Thursday, 6 October 2016

THAT SUMMERS AND SWAN BOOK

[in reply to a comment on the previous blog]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

40 comments:

  1. "Unfortunately, no-one was saying, thanks Jim, thanks Martin..."

    One did, guess who.

    http://bit.ly/2dC41rc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Lone Ranger?

      Delete
    2. Bingo!

      Not from Texas though.

      Delete
  2. Congratulations on posting to your blog the pure venom you feel for the Mccanns. I thought you had moved on - but apparently not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Refusing to accept the abduction lie is not venom, how absurd. I don't feel one way or the other about Kate and Gerry, I look at them from an academic perspective, my interest lies in human behaviour.

      If you read my words carefully, you will see that my overwhelming emotion towards the McCanns is pity. Had justice taken its course, they could have put their family and lives back together by now. As it is, they live with a huge cloud over their heads and always will.

      The supporters of the McCanns always assume that disbelief of the abduction story translates as hatred and jealousy of Kate and Gerry, they do not seem to understand that it is the crimes we hate, we don't actually know K&G personally, only the phoney exterior they present on camera. Are they also going to claim that all the police investigating them are also led by hatred?

      Delete
    2. What a ridiculous remark to make,just because people seek the truth and justice for that poor little girl.Open your eyes and read the police files.

      Delete
    3. What a ridiculous remark to make,just because people seek the truth and justice for that poor little girl.Open your eyes and read the police files.

      Delete
  3. "There are other crimes that need solving and other children that need finding."

    Do you have any evidence whatsoever that other crimes are not being investigated because of the Mccanns?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you have any evidence whatsoever of the McCanns being mentioned in the sentence you've just quoted?

      Delete
    2. @ Anonymous7 October 2016 at 16:31

      the blog is about the Mccanns, Summers and Swan, Operation Grange - if you want to spent your life blinkered to what is being written - then that is your choice.

      Delete
    3. Actually Dave Bottomley, I do have evidence, I have applied reason and logic. If detectives are tied up on a 10 year old cold case, they are not working on current cases. Police have budgets and limited resources. Investing more in one, means less for another. Quite basic economics.

      Delete
    4. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton7 October 2016 at 22:21

      You are of course aware that the Met were given additional extra funding for Operation Grange. i.e it is not funded from within their normal budget.

      Delete
  4. Björn Sundberg/Sweden8 October 2016 at 20:42

    Some annoyed and anonymous person, who wrote a comment here, was apparently surprised that Rosalinda had not “moved on” regarding her opinion on the Madeleine case. I had to give it a thought. What is really “moving on” supposed to mean in this context? Seekers of truth in this case are often asked to do so. I suppose that means doing something else by forgetting or denying all the documented facts in the extensive Portuguese investigation, that was shelved in 2008, and accepting that the S Y are now doing their best to exonerate the McCanns from guilt, so that they will get a chance to go back to “normal” life.

    If we accept such a process, we will also have to accept, that a lot of innocent people (whole groups other ethnicities) are (will be), accused of having abducted or killed Madeleine, some of whom are dying or already dead.

    Hoping and demanding that the McCanns should be re-investigated in a proper way by the Portuguese P J, and not by the S Y, as I do, is neither a sign of mental illness or a crime, but in fact, as I see it, everybody’s duty. So we, who have spent weeks, months and years reading (studying) the P J files, without finding anything at all, supporting the McCann’s claims about an abduction, are just not, as Brenda Leyland said about herself before she died, entitled to question the McCanns’ innocence, but it is also our responsibility to do so.

    Those who do not wish the McCanns to be further investigated are either ignorant of facts in this crime case, or they just don’t have the slightest wish of justice for a small girl, who never got a chance to speak for herself.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Björn Sundberg/Sweden8 October 2016 at 20:42

      so basically from what you are saying - we don't need the PJ and Met investigating this case - you have solved it and everything is pure and simple - the Mccanns are guilty of something - maybe you can explain what.

      Delete
    2. Björn Sundberg/Sweden9 October 2016 at 14:17

      to Anonymous 8 October 22:12
      No. I certainly cannot solve this crime case. Only the Portuguese P J can do that, and may well do so, if the S Y just let them do it their way, but so far they have been forced to be a part of the Operation Grange-venture, governed by Britishgovernment. Let us never forget, that the McCanns’ friends refused to co-operate with the Portuguese P J, by inventing excuses for not being able to participate in a reconstruction, which the P J had planned to carry out, one year after the disappearance of Madeleine. The McCann did nothing to make their friends change their minds. Their and their friends’ participation was of course crucial for an understanding of what had really happened, and all of them knew the importance of this, yet they were not the least interested in helping the P J in this matter.

      If this crime case is ever going to be solved, the P J will have to do what they were not allowed to do in 2008, as the case was shelved too soon, that is, ask the the McCanns inconvenient questions, such as British journalists seldom dare to ask them. We still don’t know why Kate didn’t search for Madeleine, not just the night she went missing, but for the rest of that week. Listen to Jane Hill’s question and Kate’s evasive answer about her and Gerry being non-functioning (BBC 2008 You Tube).

      She has not later given any comprehensible answer to that question. It was, in fact, very similar to one of the 48 questions, all of which Kate refused to answer in quality of an arguido in 2007. Years later Kate gives an account of what she did that night, by saying in her book Madeleine, that she walked through the dark and empty streets of PDL at 4 a m, which was something she could not remember, when asked by Jane Hill or by the P J earlier. There are hundreds of such inconsistent or incomprehensible statements by the McCanns, that make me suspicious.

      When a whole lot of British police detectives, who have been working on the case since 2013, possibly since 2011, have not been able to present just a shred of evidence of an abduction, isn’t it then reasonable to expect, that they at least would try to follow some new leads, even if such leads might implicate the McCanns in the disappearance of their daughter. I cannot see that this is happening and that is why I feel compelled to talk about this case and to express my opinion on it, which sadly enough the British MSM did not allow Brenda Leyland to do.

      Delete
    3. @ Björn Sundberg/Sweden9 October 2016 at 14:17

      I notice that you are nw described as a "rock".

      Perhaps you would like to enlighten Ros's blog and inform us all what, how and why Kate Mccann answering the 48 questions would have achieved in this case. Specifically can you tell me what answer to which question would have led to the Mccanns being arrested and banged up forever?

      Was it perhaps 37. Did you work every day?

      As you seem to know so much more than the PJ or SY I look forward to your reply.

      Delete
    4. I notice that you are nw described as a "rock".

      Is that you again, Tony?

      Delete
  5. Bjorn you rock!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Slightly off topic but on the subject of books, I noticed on CMOMM a few days back Bennet saying Amarals new book would be worthless unless it contained answers to questions put forward by him.....just saying.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Thomas, yes that is hilarious! He seems to have gone past deluded and into full scale off his rocker! I am sure the genuinely intelligent Goncalo Amaral, stopped reading Bennett's nonsense years ago - that's if he ever bothered in the first place, which I somehow doubt. For all the information they have on CMoMM, there doesn't appear to be one note of thanks or appreciation from Goncalo. He like the rest of us, probably knows all too well that Bennett has hindered this case as much as the McCanns' themselves. I get the impression Goncalo keeps his distance from Bennett, and who could blame him?

      Delete
  7. "Internet trolls who create derogatory hashtags or post doctored images to humiliate others could face prosecution in England and Wales"

    I hope your mate Teddy has read that Ros.

    ReplyDelete
  8. LOL 14:19. Artists have been satire since time began, if you get a few moments do take a look at historical cartoons - worldwide. Start with the cave drawings, ha ha.

    I'm actually a huge fan of Teddy and his subversive images, how quickly the world forgets 'Je suis Charlie'. If people don't want horrible things done to their 'image', they shouldn't do horrible things!

    At one stage of this freaky media battle with the McCanns, a pro site were posting all sorts of images of myself in a variety of wigs. They had decided my hair wasn't real, they actually called me 'Wiggy', and compiled a weird and bizarre series of pictures using my face. I, and my family and friends actually found them hilarious, one son wanted to join the site, lol.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How strange that you lol about it - but there again that is your mindset.

      No-one has to "doctor" of photoshop your photos - you post enough that are like cartoons anyway - your current one with something that look like sharks teeth round your neck being an example.

      But you laugh away, don't let me stop your amusement of satirical pictures of the parents of a missing child!

      Delete
    2. look at this http://themccanngallery.blogspot.com/

      do you think a picture of Madeleine with a satirical quote "please help me I am being abused online" is funny Ros or clever satire Ros?

      Delete
    3. Björn Sundberg/Sweden10 October 2016 at 19:07

      Freedom of Speech at stake in the U K
      The British “guidelines on prosecuting cases involving communications sent via social media” are so arbitrarily formulated, that even Putin would incorporate them in the Russian legislation, if just someone would tell him that they exist.

      Delete
    4. It is straight to the point 19.04 - many would say the child, or the child's memory IS being abused online. Madeleine is the Million Dollar Baby. Her Fund raised over £4m, and a vast number of lawyers, spin doctors and journalists have lived comfortably off her name for years. Not forgetting certain charities and newspaper barons.

      If she died on 3rd May 2007, then her name and image and almost certainly being abused.

      Delete
    5. I think you are right there Bjorn, the UK's libel laws and the attempts of those who would censor the media, are a throwback to less enlightened times. And there can't be many countries so hung up with snobbery that they can't accept murder most foul by the middle classes.

      Delete
  9. @ Björn Sundberg/Sweden10 October 2016 at 19:07

    Are you having a problem understanding "doctored images to humiliate others"?

    Ros seems to think they are fine.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Björn Sundberg/Sweden11 October 2016 at 21:20

      To Anonymous 10 October 21.48
      In the art of satire, Doctored Images can be used in order to make people see absurdities in life. The McCanns’ fairy tale about Madeleine being alive and their “need” to make people look for her are all so preposterous, that we need to joke about it. If there are satirical images of Madeleine (I’m not so familiar with such, however), and the purpose is to make people question the official version of the Madeleine case, the intent is absolutely legitimate. Therefore, I have no problem to accept this form of art. It is just one of many ways of exercising one’s freedom of expression. The McCanns’ fabrication of images of Madeleine, as she would have looked like if she had been in life, are so grotesquely tasteless, as are their distribution of photos of look-alike-Madeleine girls, that no satire can make things any worse. Showing the McCanns disrespect is not the same as humiliating Madeleine

      Delete
    2. I agree Bjorn, the aged progressed images are grotesque, how the parents could contribute to them knowing what they know, sends shivers down my spine.

      Delete
  10. Oh I see that Havern has received a reply to the letter (by bennett) to the PM

    http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t13163-letter-sent-today-to-the-prime-minister-and-sir-bernard-hogan-howe-suggesting-met-police-enquiry-into-maddie-mccann-mystery-is-not-genuine#350731

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many thanks 22:07, I've taken a look and written a blog :)

      Delete
  11. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton10 October 2016 at 22:20

    You and many others believe that Madeleine died on 3/05/07.

    So when you say "If she died on 3rd May 2007, then her name and image and almost certainly being abused." you should be telling your mate Teddy to remove all his "satirical" images of her and her parents. And specifically you should not be enjoying those images.

    By the way, they have been reported.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Away with your faux outrage 22:28, your fooling no-one. If you don't like his work don't go there. Simple.

      Delete
    2. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton10 October 2016 at 22:39

      there is no outrage from me, not fuax or otherwise. I am not trying to fool anyone. His "work" is sick - you like it and it reveals so much about you.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 10 October 2016 at 22:28

      FYI

      The McCann's lawyer, Isabel Duarte, responded to this latest decision by saying: "I have just learnt that the three appeal court judges have decided to overturn the original decision in favour of my clients.

      "It was a unanimous decision. The original decision has been revoked.

      "I and the McCanns are obviously disappointed but I am not surprised because one of the judges ruled in favour of a previous appeal overturning a ban on the book."


      http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/madeliene-mccann-portuguese-detective-wins-appeal-against-500000-mccann-family-libel-defeat-a6991926.html

      The last thing the McCanns need is your 'reporting'.

      Delete
    4. 22:53 You carry on reading your 'state' approved books, and watching your state approved films and decorate your house with tasteful pictures of fluffy wuffy bunny wabbits if you like. But please do not try to inflict your very limited tastes and oath of obedience onto the rest of us.

      You seem to think Gerry and Kate McCann should be above criticism and above the Law. Even royal babies are satirized, yet you demand Gerry and Kate should be exempt?

      Unfortunately, it is Gerry and Kate's insistence (accompanied by legal actions)on a one sided narrative, that attracts artists who are driven to expose the truth through their art. Especially when a story is being buried by the MSM.

      Delete
  12. do you think a picture of Madeleine with a satirical quote "please help me I am being abused online" is funny Ros or clever satire Ros?

    ReplyDelete
  13. There have been times through history when it is has been difficult, if not impossible, to get the truth into the public domain. The arts have always been used to send out political and subversive (?) messages.

    You judge satire as sick because that is your interpretation of it. It is all a matter of aesthetics, you might sit happily through a Saw movie, whilst others are throwing up.

    Who is to judge what is aesthetically pleasing or aesthetically disgusting? The banning of images is not quite as cut and dried as you seem to imagine.

    Gerry and Kate McCann choose to be in the public eye, and like everyone else in the public eye, that makes them subject to whatever the public's reaction might be. They cannot demand people like them.

    They are known as parents who's child disappeared while they were at a bar, and parents who would not co-operate with the police. They are not likeable people, and no law in the land will change that.

    ReplyDelete