand that populations have roved ever since the discovery of the wheel and the row boat. Actually, even much further back in time than that, ancient man sought out pastures new, even on foot. I actually have nothing but admiration for those brave enough to seek a better life for themselves and for their kids.

      Contrary to popular belief among the exiters, this tiny island won't sink under the weight of its' growing population. Communities grow and adjust to their own level, they evolve naturally. The young fly the nest, the aged pass on. And as so many young are flying the nest and moving away from their roots, it is only natural that the make up of local communities will change. In a nutshell, if there isn't an influx of new people, the communities will die out.

      The Germans are welcoming the refugees, because they have entire towns of ageing citizens, they need the workforce, the young people to keep the cogs of society spinning.

      But I have ignored your major point. I don't see the EU as a bunch of dictators, nor did the last half dozen or so British Prime Ministers, nor indeed Barack Obama or Hilary Clinton. Spreading the power between 28 nations is in fact the safest way to prevent smaller countries being overtaken by dictators. Now the highest power in this country is, err, we don't know.

    2. "I agree that public services are not keeping up with the demand, but that isn't the fault of the immigrants."

      I didn't say it was. But thank you for going on to paraphrase my original argument.

      "It was investment, not austerity that made the USA the multicultural superpower it is today"

      Just as it restored Germany under Hitler.

      The USA "welcomed the 'brains' fleeing war torn Europe, most of their greatest industries and employers were born of immigrants."

      Hardly surprising when the entire nation is born of immigrants, viewed with caution, suspicion and latterly resentment by the Native Americans. Just look what happened to them.

      "I really struggle to understand the mentality of those who want borders."

      That doesn't surprise me.

      "What century are we in?"


      "Our small island may be popular right now (and isn't that a good thing?) but in a few decades time we may be as deserted as the Shetlands."

      Do you do Astrology or Tarot reading in your spare time?

      "Contrary to popular belief among the exiters, this tiny island won't sink under the weight of its' growing population."

      Ditto my last response. Did you think to check the government's population statistics before making that statement?

      "But I have ignored your major point."

      And not for the first time.

      "I don't see the EU as a bunch of dictators, nor did the last half dozen or so British Prime Ministers, nor indeed Barack Obama or Hilary Clinton"

      What role models!!

      "Spreading the power between 28 nations is in fact the safest way to prevent smaller countries being overtaken by dictators"

      I presume you mean protecting them from invasion by a dictatorship, which, btw., can arise just as readily in a large country as a small one (France and Germany have each had a turn already).

      'Shared sovereignty' may be a noble principle, but it is, shall we say, proportional, and it doesn't take long to discover that there is a pecking order, handily camouflaged in the case of the EU by its seating MPs according to political, rather than national, blocks. However, just as in the recent referendum ironically, it does not matter how much you shake the bag the red balls all come out red and the black balls black - and a permanent minority will remain permanently subservient.

    3. I don't do astrology, and I'm not a believer in crystal balls or religion either.

      I look at the bigger picture and form an opinion based on what history has taught us. Few of us now want to stay in the same place we were born for the rest of our lives. Places don't become so full up that they burst or sink into the ocean.

      People move around now more than they ever have before. It has led to our evolution and the huge advances we have made - how do you legislate against human instincts?

      As for borders, I don't want to live on a small island surrounded by barbed wire and patrolled by armed guards. I can't think of a greater hell.

    4. "I look at the bigger picture and form an opinion based on what history has taught us."

      History is far from the only discipline to inform the present argument. I respectfully suggest you acquaint yourself with the work of ethologist JB Calhoun, and his 'behavioural sink'.

      "how do you legislate against human instincts?"

      Easy. Homosexuality, for instance, was once illegal in the UK, and I believe still is elsewhere in the world.

      "I don't want to live on a small island surrounded by barbed wire and patrolled by armed guards"

      I don't think anyone does. Hopefully such a situation will not arise if appropriate action is taken beforehand (and please don't challenge my reference to 'appropriate'. I'm not advocating 'mow them down as they disembark')

    5. JB Calhoun is not the definitive expert on overpopulation density. As you should be aware for every expert opinion, there is another who will put forward the opposite.

      I'm not sure you can compare the density of the rat population with the human population. We have choice and free will, we will not cram ourselves in to the point where we are uncomfortable. And that imagery btw, is reminiscent of the anti Jewish propaganda put out by Goebbells. Cheap, overused, fear tactics.

      Legislation against homosexuality didn't work did it? And legislation won't keep people in one place. Effectively, you are trying to put the brakes on evolution and I'm afraid you have a life of frustration ahead of you.

    6. "We have choice and free will"

      Not within the EU it would appear

      "we will not cram ourselves in to the point where we are uncomfortable"

      Said the occupants of that 2 up 2 down when their relatives arrived unannounced.

      "And that imagery btw, is reminiscent of the anti Jewish propaganda put out by Goebbells. Cheap, overused, fear tactics"

      Which begs the question of why you have openly introduced it. I didn't.

    7. Youth unemployment is at an all time high in EU member states. Working well isn't it Roz?

  14. Who cares what the rest of the world thinks............I think firms who wish to trade with the rest of the world........your bitterness of anything not England is plain to see........your views on the eu record on women's right is probably as much hot air as the promise to put £350m into the health service every week and the promises to reduce the number of migrants coming into the country. Both of which were quickly withdrew the day after the referendum. Good luck with being out of the EU your heading for years of recession but what the hell your are a little englander one who has never quite got over losing your empire. An on the subject of disasterous institutions back to the content of Ros blog how much glory have the wonderful British government covered themselves in when dealing with the death of a wee girl in another EU country. Then again who cares what the rest of the world including Portugal think. Wrap yourself in your Union Jack and live in your own wee insulate world

    1. I suspect your comment belongs higher up the page, unless you're NOT responding to @19:48.

      I've made none of the statements you appear to quote (I say 'appear' since I see no quotation marks)

    2. I presume from your command of the English language that you are not British so what right do you have to comment on the way we choose to vote? Just go away and tend to your own problems .

    3. 14:39, err, who the feck do you think you are telling my foreign readers and contributors to go away?

      Unlike you, I welcome diversity in all its' forms, I feel privileged that these linguists take the time and trouble to read and reply here. It's the narrow minded I can't stomach.

    4. Thank You Ross......such narrow minded people

  15. I voted in a secret election.

    How on earth can anyone comment on my vote?

    More guesses/opinion/speculation/conspiracy Ros.

    Does anyone KNOW how you voted?

    1. Who is commenting on your vote 22:36? I don't know who you are or what you voted - though I could take an educated guess. I'll let you do the same.

  16. I wasn't responding to you 22.08 but if you want a response and quotation marks here goes
    "You could do that very cost-effectively in Birmingham, one of the most culturally diverse urban areas in the country and which voted in favour of leaving the EU!"

    What has that got to do with what I was saying about apologising to migrant. It was quite clear that I was talking in the context of the conversation about people coming from EU countries to work in Britain. As you know very well only British citizens and Irish citizens living in Britian were entitled to vote in the referendum Eu migrants weren't. I don't know how you linked that to culturally diverse people living in Birmingham unless of course you were suggesting that people other than people from the white English culture were somehow less British.

    1. "What has that got to do with what I was saying about apologising to migrant."

      Perhaps it would have been clearer had I said 'multi-ethnic'. I was merely trying to save your campaign waggon some mileage. Never mind.

      "As you know very well only British citizens and Irish citizens living in Britian were entitled to vote in the referendum Eu migrants weren't."

      Could that be because it was a referendum put forward by the government in Westminster to UK (not European) citizens? Or are you suggesting the question should have been put to all current holders of a European passport?

      If your implicit argument is that EU migrants deserved to vote on an issue which, long term, might affect them personally, that is EXACTLY the misgiving that 17 million others will have had in mind when pondering the machinations in Brussels.

      Doesn't that strike you as strange?

  17. On both sides there are bigots and racists but we rarely hear of the lefty bigots.

    Take Nicola Sturgeon.

    She states all are welcome in Scotland but are we? A child born and living in Scotland, any EU national and a Turkish child of parents living in the UK all get free university tutition.

    Their fees are paid for by the Scottish Government, (the UK taxpayer.)

    But if the child is English, NI, or Welsh, fees of £9,000 p.a. are payable. What is this other than blatant raw racism?

    It is discrimination of the worst kind against children and their future. Why does anybody find this acceptable?.

    Sturgeon and the SNP have the power to stop this discrimination today, but do not do so.

    So who are the real racists?

    1. I didn't particularly want to introduce NS into this debate, but since you've seen fit to do so....

      Her indignant protestation that an obligatory Scottish exit from the EU was 'democratically unacceptable' is, to say the least, perverse. (She would rather exit a democracy in favour of remaining within an anti-democratic organisation - yeah, right)

      Her accusation that Scotland was 'duped' into voting to remain in the UK at the time of their very own independence referendum (2014) with the 'promise' of EU membership is utterly false.

      Cameron had publicly announced a referendum on the EU question a year earlier (Jan. 2013) to take place no later than end 2018.

      When making their subsequent choice therefore, the Scots would have been well aware that a nationwide EU referendum was due within 3 years, the outcome of course being unpredictable.

      There are NO grounds on which NS can base a 'we don't accept the outcome' argument, since Scotland voted to remain within the UK and thereby knowingly to be a party, in the very near future, to a UK referendum, not merely a Scottish one.

      I dare say there are those in Brussels right now who would say that GB knew what it was signing up to when confirming its own membership of the EU back in 1975.

      But we didn't did we. Heath took us into the 'Common Market'. The actions of successive 'heroes' since have led to our voting now to leave a 'Union' - a 'federation' established via a succession of treaties ratified while we as a people were scarcely looking, never mind voting.

      Sir James Goldsmith made every effort in the 90s to tell the public what our own parliament would not prior to Maastricht. He was ignored. Well, there's no ignoring last Thursday's result, is there.

    2. Correction:

      "Cameron had publicly announced a referendum on the EU question a year earlier (Jan. 2013) to take place no later than end 2018."

      Should read: 'end 2017.'

      The argument remains unaffected.

    3. "Take Nicola Sturgeon."

      No thanks - you take her!

    4. I'm not sure if you take umbrage at her looks or her politics 00:41, if it is her looks, you have, straight away, defined yourself as an old misogynist, ergo your opinion is tainted, therefore irrelevant.

      If its' her politics, you only have to look at her popularity, not only in Scotland but here in the UK. During the live leadership debates, the was leaps ahead of all of them.

      The British public have had the same reaction to the politics of Jeremy Corbyn - the massive turn out at all his rallies in the run up to the leadership election, were unprecedented. He has the overwhelming support of the public and he revived the Labour party, those quitting no longer represent their voters, they have let them down.

      Would your 'no thanks - you take her' apply also to Jeremy Corbyn, as in 'you take him'?

    5. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton28 June 2016 at 14:03

      because she tried to take Scotland out of the UK.

    6. And she is trying to do so still. Her protestation that 'Scotland' voted to remain in the EU is entirely and deliberately misleading.

      The referendum was NOT a constituency vote, despite its being managed as such for convenience and clarity in reporting.

      The correct interpretation vis-à-vis 'Scotland' is that the majority of UK nationals living in Scotland voted to remain within the EU, just as, COINCIDENTALLY, the majority of those voters living in London voted likewise.

      In the context of one person one vote across the British Isles, the 'Scotland effect' is simply a statistical artefact.

      Suppose the referendum had been about something else entirely, a proposal to abolish income tax for the over 40s, say. Such a question would no doubt reveal a similar clear division of opinion among voters - but the outcome would not be invalid because of it. Nor would it form the basis of special treatment for those in the minority.

      Sturgeon's claim, however impassioned, is a blatant example of political opportunism pure and simple.

  18. I do love the MSM’s increasingly crazed claims that we are in financial meltdown and that the EU are going to be, you know, really, really nasty, to Britain over the coming months.

    There is no UK financial meltdown: have a look at the figures. The drop in our currency is something that, like the EU, like the |US and like Japan, we’ve been trying to get for the last two years and now we’ve got it. As for the idea that the EU is going to punish us – you’ll get the first clues to that after today’s meetings when they fail to agree on anything except fine words. The EU isn’t going to be nasty to us not because it loves us but because it is no longer capable of taking decisions on really critical matters. So they will talk big and do nothing. Nation states are a lot quicker on their feet than sclerotic collectives, partly because in the end they have to pay their own bills. Watch and see.

    The MSM, by the way, appears to have taken its death-ride performance in the “abduction” as the template for its current hysterical reporting of the vote. A “mission to explain” indeed.

    As for the result itself I tend to accept democratic votes in the UK, whatever my own opinion.

    1. You put me to shame John, I'm still face down on the floor kicking and screaming like a disgruntled toddler! Calmness is still a little way off. And I spent last night retweeting all the messages of support for Jeremy Corbyn - the fiends!

      As for the best 'Remain' argument - that imo, came from Mr. Rupert Murdoch himself, 'when I go to Downing Street they do what I say, when I go to Brussels they take no notice'.

    2. A link to that Murdoch quote would be appreciated. It does rather explain how Rebekah 'persuaded' DC to have words in ears regarding the McCann 'review'.

    3. I'm intrigued John. Are the tabloids in meltdown in the same way as they were with Diana, Madeleine etc, or is there really a crisis. My opinions on upper class twits makes me lean towards the latter. I remember all too way those sleazy pictures of our current chancellor with a hooker and a line of cocaine. Ahh, doncha just miss the old NOTW? lol

      I do tend to think they are in a bit of a pickle right now. It's as if none of them made any contingency plans whatsoever.

      I did actually watch that long interview with Blair, who explained, quite dully imo, the mechanics of the exit procedure and how much negotiation lies ahead. If they do it 'his' way, it will takes years, and such are politics, someone may come up with a legal way out of the exit election result. It happens. I'm not saying it's right btw, but sometimes if you leave something long enough, people forget about it, eg. Madeleine.


      Murdoch quote.

    5. Thank you for that link.

      Could you perhaps clarify your interpretation of Rupe's statement as the best 'Remain' argument?

      Unless I'm missing a trick, it appears to be an argument to the contrary, the EU's ignoring Rupert being a metaphor for its ignoring many others besides.

      Or are you suggesting we ought to remain within the EU, if for no other reason, to prohibit Rupe's influence?

    6. I interpreted his statement as most did 14:51, he wanted the UK out of the EU, because big as he is, he can only control ONE country, not 28.

    7. The EU question in a nutshell - unless your name's Merkel or Hollande.

  19. Although prepared to give Rosalinda a rough ride over the case 'for' or 'against', I am at the same time personally grateful that, whatever her personal opinions on the issue, she has maintained an own 'open door' policy with respect to comment contributions. It is thanks to her in this instance that we may sample, review, and evaluate attitudes fostered by both sides of the argument.

    Likewise I have occasion to disagree with you, but your contribution here is timely.

    As you say, there is at present a lot of talk (which counts for nothing). In the event what matters is what people go on to do.

    I shall not presume to know or guess your own political inclination, but the key to the entire debate is in my personal opinion to be found in your last sentence, although I suspect a great many people will not have bothered to look for it beforehand, more's the pity.

  20. Hello Ros and anonymous 13.35.

    I found some of the posts here very interesting and very informative; not something one can say after a pure McCanns debate and not something we have seen in the MSM.

    I don't want to debate the remain/brexit issue here: it is a tremendously important and, to many people, scary one. I don't think I've anything much to contribute, especially at this very early, unclear, stage.

    All I'd say is that, since as long ago as 1945, I am astonished that every few years, when we look back, each UK general election seems to have arrived at the right answer for the times, sometimes for one party, sometimes the other.

    When you listen to the garbage that people shout in television studios or on twitter it still seems incredible that their judgement, on the day, has been so often right. In that sense the act of voting seems to have a strength quite independent of, and superior to, the views that individuals, including me, express.

    Afterwards, when the winners have been corrupted or run out of energy we throw the bastards out, be they Thatcher or Blair: they have served our purposes and are discarded. It is a harsh system that leaves many of them mentally ruined when they lose power: good. That is the price they pay. Its brutality is far too much for most of our European cousins to adopt.

    Given this mysteriously successful record of the (UK) electorate I'm inclined to think that this decision also will be seen to be right. But it's just an opinion.

  21. Let's 'Abwarten und Tee trinken', as they say in the fatherland.

  22. Wow Blacksmith you rock

    Over 100 years ago Wallace D Wattles expressed a similar sentiment which I have tried to live by in cases like we had last week. I hope you don't mind me sharing it with you

    Do not rage against corrupt politicians; if it weren't for politicians we should fall into anarchy, and your opportunities would be greatly lessened.

    God has worked a long time and very patiently to bring us up to where we are in government and he is going right in his work. There is not the least doubt that he will do away with plutocrats, trust magnates and politicians as soon as they can be spared; but in the meantime behold they are all very good. Remember they are helping to arrange the lines of transmission along which your riches will come to you and be grateful to them all.

  23. Are the motives of these anti Corbyn MP's honourable?

    How many are Blairites?

    On July 6th the Chilcott report is published. Corbyn has made it quite clear, that if the evidence shows he will try to get Blair charged with war crimes (Jack Straw too).

    We can't have that, can we?

    So lets pretend that Corbyn has lost the MP's support and get rid of him before July 6th, at all costs and whatever it takes.

    Corbyn may have many faults but lack of integrity is not one.
    Of the pygmy Labour MP's how many can you say that about.

    1. "Corbyn has made it quite clear, that if the evidence shows he will try to get Blair charged with war crimes (Jack Straw too)."

      Now that IS interesting...

      Opportunism abounds it would seem.

  24. Beyond the media rubbish and the understandable desire of people to live in harmony with European neighbours there are some brutal realities.

    Britain lies stuck between two powers with their own ambitions, fears and, unfortunately, dreams. The US specifically include the American Dream as part of everyday life: it is real to them. The west European political class, which still has, thank God, no counterpart in the UK, dreams up a new attempted utopia every fifty or so years: 1800, 1848, 1870-1914, 1933-1945, 1998. Each European dream-attempt slaughters its own population by the millions while the Americans make sure that in the attainment of their dreams most of the dying takes place by others outside their own borders. At present the European dream is relatively bloodless, with only some Greeks – see the suicide figures – and West Ukrainians dying daily. But dying they are and as a direct result of EU policies.

    Britain isn’t any “better” than either of them but it doesn’t do dreams: that’s just the way we are. At the same time we are not large or populous enough to destroy or counter these two power blocs, so we have to navigate between the dreamers as best we can, hoping that neither will cause explosions, such as misjudging the Russians, that will take us down with them.

    Yes, they are, literally, our cousins, yes we get on with them and intermarry but in practice the leaders of both work to make us to fit in with their plans, whether we wish to or not, President Obama’s “back of the line” threat being the most obvious recent example. Why? Because of our pivotal position and "bridge" role between two opposed cultures which we cannot escape; and because international relations, unfortunately, and despite all the good intentions and honeyed words, are governed by mutual fear, not love.

    Perhaps one day- utopia! - that will change. Until then the UK has to navigate its way between these two big brothers as best it can. Much of the struggle takes place in secret, as, for example, the British subversion of the EU Great Power plan by ensuring the entrance of so many new members that powers of decision became, and remain, fatally weakened. That’s been going on for twenty years under all British governments but you won’t find anyone admitting it on Google. If you think it’s only us that get up to such secret tricks…

    Meanwhile the people of all three try and get on together and live decent lives.

    1. A thoughtful analysis, but could you perhaps expand on your remark: "the British subversion of the EU Great Power plan by ensuring the entrance of so many new members that powers of decision became, and remain, fatally weakened"

      My own suspicion is that a good many of the problems facing the EU currently owe their origin to the imposition of a unitary currency across a spread of international economies that were neither of equal value, in the static snapshot sense, nor equally dynamic in the longer term.

      Was that step forward one that the British had in its tactical box of tricks, do you suppose, or the brainchild of a determined Jacques Delors?

  25. The United States is nearer than Europe. Across the Channel are neighbours. Across the Atlantic are family.

  26. Bjorn Sundberg29 June 2016 at 21:08

    Hello Rosalinda

    I appreciate the discussions that are going on here, though I do not comment so often, as I’m not a native speaker of your language. Besides, I’m actually more interested in the Madeleine Case, but anyway, here are a few words about what I think about Britain’s decision to leave “us”, from my Swedish perspective.

    The U K leaving the E U may turn out to be a good thing for Britain after all, as John Blacksmith insinuates. A lot of those who voted for leave will soon see that they are being misled and by whom and for what reasons and sooner or later they will turn against them.

    Whatever happens when the U K has formally left the EU, it still will have to discuss its trade, industry and finance with Brussels as it has done before as a member state, but from a somewhat unfavourable position. Access to a free market will still be possible on certain conditions, so, in my opinion, there is no need to talk about an immediate disaster scenario or to consider half the British population to be a bunch of idiots, just because they voted against common sense. Such things happen.

    This is how we in Sweden look upon democracy and referendums. We voted against right-hand traffic in a referendum the 1950s, but in the1960s our government thought that the majority did not understand that they had driven on the “wrong” side for more than 100 years and so we had to switch to the “right” side in 1967. We voted against nuclear power in the 1980s, but our politicians decided that it was best for us to keep it. So the British people and its government are really exercising democracy in its ultimate form, unlike many other democratic states, who often are reluctant to let their citizens decide in important matters. So let us hope that the Britons can sort this out. It is democracy after all. We must never forget that.

    The worst that can happen now is that other EU countries will question the whole EU peace project instead of arguing, in a democratic spirit, against a lot of micromanagement and other nonsense that is going on in Brussels. What finally made Sweden apply for membership (we voted in a referendum and this time our politicians did as we told them) was because many of us believed that it was very much about a solidarity project, and not just between the people within the EU at that time, but between the EU states and the people in eastern Europe, who were about to be become independent democratic states. The psychological effect of the British decision to leave worries me much more than the real change for the UK industry, commerce and finance market and its impact on the EU, because there will not be any dramatic effect on the EU economy or on the British economy in this respect, as far as I can understand.

    However, Britain’s leave may in a near future favour Putin in his attempt to restore the geopolitical stability in Europe, which, in his view, was dramatically destabilized, when the eastern European communist states collapsed. Europe could, under specific circumstances, once again, be divided into two socio-political parts as a consequence of Britain’s exit. This would be the worst scenario of course. The EU without Britain, with its tradition of democracy, becomes a weaker union on many levels, while Russia can grow stronger, in that they may seek allies among political parties and politicians in the EU countries, especially among those who represent conservative values and who are prepared to sacrifice their countries’ democratic freedom( possibly Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania ) if they are just offered advantageous trade agreements with Russia, and if they become freed from the responsibility to take care of refugees and other people in need outside Europe. My reasoning is of course based on nothing but my own intuition and fear.

  27. Hello Bjorn. I have never forgotten the winter I spent in beautiful Sweden decades ago. Your post was very interesting but perhaps I can take issue with a couple of points.

    You say “a lot of those who voted for leave will soon see that they are being misled and by whom and for what reasons and sooner or later they will turn against them.”

    I really can’t accept that as a statement of fact: its only basis, apart from your own opinion, is recent media reporting. Media reports until today have been quite worthless, both in the UK and the rest of the world. Since this morning the first articles have begun to appear in the US, Europe and UK backing away from their earlier, childishly panicking and grossly unperceptive reports and, as their minds start to clear, accepting that they have overdone it.

    Particularly germane to your post is this:

    For the revisions already taking place in the US note this:

    And for the UK there is this:

    For a restatement of my views by a clever and principled journalist in more detail than I could provide there is this:

    Nor can I accept the second part of “However, Britain’s leave may in a near future favour Putin in his attempt to restore the geopolitical stability in Europe, which, in his view, was dramatically destabilized, when the eastern European communist states collapsed.”

    There is general agreement that it was not the collapse of Eastern European states that triggered Putin’s and Russia’s revanchism: it was first the incredible and naïve stupidity of the Americans in attempting to extend their influence into places like Georgia while the Russians were too weak to do anything about it and second the much more recent and almost as stupid EU attempt to play with fire in the Ukraine. That unhappy land is an unstable mix of a west that derives from old Poland and an east which in its rare periods of non-anarchy identifies with Russia. Putin is a loathsome person but it was inevitable that Russia would draw red lines in Georgia – where it fought a war to throw out American influence some years ago – and in the Ukraine, particularly the Crimea.

    We both mention fear, which, following Thucydides, I believe is the main driver of international relations: the Russians have been paranoid for a century now and the EU’s mindless interference in the Ukraine has made it worse.

    Watching the Swedish noir box sets made me aware for the first time of just how close Russian lawlessness impinges on your country and I sympathize with your concerns and thus your different perspective from mine.

    Can I add that I did not insinuate – perhaps imply might have been a better choice of word since insinuate has dishonesty connotations in English – that leaving the EU may turn out to be a “good thing” for Britain. I said that in retrospect UK election results appear to have a wisdom about them that is not visible at the time and I am willing to believe that the same may apply in this case.

    1. Bjorn Sundberg/Sweden30 June 2016 at 10:55

      Hello John
      Thanks for your comments and for your criticism and references on the Internet about the subject in question. My political perspective is often more based on emotions than on reason. I admit that. As a teenager in the 1960s, I had a vision, or a revelation is perhaps a better word, that the Soviet Empire in a peaceful way during a long process would collapse, like the Roman Empire did. I remember discussing it with my friends at school on many occasions, but not really in an intellectual way. At that time, I also had a dream about the Eurovision Song Contest, that it would unite us all in Europe, if just more countries would join. I always felt sorry for all the artists in Eastern Europe, who, for political reasons could not participate. I was not really interested in politics then, and I was not especially clever or learned, yet a little bit of what I then dreamed about has been realized, but of course not in the way that I had imagined.

  28. But you have nothing to reproach yourself for with your vision and idealism! The Soviet Union is no longer awash with blood and Belarusians, Ukrainians and others, free to travel and largely free from fear, now work all over my part of London – including artists. Europe is a happier and more prosperous place than it was in the 1960s, due partly to people like yourself wanting it to be so.

    I mustn’t take up any more of Ros’s space but I appreciate the honesty of your posting very much.

  29. An interesting point you make in the blog about children not playing out after the McCann case or parents being overly protective due to the story.

    Do you think that was the main effect of the McCann story?

    When I was a kid we would play out all day every day. There was no paranoia, well certainly nothing comparable to today.

    There was talk of the 'bad man' which in itself is awful looking back but how is today different? Is today different?

    Surely there were just as many 'bad men' about them as there is now. Which, from memory there wasn't any instances I can recall from anyone I knew. I remember stories of the flasher but that was about it.

    Don't get me wrong. I know there are bad folk about, but strangers snatching kids off the street !!! Or from holiday apartments !!! I'd never heard of it.

    Is the McCann story the reason for all this paranoia? Did this one story really change so much?

    1. Lots of interesting points 20:46, it would be interesting to know the statistics, because like yourself I do wonder if the threat has increased over the years.

      The paranoia and fear have certainly been taken up a few notches, deliberately in my opinion. Horrible as it sounds, our government and indeed our police, need us to live in fear. Under our capitalist economy, public services have to compete for funding, it is in their interests to exaggerate the danger. If you listen to someone like Jim Gamble, you would believe there are armies of perverts out there waiting to pounce on our kids.

      I don't know if the risk to our children is any greater than it ever was. While the internet has given some weirdos the opportunity to contact kids online, the greatest danger remains those closest to them, and those they already know.

      I have a pet hate against those who would have me live in fear 20:46, which is why the trolls and stalkers who follow me have no effect on my musings. I see them as the pathetic cowards they are. If they had even an ounce of courage, they wouldn't be hiding.

      My kids are grown up now, but I urge young parents to give their children courage and confidence, those are the qualities that will keep them safe and help them succeed. Those who use the internet and anonymity to abuse people online are gutless, the chances of them climbing in anyone's window to rape etc, are zilch. They are usually afraid of their own shadows.

      People like Richard and Judy handled the 'threats' to their daughter in a way that will ensure the little precious will always believe she is victim. The correct response should have been 'get over yourself', because if she wants to be in the public eye, nutters will write nutty things.

      I think Kate and Gerry have done much damage to the health of future generations. Parents daren't let their kids out of their sight, they have to be chaperoned every moment of the day. Or, worse, they are shut in their bedrooms eating pizza and playing computer games, because that's the safest option.