Sunday, 18 June 2017


Unfortunately, such is the nature of Public Inquiries, we don't get to shout 'whitewash' until it's all over.  In the meanwhile, we are all told to shut up and let them get on with it.  It is a government's most effective tool to remove a controversial issue from the public arena and a way in which to avoid awkward questions that might incriminate them.  I don't claim to know much about Public Inquiries, but from my own memory of them, they are usually set up by an incumbent government and usually end with the incumbent government clearing itself of all liability at some time in the future when the world has moved on. 

We all witnessed the speed at which Grenfell turned into a towering inferno, we all know that the tenants fears were ignored by their management agency and the Local Authority.  Theresa May's Chief of Staff (voted OUT by the public), was the former Housing Minister who not only sat on the recommendations of the Coroner for a previous tower block fire, but along with all of his colleagues (mostly landlords) voted against legislation to make homes fit for human habitation. 

Let there be no doubt, this massacre, was the result of GREED, pure and simple.  Who opted for the £2 cheaper, flammable panels?  And who approved them?  Who was responsible for discarding Building Regulations in order to increase profit?  We might not know names at the moment, but we do know a Tory housing management team, a Tory Local Authority, and a Tory Government created all the conditions for a major disaster.   In a nutshell, they put profit above human life

There is every reason to fear Theresa May's Public Inquiry will be a cover up and her assurance that the Inquiry will report to HER directly, isn't helping.  What she really wants is the time and breathing space to create a false narrative, one in which the blame will eventually be placed on the 'feckless' tenants one way or another, probably culminating in a smoking ban in all social housing.   The work to change the narrative has already begun with the sister of Boris Johnson claiming the PM is just as much a victim as those who died in the fire, together with a sly dig at the Fire Brigade - they approved the works she said.  If her little chat with LBC was approved by Theresa May, then it's clear there is no remorse, and she is looking for a scapegoat.   

The PM weeps only for herself.  She found it so easy to make difficult decisions that she boasted about it.  She revelled in her persona of Iron Lady mark II and was proud of her reputation as a 'bloody difficult woman'.  She slashed her way through all the public services designed to protect society's most vulnerable without so much as a flinch.  There's 'no magic money tree' she told a nurse on BBQT, who's take home hasn't changed since 2009.  We must offer immediate financial aid to those Tory colleagues who lost their seats, she said days later without any sense of her own hypocrisy. 

Difficult decisions that kill numbers and statistics are easy for Theresa May, she could press that nuclear button without a moment's hesitation.  So too she can take thousands off benefits because mental health problems are not a medical disability. She has no problem with children going hungry, people sleeping on the streets or being charged exorbitant rent for properties not fit for human habitation. Theresa May is crumbling now because every evil decision she ever made is coming back to haunt her.  She can't reach out to those suffering directly from her difficult decisions, because (finally) she is ridden with guilt. Up until now, she has been able to view all those lives she has wrecked as collateral damage, the price SHE is willing to pay to protect the wealthiest in society.  Those Landlords and Employers who guffawed at the sweeping away of tenants and employees right and who look forward to tearing up the rulings from the European Court of Human Rights.

Now Theresa May and her Government of ex public schoolboys who are proud members of a Club that has burning a £50 note in front of a homeless person as an initiation ceremony, will be held to account for the grubby scams that led to this manmade humanitarian disaster.  The concrete tower blocks filled with social housing tenants spoiled the view of the wealthy tenants in the surrounding areas.  There is little to dispute that the refurbishment was cosmetic, nothing to do with the concerns of those who lived there and more to do with house prices. 

A Public Inquiry will allow Theresa May et all, to completely avoid the question of who is to blame.  She will let us know in 3/4 years time when the Inquiry is concluded.  Meanwhile those Councils opting for Contractors who use cheaper flammable materials in their multi million pound social housing refurbishments can carry on.  They will continue to pass their planning applications and sign off their Building Certificates, because in the Tories' sweeping away of regulations, pretty much anything goes as long as it is profitable.  We have entered a new era where we can expect a Trump Tower in every town and village. 

The current 'we won't know until the end of the Inquiry' simply won't do.  In the richest borough of London, hundreds of people, were burned to death in front of the eyes of the world.  We ALL saw those cladding panels go up like cinder, there is no room for doubt or 'wait and see'.  And what was going on with the internal doors?  I had a friend who lived in tower block in New Cross.  She was on one of the top floors, but I always felt 'as safe as houses' within her home.  Her front door was at least 6 inches thick, and completely impenetrable by man, beast or fire.  At one time, there was a fire 3 floors below her - the flat was completely burned out, but my friend's biggest grievance was the soot on her curtains! 

To those marching I would say, make your demands absolutely clear.  In my opinion, every borough in the UK should be tearing down the plastic they wrapped around their previously safe tower blocks now.  If I were a resident in a block with the same cladding, I would immediately buy a fire extinguisher (though the Councils should issue them), and I would keep those death trap panels permanently soaked, because sure as eggs is eggs, the arguments over who pays for the work could drag the issue on for months or even years.  Some no doubt, will already be suggesting upping the rents to pay for it.

To those fighting for justice for the Grenfell Tower victims, get your demands straight and get organised!  Between you, you probably have a good idea of how many people are unaccounted for.  Use social media to get the truth out there.  There are no official statistics from 'the establishment' - not knowing how many survived, and who survived, adds to the fear and speculation.   

as to how many died.  I personally think the playing down of the numbers dead, will be among the scandals revealed when the Inquiry eventually ends and no-one cares anyone.  That's why the public should be informed now.  There is a real battle between fake news and real news at the moment, and the fake stuff is losing.  Everyone has iphones these days, any attempts by this tory government to put the blame on the poor guy with the dodgy fridge or those smoking weed is dead in the water.  The fire spread because the Tory Council wrapped the social housing in flammable plastic to make the view more aesthetically pleasing to their voters.  In 4 years time they will say the idea is absurd, so let's remember it now, before it gets buried. 

*   How many people are missing?  This figure seems to be absent from all media reports.  As an onlooker, the nearest I have heard to a 'figure' is the 172 live calls to emergency services, where the traumatised responders had to tell callers to stay in their  flats and the equally traumatised fireman had to accept they couldn't rescue them. 

*   It is imperative that those who survived Grenfell Tower be rehoused within the same postcode.  Those marching right now have a voice, and that voice must be used to prevent social engineering which is designed to rid affluent areas of those who would lower property prices by their presence.  It IS a class issue, begun with the bedroom tax, and pursued with a war on the indigenous Londoners not in the  5 figure earning bracket.  Remember the end goal of this ideology, is gated communities and tent cities.

*   At the moment emotions are high - ergo, this is the time in which to make demands that WILL be met.  Transparency would be a good place to start.  If the 'Inquiry' for example, should start to wander off into the realms of tenants' anti social behaviour and they brought this on themselves - the tenants should be allowed to say, 'wtf the you lying bastards' and it should be annotated alongside the expert opinion.   

Theresa May is right in that lessons need to be learned, what she hasn't grasped is the fact that it is she who needs to learn them. 

Friday, 9 June 2017


The gloaters who post here, are, as expected having their day, but there are no tears from me.  On the contrary, for the first time in decades I am filled with hope.  Jeremy Corbyn has won over more seats than any Labour leader since Clement Attlee.  He has started a Movement that has spread the length and breadth of the UK - and not only has he proved his critics wrong, he has won them over. 

Theresa May has literally ripped the rug from under herself and her party.  The tories already had a majority, she did not need to call an election, and history will probably record her error as vanity.  It was HER campaign, her tagline was 'vote for ME'.  She wanted the public to give her free reign to handle the Brexit negotiations as SHE wanted without informing the public of what she was doing.   

The public have overwhelming rejected Theresa.  Yes, her personally, because that was her USP.  She arrogantly believed the electorate would support her (hidden) manifesto without knowing what it was.  And then she thought she could hide away (pretending) to do 'Brexit stuff' while the plebs fought it out at the hustings.  

Hard Brexit, as illustrated by the total collapse of UKIP and the 29 Labour gains.  She cannot now go into Brexit negotiations with the unweildy hand she wanted and the alliance she has made with the Ulster Unionists won't help her - they don't want the same Brexit she does.   

Most, if not all, of the commentators I have heard today, have predicted another election, probably within a year.  Now imagine what last night's result would have been if Jeremy Corbyn had had the support of his PLP and a fair, unbiased press?  That won't be a problem with the next election.  The Labour Right have accepted Jeremy's anti austerity and public investment policies as the way forward, and they will be fighting for them in the next election.  Blairism is over.  The Labour Party have a new  'winning formula', they have returned to their core voters and their core values and despite all the naysayers, it is working.  Granted the MSM probably won't change, but they are rapidly being overtaken by social media and on the ball news websites.  The days when Rupert Murdoch could influence a General Election are over..  

But I promised Reasons to be Cheerful and here they are:

1.  Theresa May does not have the authority of the British people to tell our European friends and neighbours to pee off and her negotiations will have to be open and transparent.

2,   TM does not have the authority to go for a Hard Brexit - her new best buds do not agree with it.

3.   TM cannot push through her policies for social care or cut the heating allowance for the elderly.  Her new best buds don't agree with that either.

4.  Now the PLP are moving over towards Jeremy's ideology, TM will no longer be able to push through further cuts or sell off the NHS.  Like Trump, she will have the job title, but no power.

5.  The UK have now seen Jeremy Corbyn as the honest, caring and passionate politician that he is, rather than the frenzied newspaper coverage that portrayed him as some kind of revolutionary threat to everything British. 

6.   Jeremy Corbyn is going nowhere.  He gets knocked down, he gets back up again - and everytime he gets back up again, he is stronger.  We all have much to learn from him.  Maybe that is what makes him so formidable - Theresa May has visibly crumbled before our eyes, unwilling to face him head to head. 

7.  And not the last by any means.  We are not facing 5 years of weak and wobbly Theresa and the small party of NI extremists she is cosying up to. Her days are numbered, there will be another election and the tories will self combust if they keep her as leader.  Matters not to Labour whether TM stays on or not.  The Movement has begun, the face of British Politics has changed, this is just the beginning.  


Tuesday, 30 May 2017


After watching Theresa May's weak and wobbly performance on the Jeremy Paxman interviews last night, it is astonishing that anyone could trust this unlikeable woman to negotiate anything.  In the suit she wore to meet 'Loadsa Money' President Trump, she patronised the audience with her 'I know best' but she was left without words when the inhumane consequences of her 'difficult decisions' were laid bare by the policeman, the midwife and the teacher.   Like a robot with a loose connection and no spanner, her set replies and her hard beady eyes spun out of control.  By the end she looked flustered and unhinged as she launched her new slogan 'No deal is better than a bad deal'.  A couple of xenophobes shouted 'yes' and one man stood up to applaud then sheepishly sat down again, (son shouted 'splitter') as the camera panned out - but it was clear, the word we came away with was disaster.  

Jeremy Corbyn by contrast, engaged with the audience, he took the time and trouble to win them over.  Not with fuzzy talk about a national debt that is being heaped on society's poorest, but with a positive message of hope.  Things don't have to be this way.  He remained poised and relaxed throughout, confident that he had done his homework and confident in his ability to transform the lives of millions. 

Theresa May spoke about Europe as if they are they are enemy!  Jeremy Corbyn spoke about Europe as friends.  The message that we want to continue our friendship with our nearest neighbours, could not have been clearer in the aftermath of the Brexit vote.  Even those who voted to quit the Union, didn't want to fall with out them!  
Our friendship with Europe has kept us in peace and prosperity and prosperity since WWII, safe in the knowledge that we may be a small island, but the nearest continent has got our backs. 

With her hard Brexit, Theresa May is causing unnecessary hostility and conflict and as any historian will tell you, that kind of negotiation technique never ends well.  Like Donald Trump, Theresa May cut an isolated figure at the recent NATO summit, she is making us friendless.  Cosying up to Trump has done her no favours, Angela Merkel has now said Europe can no longer rely on the USA and the UK.  Who the hell wanted that?

In trying to appease that very, very, small section of British society who blame everything on immigration,  she is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  We don't want to be offshore island of Trump's America, or a tax haven for the world's greediest.  We are an advanced, mostly educated, society, we LIKE our multicultural society, we welcome diversity.  Donald Trump played the 'immigration card' that is he appealed to those who held xenophobic and isolationist views.  Though not so obvious, Theresa May is doing the same - that is she hopes to pick up those Nigel fans who can't take to Paul. 

But let's cut to the chase.  You would literally have to have been born yesterday, if you think sending an uncompromising hard nosed battleaxe into delicate negotiations with 27 nations,  we really want to keep as friends, is a good idea.  She has called this snap election because she has already failed.  She wants public backing for NO DEAL because she is too authoritarian and belligerent to make one.  That is, when she takes her ball home and says 'I'm not playing anymore' she will have the backing of all the UK citizens she has just tarred with the same petulant brush.  

Monday, 22 May 2017


For anyone wondering why I am not commenting on the horror of the Manchester bombing, I'm honestly to afraid of what I might say right now.  Meanwhile, my kindest thoughts and prayers to all those affected and huge praise to the emergency services and the medics. 


Apologies for my lack of participation lately, but I am afraid right now I feel all 'McCanned' or maybe even, all 'Ziggied' out.  I am not sure he has convinced anyone, but he has certainly worn me down.  I suspect he spent a former life marching around the walls of Jericho. 

I don't believe Gerry, Kate or any of their helpers.  And neither I, nor indeed anyone, should be afraid to say that.  It certainly shouldn't be a criminal offence, despite all the lobbying by the former head of CEOP and the McCann Campaign.  Make no mistake, among the many branches that have sprung from the name of the missing child, has been the Movement to curtail freedom of speech on social media.  Not only were the McCanns victims of a heinous crime, they were victims of the savage media and the lunatic trolls online.

Then we have the dreaded 'P' word - even typing the word draws us to the attention of those dedicated police agencies and vigilantes who's job it is to spy us on 24/7.  The Government and the Establishment have managed to convince us that our kids are in constant danger online and there are Paedophiles all around us.  How many lives are wrecked by nonsensical accusations, and does anybody care?  It is impossible to have a reasoned discussion about paedophilia, because, in the 21st Century, the subject is so taboo, no-one knows anything about it!  The real experts, the psychologists, the academics, dare not contradict the accepted, and dominant ideology.  It would be career suicide.

The public wants, neh demands, an evil villain to despise and the easiest way to rally an angry mob, is to scream 'think of the children'.  Our need to protect our young is primal, it brings out our savage instincts, but not always in a good way.  The old fella who smiles at a child, or God forbid, gives them a sweet, is not out to brutalise them or murder them ffs, he probably just likes kids!  Single people, men especially, daren't go sit in the park!  Had Wordsworth stood and admired the daffodils these days, he would been frogmarched into a police car and had his mugshot taken.

But it is not a joking matter.  While we are all focussed on a suspected paedophile gang in an internet café in Bagdad, our kids are in real physical danger from 1) their own parents 2) a new partner/friend 3) a professional 4) any number of creeps who go into childcare so they can have access to kids. And the primary reason 'creeps' want access to children is because they are sadists.  Why sexual abuse is so highly prioritised over physical abuse astounds me!  Beat a child on a daily basis and that's life.  Ask an abused child which they prefer? 

That we are all looking the wrong way is quite an achievement.  From an economic perspective, it is far easier, and vote winning, to go after the public's choice of enemy.  The loner, the misfit, the socially inept, the idiots who will say yes to every expert's theory because they have found someone gullible enough to listen to them.  Those willing to appear on TV (albeit in a shadow) fitting the exact profile of the expert with a book to sell or a cause he needs funding for. 

The subject of child abuse is much the same as the subject of marijuana.  That is, the public are being sold a big fat lie.  Tony Blair commissioned a report on the effects of marijuana from Professor David Nutt, then sacked him when he didn't supply the report he wanted.  He also commissioned Operation Ore, a police operation based on a report from the USA that revealed thousands of alleged paedophiles accessing online child pornography with their credit cards.  That thousands of these credit card details were stolen, made no difference to all those who's lives were wrecked and who's kids were seized and taken into care.  Or those 39 men who committed suicide.  This little atrocity, Tony Blair heartily approved of. 

If 'they' truly wanted to tackle child abuse, they would be confronting child poverty and the cuts to the frontline child services.  Where are the crocodile tears for those kids returning from school to empty homes, empty fridges and no electric?   It is easy to see why the Bogeyman is just as big in the 21st century, as it was in the 19th.  

But I should at least mention the McCanns.  I think they are enduring their own kind of hell, and always will.  They have built their own prison - they must always live up to the phoney characters they created, never daring to allow their masks to slip.  Maybe as a writer, I understand their prison more than most.  It is the reason I created my 'unbound' blog.  As a former Catholic, I remember the agonies of 'my sins finding me out', tossing and turning through the night, torturing myself over which one of my 'so called' mates would spill the beans.  I can't go so far as to say I feel sympathy for Gerry and Kate, they have been too vindictive towards myself and others for that, but I do pity them.  The greatest freedom we have is to just be ourselves, complete with foibles and flaws. 

Unfortunately, the kind of obsessive creeps they attract online are but a small sample of humanity in any situation or environment.  That is, Gerry and Kate can never get away from it.  There will always be people out there who cannot and will not believe their account of what happened to their daughter.  There will always be armchair detectives, and there will always be those who are just as tenacious as themselves.  Those who have made it a personal vendetta, and who will never give up.  For them, it is personal.

For myself, I am still trying to accept the fact that the good guy doesn't always win.  I don't know if our society is more blatantly corrupt than it ever was before, or if I am just able to see things more clearly now.  At least this darn case has taught me something!   

At the moment, there is way too much going on the world to be discussing the Gerry lookalike carrying the Madeleine lookalike through the streets of PDL just as she went missing.  What happened on 3rd May 2007 was probably an unforeseen tragedy (though all the signs were there), but the unseemly haste of government officials and British police agencies to turn this particular tragedy into major marketing tool (like her dad and her family) has shamed this Country. 

The name of Madeleine has been exploited in so many ways, by so many, the list of defendants would be incalculable.  And it was probably this calculation that changed, or established, the whole course of Operation Grange.  I hope that I am wrong, but common sense may well be kicking in.  A police operation that is leading up to arrests and prosecution, logically thinking, would get bigger not smaller.  Operation Grange has dwindled down to just one office by the sounds of it. 

For the moment at least, those who would bring in new Laws to spy on us and curb our Freedom of Speech screaming 'think of the children' don't have the powers they yearn for. Sadly, that situation is precarious.  There are still Labour MPs jumping onto the CSA 'let's root out aged celebrities' bandwagon with a vigour rarely seen when dealing with real issues.  Not to mention all those MPs who want their critics removed from twitter.

I am beginning to see now that this case won't finish with a truthful ending.  I guess there are just way too many people involved, people who, at the very least, obstructed the Law.  I doubt very much Operation Grange are going to tear down any institutions, their task force has shrunk, it hasn't grown bigger, and it hasn't opened any new investigations.  The Madeleine Fund, for example, continues as it ever did, and the police continue to work on behalf of the family.  The major news networks still portray and sympathise with the parents as victims and politicians, especially by the look of that letter from Richard Benyon MP to the cesspit!  I had to take a peek, could anyone blame him for not reading that tedious shite?  - written by Bennett pretending to be an anonymous member, lol.  Mr. Benyon was spot on with his response!

I have no personal interest in making the lives of the family hell, as I mentioned above, they have done that to themselves.  My sympathy lies with those who have been the target of the McCanns aggressive campaign, Goncalo Amaral especially.  I feel morally obliged to comment on their vindictiveness towards this honourable man and the madness of their vendetta, heaven knows someone's got to.  A long running legal case doesn't just affect the disputing parties, it affects their families and all around them.  A case based on spite will never end well.

In the hours that followed the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, this case became so much more than a simple missing child case.  It opened up a cause celebre, Madeleine was every child (our own beloved cherubs), the parents are nice (just like us), they are responsible (they're not), we are all at risk (we aren't).  And thus begins the false narrative.  At this late stage it is literally impossible for anyone to say the parents were involved.  It would be like saying Santa's a paedo, who climbs down chimneys to steal kids.  No-one wants to hear that. 

We have all been witness to one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in this country's history.  But I suppose the truth is, like generations who have gone before, we will have to accept that power and money tops truth and justice.  The disappearance of one small child pales to insignificance when contrasted to the sea of corruption that surrounds it.  For me it is not just that those responsible for that poor child's disappearance have got away with it, so too have all those who perpetuated the lie for their own ends.  Especially those who made this case 'Britain versus Portugal' who would prefer to waste £12million of taxpayers money rather than admit they were wrong and the Portuguese cop was right.


Thursday, 4 May 2017


Well, what to to make of last night's BBC1 Panorama produced by Richard Bilton?   Richard claims the Portuguese police and the British police reached different conclusions, and he presents the documentary in two parts.  Part One, the evidence of the Portuguese Police that made Gerry and Kate arguidoes. 

For the first time. the UK saw the evidence gathered by the original investigation, along with a number of finer details that the McCann propaganda machine had suppressed.  There was no break in, the only fingerprints on the bedroom window were Kate's and Goncalo Amaral confirmed an abduction was impossible.  And I am sure Team McCann could have done without the footage of the cadaver and blood dogs and the footage of the beautiful and charismatic Sandra Felgueres, who I am sure will send thousands rushing to YouTube. 

Speaking (forcefully) on behalf of Gerry and Kate, we have McCann Family Spokesman Clarence Mitchell explaining the parents went against police advice regarding the media, because, well, err,  Brits know better.  Next we have the British investigator brought in to assist the Portuguese police, Jim Gamble.  As a bit of stickler for semantics, I can see what they did there.  Jim went in as an investigator, not as Head of CEOP then?  No mention either of Clarence being a government spokesman.  Jim went hmmmm at the beginning (his policeman's instinct), but as time went on he became convinced the parents were not involved  - but no examples of what convinced him.  Clarence of course stuck with the ludicrous trail and ffs, they are Doctors!  He didn't use the 'F' bomb of course, but the beads of sweats on his brow, said it for him. 

The case against the McCanns is tempered with the words of Clarence and Jim.  Kate was quite right not to answer those 48 questions, Clarence reaffirms.  Jim, though not quite willing to degrade the work of his former colleagues in the Canine Units, stresses that sniffer dogs can't talk and their evidence can provide an indication but it's not evidence.  Richard implies the findings of the dogs are not valid, the forensic evidence didn't support the dogs, and then he shows pages of forensic results listing 'weak and inclusive'.  He doesn't mention the samples lost by the British Forensic Team, nor the fact that 'weak and inconclusive' could well mean, scrubbed with bleach.  So that's it.  The dogs are out.  The niceness of the couple, far outweighs the years of carefully selected breeding and training of the world's most incredible EVRD dogs.  All those 'good boy/ girl' compliments have been withdrawn, and they have been sent to sit the corner. 

Richard begins Part II, with the collapse of the Portuguese case.  The evidence of the Smith family he casually dismisses with, too many witnesses saw Gerry at the Ocean Club for him to have been the man seen by the Family.  Well that's news.  Did the Crimewatch appeal bring forward new witnesses who saw Gerry at the Ocean Club?  Because when the PJ shelved their file, the question was still wide open.  That's why they wanted a reconstruction.   But, moving on, he adds, the Smith Family, who have maintained a dignified silence for 10 years, have changed their position, they no longer think it was Gerry.  Two pretty big developments in the McCann World, but heavily underplayed there by Richard. 

He also includes a long section on how 'they couldn't have done it'.  They were being watched by the eyes and ears of the world, it simply isn't plausible, claims Richard, who is clearly not a fan of Sherlock Holmes.  Anything's possible.  The idea of a burglar sticking his head in the window, calling Madeleine over and lifting her out (Heriberto) he accepts, but the parents who had full access to the window and the child and were the last to see her, he dismisses as implausible.  No bias there.

Interviewing Jose Socrates may have been a major coup, but he gives one of those 'well he would say that, wouldn't he' answers.  He is a high flying politician, and he is treating Goncalo Amaral and indeed, the interview, as inconsequential.  There, there Richard, I understand your concerns, but leave it to the grown ups. 

Unlike, those vulnerable men who have been hounded in the name  of Madeleine McCann for over two years.  Richard's interviewing of those Portuguese suspects made uncomfortable viewing, particularly Suspect 4, who has also been ruled out.  It should be said here that those 4 men were never suspects in the eyes of the PJ.  The seemingly British desire to blame the loss of Madeleine on someone foreign and of a lower social class is one of the more sickening (and evil) aspects of this case.  Whilst you had no shame harassing that poor man on his boat Richard, I felt it for you and I'm pretty certain many others did too.  He lost his job!  He repeated it several times, but you switched off.  'Did you have anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance?', Richard persisted. 

May your Gods forgive you Richard.  You are willing to entertain all sorts of malicious accusations against a hard working Portuguese man who was just happened to be on reception duty on the night.  He loved his job, he was proud of it.  What made him a suspect?  Like millions of hotel receptionists the world over, he had keys to the apartments.  Sufficient evidence for Richard to track him down and torment him.  The message here is, it's OK to accuse people in lowly jobs of heinous crimes on the flimsiest of evidence, but not professionals, ie. doctors who have crate loads of circumstantial evidence stacked up against them.  In those circumstances, such accusations become heinous crimes in themselves and sees accusers in the dock (they wish).  The idea that the two doctors were involved is implausible according to Richard.  The idea that this man, simply because he had access to keys, could have done it, presumably, is plausible. And thus, the bottom of the barrel has been scraped. 

I was going to leave it there, but it should be pointed out that the 4 men tracked down by Richard Bilton and the Panorama Team quite clearly do not have the means or resources to defend themselves or launch multimillion pound libel claims against the BBC.  Just thought I'd mention that.  And here's a wild card.  Watching that interview Richard had with one of the witnesses, brought sorrowful memories of The Hunchback of Notre Damn to mind.  No disrespect to the poor guy, but that gut wrenching realisation that the public can so quickly be turned against society's most vulnerable breaks my heart.  Suspect 4 has also been ruled out by Operation Grange.  And he was ruled out in time for Panorama to change the ending of the documentary.  That is, their cliff hanger was no longer valid, but they went with it anyway. 

But let's return to the defence of the McCanns.  Bizarrely, Heriberto Janosch turned up as an expert witness.  Unfortunately, his comic voice reflects his comic scribblings.  I'd give Panorama a D and wtf were you thinking for that one.   I would imagine experts with credible abduction theories are thin on the ground.  But seriously Richard, HJ kind of damages your credibility here as too does the woman in purple - particularly by all those who have read the PJ files, and we are legion.   
But let's move from the comic moment to the chilling one.  'Even at first glance' Commander Simon Foy says, with deep breaths and much exaggeration, 'the McCanns themselves had nothing at all to do with the disappearance', 'they were where they said they were when the child went missing', he concludes.

Deputy Director of the Policia Judiciaria, Pedro du Cormo I liked.  Unlike his British counterparts, he is not persecuting innocent men.  'I cannot tell you what I think', he tells Richard with the kind of charm that is lacking in British Chiefs.  But like them, he confirms the parents aren't suspects.  I doubt though, that that has left Gerry and Kate reassured. The Portuguese investigation has no deadline and Pedro's clearly holding lots back.

'You know more about this case than almost anyone else', Richard opines, 'Do you think in your heart it will be solved?', 'if it depended on my heart, the case would already have been solved' Pedro replies.  Oodles of charm of course, but an overload of duping delight nevertheless.  'It depends on our minds' he concludes with a wry grin. 

If there is a hint from the documentary as to how this case will conclude, then it probably lies in all those police chiefs stating categorically that the McCanns' weren't involved.  It is with a huge gulp that I type, I was wrong, it is possible to keep a big fat lie going, naivety on my part, the Vatican have been doing it for centuries.  There is a lot more colluding going on in this world that I ever dreamed of. 

It is honestly beginning to look as though the entire purpose of Operation Grange was to find the ways and means in which to blame a foreigner.  They have discarded the evidence collected by the Portuguese, actually, they probably haven't even looked at it.  'Even at first glance' it was obvious the McCanns weren't involved, according to Commander Foy - I can't help wondering if he would have felt the same if the mugshots had been of a couple of rejects from Jeremy Kyle. 

I hope that I am wrong (again).  My faith in human nature took an almighty knock as I  realised there was no abductor.  The idea that so many police officers could be involved in the cover up of child's death, would just about finish it off.    

Sunday, 30 April 2017



Once again, The Sun wades in with another 'McCanns are Innocent Gettit!' article courtesy of Lauren Freun, who appears to know nothing about this case, writing copy for people who know even less 

The Woman in Purple is well known in the McCann cannon and generally thought to be Jane Tanner.  She is mentioned in the statements of both Jenny Murat and Jez Wilkins.  Many think she was acting as a lookout. There is no mention of a uniform (watch out PDL nannies - you're next), but Ms. Freun has, with the assistance of forensic psychologist Mike Berry evolved this 10 year old sighting (and new lead for Scotland Yard) into a predatory woman who disguises herself as a nurse/nanny in order to steal or sexually abuse small children.  The socially inferior, nurses, nannies, etc, are invisible to regular people Mike Berry informs us, to explain the fact that SHE has not had a mention in ten years.  Charming. 

I have just watched the Mark Rowley's interview/statement, and I have to say I am feeling almost as deflated as Bjorn.   Mark Rowley is a difficult one for my mentalist (lol) abilities.  He is of course everything you would expect from a high ranking police officer, confident, no nonsense, and authoritative.  Senior police officers are devoid of character and personality, they can't throw in the odd gag here and there or wear a jaunty hat. 

He says leadS and lineS - the 's' on the end makes all the difference.  And they are not new ones.  He also kindly explains to those of us rolling on the floor laughing at the 'burglars' theory, that it is actually quite sensible and we need to cut it out.  His eagerness to stress the world 'abduction' troubles me.  '......she didn't go off to start a new life' (bizarre).  If she died in the apartment, the word 'abduction' isn't applicable.  

The word abduction however, is a valuable commodity.  It increases police funding and has led to all sorts of crisis management and PR industries.  The idea that victims of crime and suspects, should launch publicity campaigns is, perhaps, the new way forward.  Keeping the abduction theory (and Madeleine) alive may still have a lot of mileage left, which is why this interview left me somewhat chilled.   

Anyway, in case Ziggy and his equally dim sidekicks fail to pick out the key statements, (and they already have), let me assist.  'There is no definitive evidence' - repeated several times by MR and almost as good as Gerry's 'nooooo evidence' which really does need replacing.  In a nutshell, Madeleine could be alive and he rules the parents out.  'All that was dealt with by the original investigation and no need to re-open'.  And 'the McCanns are parents of a missing girl'. 'The evidence gathered by the original investigation is concluded' - they are not going over it.   Actually, scrap that one, because they are obviously not challenging it either. 

Each statement however, probably deliberately, is open to several interpretations.  Given that the parents blame the Portuguese police for their botched investigation, MR has just effectively said, 'it was OK, nothing to challenge there'.  As we know, that original investigation included the findings of the dogs, all the original statements and the naming of Robert Murat and Gerry McCann as the only Arguidos.  MR has stated that there is no reason to go over the original investigation.  At this point I would imagine, the McCanns would like to hear there is EVERY reason to go over the original investigation,  because as pointed out recently by the Portuguese Supreme Court, the original investigation did NOT clear them. 

Despite everything Mark Rowley said in this interview, he did not say the PJ got it wrong.   And he needed to, because without making that clear, we can only assume Operation Grange picked up where the interrupted investigation left off.  He did say however, that they had a huge response to their 4 Crimewatch programs, and among the thousands of leads were a few nuggets.  Nugget is a great word, it has all sorts of connotations, but for those who are the subject of those critical leads, I doubt they are good ones. 

I think this case is now heading towards conclusion, but as wizened as I am, I still couldn't say with 100% certainty, that truth will ever be the victor here.  There seems to be an active campaign by the Media to convince the public that the McCanns are innocent,  The stories are too screwball to be anything other than fabrication.  This week we have Nanny McPhee's evil twin prowling the Algarve unseen, a man with BO climbing into bed with little British girls and burglars who forgot what they broke in for.  I'm amazed PDL hasn't been renamed 'The Village of the Damned'.   

Mark Rowley's support for Kate and Gerry I think, was one in the eye to the eejits out there doing their own investigations, and to people like myself who have the affront to question the word of The Sun.  He's too scary a fellow to question whether he is lying or not, I'm guessing not, simply by comparing his confidence to the McCanns' timidity.  But his words are carefully chosen, they are intended to stamp down on speculation, especially from the media, who are publishing Madeleine stories daily

The words of Mark Rowley don't fit my own theory that the McCanns are not co-operating.  Ouch.  But I'm not ready to abandon it yet.  'We are not following that line of enquiry' is not the same as 'we have ruled the parents out' and those are the words Gerry and Kate are longing to hear.  In 6 years, OG have never given any reasons to explain why the parents and the group closest to Madeleine have been ruled out.  Eg. Their statements match, they have passed polygraphs, the findings of the dogs were a grave error.  Any of which could have relieved much of the parents' suffering, and indeed may have assisted them in their claims for damages in Lisbon.

On the face of it, it appears that Scotland Yard have just given Gerry and Kate a huge vote of support, but on closer examination, like everything else in this case, nothing is quite what it seems. 


 I have just watched Gerry and Kate's 10th Anniversary interview with Fiona Bruce, and it made somewhat uncomfortable viewing.  Had the interviewees been wired up to a lie detector, it would have flown off the scale several times.  But kudos to them, I may not find them likeable, but no-one can question their courage. 
As sympathetic as Fiona was, she did not avoid questions about their massive loss in Portugal's highest court, or the one significant lead remaining.  Gerry fluffs his reply, but it becomes clear that he and Kate are not privy to details of the investigation.  Some might say, quite rightly of course, but these are parents who have been living on a knife's edge for 10 years, leaving victims out of the loop seems incredibly cruel.  Imagine for example, the parents of a murdered child having to rely on public announcements from the police for updates, to put this into perspective.
These are instances where a lie detector would have peaked btw, but all 3 managed to downplay their significance and focus on the important matters, such as internet trolls.  Gerry was at least honest in acknowledging that the subject matter of Goncalo Amaral's book is no longer relevant.  GA only suggested Madeleine was dead, Scotland Yard dug up PDL. 
But this was not a bad interview from Gerry and Kate's perspective.  I think for the first time, we saw moments of real honesty, and for a while there, Kate seemed positively relaxed.  Sheer speculation here, but I imagine they are buoyed by the words of Mark Rowley this week, Gerry was itching to get them in, together with his usual mantras of no evidence and he and his wife are not suspects. 
What I picked up on was their eagerness to convince Fiona and the viewers that Madeleine was still alive.  Gerry, like Kate in her annual message, acknowledged that they were not making an appeal, but they still had hope.  They were back on safe ground while talking about children who had been rescued and found.  Gerry had tried and trusted lines on that score, such as, 'the younger the child the more chance of finding them alive', as he casually dismisses the findings of South Yorkshire Police in the case of Ben Needham.  Whatever are you suggesting Gerry?
I tend to think Gerry and Kate are odds with Scotland Yard.  Most notably on the alive or dead question.  It brings to mind the words of DCI Redwood, that I found somewhat ridiculous at the time.  It was something along the lines of following two theories, Madeleine is alive, or Madeleine is dead.  I can't find the exact words at the moment, but I feel they are relevant.
Gerry and Kate cannot or will not, accept that their daughter is dead.  Ten years on, that is weird, there I've said it.  Not only is it weird for them, but also for Fiona Bruce, the BBC - and everyone else looking forward to increased newspaper etc sales who are sharing the delusions.  'Do you still buy birthday and Christmas presents for Madeleine?', Fiona asks (I'm not  yet sure if Fiona is syrupy sweet or deadly and dangerous) but 'yes of course' Kate replies, as if it is all perfectly normal and not in the least bit creepy. 
There is so much news on the Madeleine case at the moment, that I can't comment on every piece of fake stuff, but Nick Pisa of the Sun deserves a special mention.  Goncalo Amaral is not shameless - he has nothing to be shameless about.  He is the Victor of 8 years of legal battles, he has been completely vindicated, his reputation is restored.  He is not disgraced you imbecile, he is the opposite of disgraced - the highest court in the land have ruled in his favour!   As for cashing in the 10th Anniversary, let me remind you Nick Pisa, that it was Clarence Mitchell, the McCanns spokesman who was pitching 10 year exclusives over 6 months ago! 
Ps.  is comic sans easier on the eye?

Saturday, 29 April 2017


I see Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan are back in the Sun today, giving the abduction fable everything they've got and trying their hardest to steer public sympathy back in the direction of Gerry and Kate McCann.

In their lengthy article for The Sun - I expect the hard copy is 'pull out' - they go back to all the old theories and suspects who were ruled out in 2007, and at least once a year ever since.  The article has been so carefully worded it reads like the work of a competent student reporter taking Year One exams.

Summers and Swan then return to their pet subject.  The McCanns' online attackers, just as they did in 2014 when they released their book 'Looking for Madeleine'.  The launch of their book signalled the 'fight back' from the McCanns with Gerry demanding that an example be made and Jim Gamble warning online trolls they would end up in the dock.  Jim Gamble also gets an honourable mention in the Summers and Swan article, if only Theresa May had taken up his advice.... 

Unfortunately, their ill advised 'fight back' did not turn out well.  The innocent woman they selected as a target was devastated by the public humiliation, as anyone would be.  We were all witness to one of the cruellest publicity stunts ever broadcast by a national news agency.  The public recoiled in horror.  Had Brenda Leyland lived long enough, she would have seen the support that poured in for her and the way in which this particularly vindictive style of journalism spectacularly backfired.

But returning to Jim.  His advice was to create 'a national command and control room you could contact 24/7 whether your child went missing in Birmingham, Belfast or Barcelona'.  Two questions here.  What could a national command room do, that local police (who know the area) couldn't?  And given that only two British children have disappeared overseas in 3 decades, where is the need for a 24/7 instant response team?  His idea was never taken up, but at least he has the comfort of knowing that his Madeleine report sparked off the Review that sparked off the Investigation.

The chances are both these children died in tragic accidents. Madeleine's case has been investigated for ten years and no arrests have been made.  Had there been a paedophile gang or human traffickers arrests would have been made years ago.  I don't believe any police officer could sleep at night knowing that children were being traded and tortured or sexually assaulted. 

That is why I do not believe for one moment the nonsense that little British girls were being sexually assaulted in the Algarve for years.  Summers and Swan however, are throwing their full might behind it with mind blowing sex crime statistics (against Brits) on the Algarve that nobody has ever heard about, not even the local citizens and ex pats. My questions here would be, in 2007 with the world's media, top crime and investigative journalists, camped out in PDL, how come not one of them came across this story? And why only British girls? This unknown crime wave in the Algarve does however slot in nicely with last week's anonymous nanny and the rape alarms. 

Bizarrely, Summers and Swan are still throwing their full might behind Jane Tanner's sighting.  They acknowledge that SY ruled Jane's sighting to be a father carrying his child home from the crèche.  But there may have been two men carrying children they suggest.  Try not to laugh, I couldn't help it.  Yes, another man, clearly not Gerry, walked by and given his shapeshifting abilities they are determined to hang onto him.  [who says G&K are co-operating with OG?]

But let's look at the bigger picture.  What are the common denominators:
The McCanns, The Sun, Summers and Swan, Jim Gamble.  All that is missing is Sky News and Martin Brunt and the troll hunters are reunited!

Wednesday, 26 April 2017


2015 - when the future was brighter
I agree with you John, there is something in the air.  I doubt Gerry and Kate can take much comfort from the words of Mark Rowley.  While on the face of it, he appears sympathetic to the parents, the ruling out of the Portuguese suspects to focus on one significant lead that might lead to a result, does not bode well for the actual perpetrators of the crime. 
For the real perpetrators of this crime, the words 'one significant lead left' must be ominous.  They now know the police are not looking for anyone else - they are closing in. 

But lets ignore for one moment, all the news stories and hullaballoo and look again at the odd behaviour of the McCanns. Historically, they have used almost every anniversary as an opportunity to raise awareness of Madeleine’s disappearance by doing the media rounds and the interviews.  Especially in the early years when they were releasing balloons and lanterns and holding fundraisers at Kensington roof top gardens. Anniversaries were a huge part of the Team McCann campaign - Gerry wanted an annual Madeleine Day for the World marked by concerts and sports events.  Presumably all the former anniversaries were equally unwelcome, so the message on their facebook page is a complete about turn.
Why so low profile on the biggest anniversary yet?  Only a few months ago, Clarence Mitchell was pitching 10th anniversary exclusives.  As I have said previously, he had an uphill battle there unless the McCanns were prepared to say anything new. Although the narrative has changed, every so slightly. The new buzz word is ‘hope’ - loose interpretation, 'we do not accept what we have been told'. That there is no plea from Kate to the abductor or her daughter, is not unusual, but she hides it under the guise of ‘there is no plea from Scotland Yard’. 
At around the same time Gerry and Kate told the world, for some bizarre reason, that they were moving the Fund money around in preparation for continuing the Search themselves once Scotland Yard gave up closed.  Cynics might say they were moving the money in preparation for their forthcoming loss in the Lisbon Civil Courts.  Regardless, they were planning to pick up where they left off when Scotland Yard intervened. 
However, the idea that Madeleine is still alive, has, it would appear, been completely quashed.  Whilst that doesn’t rule out abduction.   ‘If the world believes Madeleine is dead, no-one will look for her’ (Kate) has been the premise of every battle the McCanns have fought.  Completely understandable, but begs the question, why didn’t the parents co-operate with the police so they could be ruled out?  At the time they were made suspects, they had the full backing of the great British Empire behind them.  No-one was going to beat a confession out of them and with the eyes of the world watching they were not going to be framed.  Had they allowed themselves to be ruled out, the police could have concentrated on the abductor and we wouldn't all be here 10 years on.    
The search for a live Madeleine has sustained their Campaign, their Fund and their reputations. Madeleine being officially acknowledged as dead, is probably the stuff of their worst nightmares.  Fortunately, they found a reporter on the other side of the world, willing to remind us of the names and faces of kids who have been rescued from captivity. As if being held in a dungeon and tortured for 10 years was a desirable option for a missing 3 year old.   Why are they pushing the idea that Madeleine is alive in Australia?  Why not here in the UK, or even in Portugal?
In the past Gerry and Kate never missed an opportunity to give an interview or appear on television.  Doing 'media' was their thing because they had a product to sell - or if that is too unkind, they had a cause.  They were forced into the limelight by their predicament, they did not seek fame and fortune for themselves.  I have to say at this point, as I watched Gerry and Kate surrounded by paparazzi in those very early days, I could see them becoming hooked.  The force is strong is some people, lol.  What I am trying to say, badly, is that the parents had morally sound reasons to stay in front of the cameras and pose for photoshoots rather than the usual fame and fortune.  They are among the noble heroes and heroines of real life who make up large segments of morning television.  No 'You must love me' narcissism there. 
This anniversary has taken an unexpected turn, the formerly eager parents now see the date as too painful a reminder of their loss.  So what has changed from a few months ago, when Clarence was pitching exclusives?  Several options: 1) there were no offers 2) interviewers would not accept their terms 3) they can no longer say Madeleine is alive and findable.  I lean towards option 3) because it is the myth that Madeleine is alive that has kept them afloat this past ten years. 
It may be that Scotland Yard are shortly to release a statement, Mark Rowley has already released a titbit - they have one significant lead left.  I feel if Gerry and Kate were confident the 'one significant lead' wasn't them, they would be appearing on all the breakfast shows and in the Sunday supplements - if they still exist.  Kate's message this year is a sorrowful one, filled with negativity - it sounds as though she and Gerry are bracing themselves for a media onslaught, preparing for the worst and battening down the hatches.  Scotland Yard have one significant lead left, but at this especially painful time, they haven't offered the McCanns any assurances.  If they had, now would be a good time to get that message out there.  Can they tell Lorraine that Scotland Yard are keeping them informed and they hope this final lead will produce a result? 
Scotland Yard may well be playing cat and mouse with their suspects, it is a device used both in literature and in real life.  Some might think that is unnecessarily cruel, but Gerry and Kate are clearly sticking by their original story - to the letter.  They are never going to admit that Madeleine was not abducted.  If they are ever prosecuted, the police will have to prove their case every step of the way, they are up against formidable opponents and the best lawyers money can buy.
I hope the press pay heed to Kate's words, that is, I hope they will be careful in the way they report this case, bearing in mind the number of real lives that will be affected.  I can't however, feel too sorry for Kate.  It has been 10 years - has she learned nothing? Especially from all the charity work she has been involved with.  Does she not have a list of what she, and Missing People have achieved?  We always hear about the funds being raised, but not very much about what is done with them.
Her annual message is again filled with whining about the way in which her, and her family life has been affected.  Again she speaks of her own suffering, while failing to mention Madeleine's.  Kate complains about her own 'stolen time', oblivious to the fact that her small daughter lost her entire life.   For those who wonder why people don't take to Kate, the clues are all there. 

Monday, 24 April 2017



Finally, some news we can make sense of, thank you Martin Brunt.

So the only 4 suspects (non British) investigated by Operation Grange have been ruled out.  Though, quite why Portuguese suspects were being investigated by OG remains weird.  Scotland Yard do however, have one significant lead left according to Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley.  However, just as I was starting to warm to him, he explained how it is quite sensible to assume Madeleine may have been taken by burglars. 

The article is padded out with the history of Operation Grange, but then we get possibly the most interesting quote, interesting because it comes directly from the deputy national director of the Policia Judiciaria Pedro do Carmo, who confirms the Portuguese and British investigations are not dependent on each other, he is under no financial or political pressure to wind his investigation up and if the Metropolitan police close their investigation, it doesn't mean they will close theirs.  I have to say, if I were a suspect in this case, I would be very worried indeed.

I have just watched the Australian made Madeleine Gone documentary made by Rahni Sadler, a journalist on the other side of the world who believes so implicitly in the innocence of the professional middle class doctors (PLU) that she has made a 10 year documentary to get them back up on their pedestal and their critics in the dock.  Beginning with Chief Conspirator Goncalo Amaral.  In her little madam bitch voice, she describes the former lead detective of the Portuguese investigation as a conspiracy theorist! 

I don't blame Pat Brown one bit for being irate about the way in which she has been edited and portrayed.   And I would imagine Professor David Barclay has a good case too.  This eminent, highly respected forensic scientist has been cut and edited to make him the expert opinion on the unreliability of cadaver dogs. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt here, because if he has agreed to dismiss the dogs evidence, for another reason, then any respect I had for him is gone. 

The snidey Rahni Sadler has clearly twisted everyone's words in this documentary. The cloying sentimentality and supposed 'bafflement' from those too cowardly to say what they really think, is merely an updated version of Emma Loach's 'look at how innocent we are' documentary. 

The documentary ends with all the experts saying it is unlikely the mystery will ever be solved.  Though Rahni does try to imply that one or more, random predators were preying on young British girls in the PDL area between 2005 and 10. Which does of course beg the question, why have the Portuguese and British Police never followed this up, or indeed allowed it to continue?  Why have the people of PDL never been told of this threat within their midst?  Or is the threat restricted to British Citizens only - who were also not given any warnings? The explosive claims [this week] (anonymous) that the  nannies were given rape alarms and told not to go outside is unsupported by, err, anyone, but she has brought this in to support the idea that  PDL is some sort of lawless haven for criminals and perverts. 

I doubt any of the participants of Kate and Gerry's latest showcase by a devoted fan, had any idea just how unscrupulously Rahni Sadler was prepared to cut and edit their words to fit any deal she may have made with creepy Clarence.  He put out his call for 10 year exclusives last year whilst in Australia, what's to say, Rahni didn't give him a call?  They have carefully selected those to interview, probably based on their pro or anti McCann stance.  Paul Luckman as usual, has taken on the role of the kindly patriarch, the voice of reason, carefully choosing his words to appease everyone while dripping sympathy and compassion for the parents. 

Most of the documentary however is taken up with Mr and Mrs McCann at their nicest, explaining how unfair everyone has been to them, and their delusional ideas of a happy reunion.  Those who do not believe them are conspiracy theorists, including the police it would seem.  Professor Barclay (why, why, why) assists with other innocent explanations for Madeleine's disappearance.  She may have woken up and wondered, been hit by drunk driver, a good reason for her body being removed. Ok PrB, but how do you explain the window? Oh yeh, you did, an intruder will often find an escape route once they have broken in, ie. open w.  He skips the part where the only fingerprints on the window were Kate McCanns.  PrB is not actually giving very much (that makes sense) away, which is I am presuming he has been badly edited. 

Colin Sutton doesn't have much to say, or he robably did, but only a few of his statements were cherry picked to fit the narrative.  He follows Professor Barclay, who has just spoken about abduction scenarios and paedophiles in the area, discussing places in which to hide a body.   Clumsy but effective.

Kudos to Pat Brown for remaining so calm with Rahni, I would have ripped to her shreds for the patronising alone.  She asks Goncalo Amaral about MI5 and the British, Government helping to hide the body.  He replies 'I can't answer that', but she goes with it anyway, calling them 'GA's preposterous theories', even though they were clearly her's.  You should get a class action going there Pat!