Wednesday, 4 January 2017

SMUT IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER

UPDATE  13.01.17

#McCann Hashtag Scum

As I watched the Donald Trump press conference, I thought there is a man who has been totally humiliated and he is as mad as hell. 

I thought much the same as I read the avalanche of abuse aimed at me this morning on the McCann hashtag.  Pointing out that all the sicko deviant sex allegations actually come from their own twisted heads was never going to go down well, but heck, someone had to. 

That I am not popular with the baying mob on twitter, bothers me not a jot.  In fact I would be worried if I were.  I am delighted to say I have absolutely zilch in common with any of them, all their words and actions are based on pure hate - reason, logic and humanity, have long since left the building. 

It's ironic to see the sanctimonious claim that they are 'thinking of the children', especially on the McCann hashtag which is devoted entirely to ripping the twins' lives apart.  They squeeze out crocodile tears as they claim to be 'doing it all for Maddie', a 3 year old who died years ago, and who wouldn't want their kind of help anyway.  'We vow to make your parents and siblings suffer every day for the next 10 years+', yeh, she would have loved that. 

Most don't have the guts to reveal their real names and faces.  Understandable, daily hate mongering is hardly a noble profession and they have much to be ashamed of.  As thick as they are, they know they are universally despised, and quite rightly, they are not seeking justice, they want blood.  They are the scabby unwashed who fight for front row seats at the scaffold, salivating as the axe comes down.  The McCanns are not human apparently, but then neither are they.   

I believe beyond reasonable doubt that the abduction was faked and the McCanns and all those involved in the cover up should stand trial.  And by that I mean a real trial, not the kangaroo Courts of the Madeleine forums, facebook pages and twitter. 

Tony Bennett, Richard Hall and Peter Hyatt are dirty old men successfully selling the contents of their filthy one track minds to those dedicated 'truth seekers' on twitter.  That their accusations have little to do with reality, and even less to do with Madeleine's disappearance, matters not, it's the kind of stick designed to cause maximum pain to this family so they happily go with it. 

As for those in a frenzy on the #McCann hashtag, you repulse me as much as you repulse any sane person who looks at that tag. You are not there for justice, you are there for punishment and retribution, and you are dishing it out yourselves in your daily game of taunting and spreading hatred.  How does that help Maddie or any of the children involved?

One final word.  My pen is my sword, I can take down any one of you anytime I choose.  My dear old dad used to say to me 'don't destroy someone just because you can'.  His words have saved your batshit crazy gang thus far, but don't depend on them, in certain cases I will happily make an exception. 




UPDATE 10/01/17


I am now universally despised by more antis than pros in this case.  I can't say I am particularly bothered, both the pros and the antis are way over represented by the psychopaths, the criminally insane and the plain old sanctimonious. One well known journalist I know remarked that they were the most despicable people he/she had ever encountered. 

There are many good and honourable reasons why the victim in this case should have justice.  So too Goncalo Amaral who was assigned the task of finding the child.  But there have been other victims, and I include myself here, who's names and reputations have been deliberately tarnished for pointing out the deceit that has been going on. 

And the deceit is coming from both sides!  All those poised with pen in hand ready to publish when the shit hits the fan, are scratching around for a USP, Unique Selling Point.  Sex sells.  I will admit, it's omission from my own memoir contributed to it's lack of popularity.  No graphic sex scenes and nothing embellished, it was doomed. 

Regardless, I personally won't accept anything less than the truth.  Disliking a person is not proof of, almost unheard of, heinous sex crimes against children. I do wonder if the finger pointers are descendants of Salem's finest.  The fact that it is extremely unlikely and no-one else can see the demons, matters not.  Little Maddie with make up on, and the beautiful face and the exposed nipple of a 12 year old are the work of the Devil! They are all 'Signs', doncha know. 

Those who are still battling off reason and logic, should ponder for a moment. What would be the most logical reason for doctors, holidaying with doctors, not wanting to give up the body of a child who died accidently or otherwise?

1.  An overdose of miscalculated drugs. 
2.  Deviant child sex involving the Labour Cabinet, Clement Freud, Cliff Richard and MI5 (or is it 6?), Barack Obama and the Pope. I have to say, Bennett's suggestion that Clarence Mitchell was top level secret service was one of those laugh out loud moments. 

I would advise careful thought and consideration before selecting an answer.  Perhaps even putting down the glass, the bible and/or quit the self flagellating for a few moments.  Which of the two above, is more likely?  Therein lies the road back to sanity. 





UPDATE 09/01/17


I see the God of all hellfire (Bennett) has revived an ancient thread giving 60 reasons why the pictures of Madeleine in make up were/are deviant.  The 60 reasons are a selection of comments found by Bennett online that support his own twisted imagination and agenda.  And in this instance, he fully supports the views of Mark Williams-Thomas, another 'expert' who interpreted pictures of 3 year old Madeleine as sexually provocative.  There are a few dissenting voices on the thread, those who point out how nonsensical the Lolita idea is, but they are deemed the deviants and the paedophile appeasers and most have disappeared never to be seen again. 

_____________________________________


It is a common theory among most the 'antis' that the pictures of Madeleine McCann dressed up by her Mummy as a Princess, are somehow sinister and contain sexual overturns.  And just to be clear as to what Pointy Finger number 1 is implying he has helpfully entitled one of the photographs 'Picture 2 - Madeleine dressed up by an adult as 'Lolita''.  I'll give the sane among my readers, a few moments to allow that chill running down their spines to settle as they contemplate those words.  Especially those wannabe statement analysts. 

Who the fuck thinks like that!  And many thanks to the correspondents on my previous blog for highlighting these grotesque, and spiteful accusations. This blog is dedicated to Kate McCann herself, I hope she is looking in.  Don't worry about wasting money on lawyers Kate, I'm about to pulverise the little rat on your behalf. 

Mothers and daughters have played dressing up since time began Mr. Bennett, it is one of those milestones in our lives that leaves us with precious memories to enjoy in our old age.  Kate is a  mother who lost her daughter, she will have fewer memories than most, it is beyond cruel of you and others to make such disgusting and vindictive accusations.  It is spite, pure and simple, nothing is to be gained by implying that those innocent snaps of Madeleine are evidence of abuse!  All these evil and heinous accusations serve only to add to this mother's pain. 

So what if an adult put Madeleine's necklace, why the need for shock for awe? Ditto the eyeliner and eyeshadow.  Again, so what?  Going by Bennett's criteria, is every mother who helps her daughter put on bangles, necklace, ear rings etc, a child abuser?  Or is that particular twist of the knife reserved for Kate McCann alone?  My mother would spend ages backcombing my air and I have treasured pictures to prove it.  Is a 4 year old with the high hair of Dusty Springfield appropriate?  I didn't have daughters, but I provided my 8 year old son with masking tape and lollypop sticks so he could make his own 'Freddie Kruger' hand, what does that say about me? 

You are a complete dumbarse Bennett, and a very spiteful one at that.  You have zero understanding of human nature, and not so much as a smidgeon of compassion in you.  How dare you take this poor mother's precious memories and degrade them with your own murky fantasies.  Who, other than yourself, sees a picture of 3 year old dressed up as a Princess and obviously having fun with her mummy, as a 'Lolita' ffs?   And Lolita  by the way, was a pubescent girl reaching a sexual awakening, not a toddler.   

As for the way in which Madeleine is posing (jeez, I can't believe I am even responding to it), has he ever tried to photograph a 3 year old?  They very rarely keep still and stand on their heads whenever the mood grabs them,  which is  fairly often. The bouncing, skipping Maddie with her siblings in the hallway demonstrates what a happy, confident little girl she was.  Why go to so much trouble to 'prove' that she wasn't?  What is in it for you Bennett et al, other than the satisfaction of knowing that you have added pain to a family who are still grieving.  Applying reason and logic, what mother on this earth, would dress their child up for the delectation of online perverts?  Is it not enough for you that Gerry and Kate have lost their daughter? 

I hate to think what goes on in the imaginations of those who point the finger.  Especially those who insist this case involves some form of deviant sex.  In the case of Pointy Finger 1, Bennett, we have the most heinous of crimes known to man and beast, sex with children. And Pointy Finger 2, Textusa, insists PDL was a den of iniquity filled with  bed hopping not seen since the days of ancient Rome. 

Pointy finger 2, you can laugh off.  It has an air of a Carry On film or a Whitehall farce, where the man inadvertently ends up in bed with the mother in law.  Pointy finger 2 however is just sick and deserves to be scorned and rebutted as the pure hatred it is. 

These dirty allegations, and they are pure dirt derive purely from the minds of those who are emotionally immature and unable to understand sexual  dynamics.  Their need to protect children makes no sense whatsoever, when you consider that there is a live investigation and real children are very much being affected by what is said online.  People like Bennett, Hall, Textusa, Hyatt, Frances Gallagher, should hang their heads in shame at the pure venom they are trying to stir up.

Those making up those odious claims should have the contents of their shit heads hurled right back at them.  And I urge all those on the blogs, forums and facebook pages to challenge them outright on where their sicko imaginary scenarios come from.  What mother would use her little girl to titillate perverts? All those disgusting connotations come from their own minds, nowhere else.  There are no precedents because it has never actually happened.

The majority of adults, including the McCanns and their friends, get on fine with their equals, they don't shrink in the presence of the opposite sex or other adults they are attracted to.  They have no need or desire to prey on noisy, often smelly, toddlers.  I mean seriously.  Given the option, an evening with interesting, entertaining, like minded friends and good food and wine.  Or an evening in an apartment with screaming, demanding kids who won't give you a minute's peace for love nor money? Have these accusers never met a toddler?

Sex and control go hand in hand (especially after watching Borgia).  We all (secretly) set out to conquer the object of our desire.  The battle can go on for years, if we are lucky, it makes the world go around. There is no kudos in seducing a child.  No doors opening, no financial reward, no admiration from peers.  No pats on the back or praise for pulling the 4 year old.  On the career and ambition front, it is taboo, a dirty little secret that will always have the power to destroy.  So Mr. Bennett, why would a group of successful, upwardly mobile group of professionals be involved in the sickest and most heinous crime know to man and womankind?


Happy New Year Kate.  You're welcome.

124 comments:

  1. Ah Ros - I wondered why you had not posted my comment about "Picture 2 – Madeleine dressed by an adult as a ‘Lolita’" on your previous blog.

    I agree with most of your comments but will point out that whilst the article was obviously penned by bennett - it was posted by him hiding behind the skirts of havern - she is just as bad as bennett for doing so.

    link so anyone reading can see http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t13379-what-happened-to-madeleine-after-these-pictures-were-taken#353927

    It shows what sickness pervades CMoMM.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are not wrong! Poor kids having to put up with their twisted garbage.

      Delete
    2. Once the whole game is understood, him and her look seriously sly and crummy.

      Delete
    3. Hi 17:35, I haven't put anything in the spam box, would you like to post it again?

      I don't know how I missed it, because it is certainly a subject that makes my blood boil. They are showing no consideration whatsoever for the real children involved in this case.

      Nobody thinks the way they do. Not the experts, not the police, not the families, not all the professionals who surround those kids. Their teachers, their medical professionals, their friends, their neighbours.

      Ten years on there has never been any hint of the children been abused or maltreated. These accusations by strangers online are malicious and based on very limited 10 year old evidence. The rest of it comes from the very strange imaginations of those claiming to care about Madeleine. An assertion that is very hard to take seriously because they obviously don't give two hoots about the pain they are causing her brother and sister.

      Delete
    4. The sooner people realise that Tony Bennett and Jill Havern are very much part of the whole Team McCann set up then the better.

      PT.

      Delete
    5. @ Anonymous5 January 2017 at 00:21

      "The sooner people realise that Tony Bennett and Jill Havern are very much part of the whole Team McCann set up then the better.

      PT."
      ----------------------

      Nonsense.

      Delete
    6. No, I don't think they are either. Bennett is too thick and duplicitous, no-one would choose to team up with up him, well not for long anyway.

      Havern is an embarrassment to strong women everywhere. She is a doormat who has allowed her name to be used by Bennett to make vicious and creepy allegations of paedophilia against the tapas families.

      I don't know if she is a mother, but if she is, she might like to consider the effects these allegations will have on the children involved. How does she think Madeleine's brother and sister will feel when reading 'Madeleine dressed by an adult as a 'Lolita''?

      Delete
  2. Maybe it’s make-up, but I still think it’s colour editing. As I said, 'creativity by Jon Corner'.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghIWyEdEB00

    1:39 Kate’s hand and hair are blue-coloured.

    NL

    ReplyDelete
  3. tony earlier.
    "I have to go to hospital today but when I return I will reply to your post in a constructive spirit"
    An hour later writing on the Justice Forum back as Blonk.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Looking at the cesspit forums, it appears that they have already decided what the cause was and altering the evidence to back up their theories. With regarding pictures in general, what I find strange is there are no other holiday snaps available apart from the two which are released. We went (Me, wife & 5 year old)to Greece last year and we probably took 150 photos. I must admit at one stage I began to doubt if Madeline was ever in Portugal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John100- "what I find strange is there are no other holiday snaps"

      Assuming MM was alive and kicking up to the allged date of abduction - where was the opportunity to take snaps ? Creche , lunch, creche, tea, bath , bed. That's how I read the (alleged) daily regime. Add to the that the less than appealing weather and there doesn't seem much time or likely inclination to do so. On top of that , PF had their phones - but didn't look for any pics on said phones ?

      Delete
  5. Rosalinda, I don’t think Kate will comment on your blog, but she ‘made a comment’ in her book:

    “As well as those who prefer to hide behind computer screens there are the publicity-seekers, like one group set up by a man who has had the gall to use our daughter’s name in the title of his nasty little organization. He and his cohorts prey on vulnerable families who have experienced tragedy. We are not the first to be targeted and, sadly, we probably won’t be the last.

    In practice, this bunch have been more of a nuisance than anything else. The only time their activities have seriously distressed me was when they leafleted our village just before Sean and Amelie were due to start primary school."

    (...)

    "So we took legal action against him, as a result of which he undertook not to repeat his allegations and was obliged to pay the court fee of £400. It hasn’t made a great deal of difference. He is still going around insinuating that we were involved in Madeleine’s disappearance, only now he is just being slightly more careful about how he says it.”

    ---------------

    It seems Madeleine dressed by an adult as a ‘Lolita’ (you couldn’t make it up!) is the least of Kate’s worries.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The pen is mightier than the sword 09:26, and indeed mightier than a team of high priced lawyers.

      Kate was spot on with the 'nasty little organisation', Bennett, like all the other chancers wanted a slice of Madeleine pie, even using the child's name to set up a 'Foundation'.

      And I agree, of all Bennett's attention seeking publicity stunts, leafletting Rothley was probably the most despicable. Who goes on a day out to wreck a family's life?

      Unfortunately, all that money the McCanns spent to get the leech off their backs, was a complete waste. It gave Bennett the publicity he craved and sent a call out to psychopaths and loons everywhere to come join him. Mind you, even most of them have moved on now.

      I don't know if at any stage during their legal proceedings against Bennett, whether their highly experienced, £300ph top notice lawyers, ever pointed out to Gerry and Kate the sheer pointlessness of taking action against a raving nutcase, but if they didn't, they should have.

      Your final sentence with Bennett's creepy words again send a shiver down the spine. Who see's a 3 year old toddler playing dressing up as a Lolita?

      The word 'posed' as well grates. You can't pose a 3 year old! And yuck. Some are imagining some sort of Playboy scenario, with the photographer coaxing the subject to look sexy. Another yuck.

      As kids, my older son once spent an afternoon videoing his 3 year old brother. For most of the video, the little one was hopping, skipping, jumping, upside down and in bendy positions a gymnast would be proud of. I don't think there was one clear 'still' on the tape. 3 year olds simply don't have the time or inclination to stand still and have their pictures taken. They have the attention span of a goldfish. 'Oh look, there's a castle' and 'oh look, there it is again'.

      Delete
    2. To Anonymous 5 Jan 09.26

      “…he is still going around insinuating that we WERE involved in Madeleine’s DISAPPEARANCE, only now he is just being slightly more careful about how he says it”

      If this quote from Kate’s book is correct (I haven’t read it), there are, from a socio-linguistic perspective, two interesting remarks, I’d like to make. Kate says that Bennet insinuates, that she and Gerry WERE involved. By avoiding to use present tense, which, in my opinion would be more appropriate to do, as Bennet hadn’t changed his mind when Kate wrote her book, and still hasn’t of course, Kate displaces herself from Madeleine and from the scene of the crime, as she has done so many times before.

      Moreover, Kate obviously refers to Madeleine as a girl, that has disappeared. Why? Why not be more precise? Who gave her that advice? If Kate and Gerry or anyone known to them haven’t taken Madeleine out of their apartment dead or alive, and if she hasn’t walked off on her own, which the McCanns don’t believe and nobody else does, then Madeleine must have been abducted by a stranger. Nobody vanishes into thin air. Why use an imprecise vocable rather than a precise one, I don’t get it.






      Delete
    3. Björn @19:47

      The quote from Kate's book is correct.

      'WERE' is perhaps a matter of grammar?

      I don't believe in an abduction by a stranger, I think Kate, Gerry or anyone known to them has taken Madeleine's body out of the apartment. But perhaps they weren't involved in the disappearance?

      Delete
  6. From Urban dictionary

    "lolita - a term used to describe a prepubescent or adolescent girl who is attractive and sexually responsive."

    bennett is perfectly aware what the term "lolita" refers to so why are bennett/havern hosting a forum that publishes such a photo and invites/accepts comments about it???

    The only sites that show and discuss such images are porno/paedo sites!
    ---------------------------------

    IMPORTANT NOTE - the Mccanns did NOT publish the photo - it is a screen grab from Corners Madeleine McCann May 2010 Appeal - as such it is used by bennett and others completely out of context.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @12:23

      "the Mccanns did NOT publish the photo"

      Well, they did, albeit indirectly.

      https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/may/02/madeleine-mccann-video-third-anniversary

      As for the Lolita nonsense, I totally agree with you.

      Delete
    2. What kind of mind sees a 3 year old dressing up as a Lolita? What are little girls in Nativity Plays dressed as, Salome?

      The religious Right see deviant sex everywhere, even gawd 'elp 'us in the tiniest of chidren. Normal adults don't think that way. I could write 500k words on why the extremists are the way the are, but in a nutshell, they have no way idea how the unindoctrinated behave, ergo they make it up. And what dirty little minds they have.

      I keep seeing references to Madeleine being 'posed provactively' - wtf? Do they honestly believe the child's own mother was putting her in poses to tantalise perverts? Yuck, yuck and yuck.

      The need of some to turn an innocent game and one of the parents' happy memories of their daughter, into something dark and sinister sicken me to stomach.

      Anyone following this case will be aware that the McCanns and all those who rushed to their aid have much to feel guilty about. Why the need to, literally, sex it up with disgusting allegations that have no purpose other than to cause distress?

      Delete
    3. Many, many thanks for your contribution to the debate 12:23. For me it was a lightbulb moment!

      I have always struggled with those photographs because I couldn't make rhyme nor reason of them! I did not know that they were 'stills' taken from a video by 'antis' intent on causing mischief. It explains an awful lot!

      If you have any other myths we can dispel in a moment, do please let me know!

      Delete
  7. Say what you like on the matter but there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that THAT photo is disturbing. Forget talk of Lolita for the moment and examine it for what it isn't . It is NOT a photo of a little girl who has just been let loose on mummy's cosmetic case. It is NOT a depiction of a happy carefree child. Here's a challenge for YOU : What emotion do YOU think that tiny little girl is expressing in that discomforting photo?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At least you have the guts to challenge me 13:38, and for that you have my respect.

      How can you say, categorically, it is NOT a photo of a little girl who has been let loose on mummy's cosmetic case? You weren't there! If mummy helped her put the make up on, so what? Lipstick and make up are not tools of Beelzebub, mummies don't dress their toddlers up to titillate demons. I have never heard of a breakdown in law and order because a baby (shameless hussy) flashed her frilly pants in a shopping mall.

      Apologies, I'm never sure when I have crossed the line between sarcasm and wit. It is not my intention to be rude.

      Again, how can you say categorically it is NOT a depiction of a happy carefree child? It is my understanding that these are 'still's taken from a video (which demolishes the 'posed' allegations) and without seeing the others it is impossible to say. As I have said over and over, getting a 3 year old to stand still and smile sweetly is virtually impossible!

      I don't think they are particularly flattering pictures 13:38, and I tend to agree with 12:23, that is the McCanns did not publish these photos. They released a video in May 2010. From that video, those with an agenda, grabbed stills from that video, that is, selected shots that would fit the malicious claims they making.

      I am not sure I have seen the video in full and will go take a look, but I would point out when the 'media' want to make someone look bad, they will deliberately select the worst pictures they can find. Apply that to the antis who have floated these pictures for years and make of it what will you will.

      I'm not discomforted by the picture at all 13:38, because common sense told me that the parents of a missing child would not release pictures of said missing child being tortured. It never made any sense.

      Delete
    2. I don't believe child abuse played any part in Madeleine's disappearance however if Roz thinks no mothers ever dress their children to titillate it that middle class educated professionals never have an interest in small children then she's living in cuckoo land. Or, by tone of this piece, she's trying to ingratiate herself with K McCann who I think we can safely say will never be reading this blog.
      Just drop the Bennett obsession.

      Delete
  8. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton 5 January 2017 at 10:48


    “…their highly experienced, £300ph top notice lawyers…”

    Significantly more than £300ph I would’ve thought, though Carter-Ruck representation has been [i]pro bono[/i], has it not?

    T

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello T and Happy New Year to You! x

      I was thinking of the poor schmucks who had to watch Bennett on social media 24/7! I don't there can ever be enough financial compensation for that T, lol. As I have mentioned once or twice, ha ha, I have been binge watching Borgia, and not even Rodrigo or Cesare could have come up with a torture more blood curdling that having to read the works of Bennett!

      As for Carter-Ruck representation being pro bono, hmmm, I'd like to see the contract!

      Delete
    2. Kate McCann in ‘madeleine’:

      “Adam Tudor and his colleague Isabel Hudson continue to do a vast amount of work for us, without payment, most of it quietly, behind the scenes. They have given us invaluable advice, for example, in our attempts to deal with the widespread defamatory material circulating on the internet. We have taken action against one or two websites, but it has proved almost impossible to get this stuff removed from some of them, particularly those hosted in the USA. Friends flag up some of the worst offenders for us, but in the end it comes down to picking your battles. You could spend your whole life doing nothing but trying to shut down crank websites with little prospect of success.”

      -----------------

      Years later (3 October 2014), Gerry McCann said: "Clearly something needs to be done about the abuse on the internet. I think we probably need more people to be charged.”

      Friends flag up?

      Delete
    3. If I were Kate and Gerry I would be suing Adam Tudor et al for the years of terrible, cost gobbling, inappropriate, doomed to failure advice he has dished out for the past £50k a month retainer, 8/10 years. They were either advised by buffoons or they were the buffoons who wouldn't take the advice.

      As for the conquering the internet Gerry, time to come back down to earth.

      Delete
  9. @13:38

    “What emotion do YOU think that tiny little girl is expressing in that discomforting photo?”

    Not discomforting. In my view ‘that tiny little girl’ is just expressing awareness of getting attention.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/may/02/madeleine-mccann-video-third-anniversary

    “It [the videp] includes a new image of a six-year-old Madeleine wearing some blue eyeshadow, with a pink bow in her hair and a gold bead necklace.”

    They are pretending she’s still alive and needs to be found. And an accompanying ‘image’ as a message from their ‘good marketing ploy’.

    How strategic! It worked/works extremely well.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I agree with you about comments on those photographs especially Bennett's but I also think they were deliberately released to push the paedophilia angle and they were heavily criticised for using them at the time
    Corner must have had their permission to release them
    I tried to argue kids dress up but people just can't get past their hate for McCann's unfortunately.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah,but who captured those still, and who released them Lorraine? Up until now I have always believed they were released by Team McCann, and I have no problem in saying I may have been mistaken. Which I suppose goes to show the anti McCann campaign have created quite a few myths of their own!

      Jon Corner probably gave permission to release the video, but such is the internet, any control over it he had ended there. And those of us who have followed this case are quite used to the fact that it has attracted many malicious and unstable stalkers who are using this case to live out their freaky dreams.

      Keep arguing that case Lorraine, don't let the deranged get the upper hand!

      Delete
  11. "Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton5 January 2017 at 16:27

    If you have any other myths we can dispel in a moment, do please let me know!"
    ----------------------------------------

    Here is a simple experiment that you and any of your readers can do:

    When you open this page in your browser, scroll down the right hand side and look at the "Total Pageviews figure."

    When I started typing this it was 687,550.

    Now click on the browser refresh button a few times (without leaving the page - just refresh). I just did it and the Total Pageviews went up to 687,555 - to represent the 5 times I clicked refresh.

    See how easy it is to increase the apparent number of views? These are the figures that havern/bennett are forever spouting as being impressive.

    Now to go further - there are add-ons to most browsers that will automatically refresh a page at whatever interval you tell it (for example "ReloadEvery :: Add-ons for Firefox") - without having to press anything!!!!

    See how easy it is to manipulate stats and apparent popularity of a site?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree 18:55, which is why I don't make outlandish claims. The Havern figures are hilarious, who are they trying to kid?

      Delete
  12. Hi Ros, good read as always,just one thing i'd like to add my 3 year old daughter loved to pose with one hand behind her head and the other on her hip wearing makeup and kiddies bling,pushed by mummy! Nothing odd about that photo of Madeleine to me..My daughter is 31 now and still laughs at those pics! Stella

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL, and I'm sure it will warm the cockles of your heart for many years to come Stella.

      My older son had my book cover framed. Every time I glance at it and see that backcombed hair I smile. It shows the time and trouble my dear old mum took trying to make her gobby little tomboy look pretty!

      Delete
  13. An interesting 'debate' but given that the McCanns immediately asserted that the child had been snatched by paedophiles ( rather than the other potential options ) and given the statement of Katherina Gaspar concerning GM and DP and the clear meaning of their conversation re Madeleine, to disparage the Lolita photos because they dont fit with your own experience is naive in the extreme.
    There are bad people with bad intentions and the Lolita photos as they are referred to, if thus posed by an adult, would not be out of place in an adult contact magazine.
    Whatever the McCanns are guilty of they are still undeniably guilty and had they behaved as responsible parents do, whatever fate Madeleine McCann may have met would have been avoided.
    You say "What mother would use her little girl to titillate perverts? All those disgusting connotations come from their own minds, nowhere else. "
    To answer that question I suggest that you refer to page 129 of the odious Kate McCann's book wherein the "mother" muses on the childs "perfect genitals" being "torn apart." and provide the answer yourself.
    That you now appear to be supporting the McCanns as being wronged by those who vilify them for what they clearly are, is most disturbing. At the very least they are financial 'opportunists' and have become rather wealthy on the back of a "missing" child for whom they clearly really never cared for. Gerald even forgot her name on one infamous occasion, referring to her as "Margaret".
    At worst .... well the jury of the court of public opinion is still out but it doesn't look good for the defence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree the McCanns introduced the 'P' word, but if we imagine them desperately trying to think of a reason why Madeleine had been taken, we can see why the 'p' came up.

      I think too much emphasis is placed on the Gasper statements, the panicked Dr. Gasper may have been confused as to what she heard, her husband is far less certain. All the public have seen is that first statement, we are not privy to any follow investigation.

      The strange poses of the 'Lolita' pictures are explained by the fact that they are 'stills' from a video selected by antis with a clear agenda.

      As for page 129, I've never seen what all the fuss is about. Kate McCann is a doctor, she said what would be expected from a doctor. And to be fair, she was going for shock, awe and drama in trying to describe the nightmares that haunted her.

      I believe the McCanns are guilty of much El Cojones, but it doesn't mean they are guilty of every odious crime the deranged hurl in their direction. Lets keep things in perspective.

      Far from the supporting the McCanns, I am one of the few commentators searching for the truth and nothing else. In the 10 years I have studied this case I have never followed a single headcase theory, once a 'researcher' starts making things up (Bennett, Hall, HideHo, Textusa, etc) I immediately stop reading. This case is rich with information and substance, I won't waste my time on lies.

      As for being naïve El Cojones, far from it. I am what is known as 'an invulnerable child', that is a kid who had to grow up streetsmart from a very early age. Like many 'survivors', I have a very reliable 6th Sense.

      Delete
    2. Rosalinda @08.37/El Cojones 5.1 @21.32

      In my opinion, the book was written by a mother who knows her daughter is dead and who has to hide that knowledge. A dead child won’t come to any harm by page 129. By drawing attention to paedophilia, Kate’s distracting from what really happened. The twins will ask for an ‘explanation’.

      There might be an (indirect?) link/hint though, Kate knows more than we do after all.

      NL

      Delete
  14. In societies, where women and children are oppressed, such as in Islamic states, in most countries with dictatorship and, in fact, in many conservative democratic countries as well, it is fundamentally patriarchal values, ​​ that constitute the basis of moral conceptions and of legislation on sexual issues. In such societies, it is considered important to protect children and women from men's uncontrollable sexual desires, which is believed to be something only women can control, through their behaviour and their clothing, but not men.

    Further on, women must be looked after, supervised and controlled. Their freedom must, by society as whole, or at least by their families be limited in terms of both physical movement and choice of clothing. There are always certain dress standards for children and for women, that must be respected, in order not to attract men’s attention too much, in the wrong places and at too young age.

    Those who have moral views on the controversial photos of Madeleine, and on similar ones, have basically the same narrow patriarchal perspective on life as so many Germans had in the 1930s, who supported the nations ban of all objects of arts, including photos, statues and paintings, that did not fit into the nation's world of ideas. You, asked yourself Rosalinda here; “What kind of mind sees a 3 years old dressing up as a Lolita” in the photo of Madeleine”. The answer is; Those with a mind like Göbbels’s and Hitler’s and all those who believed in them. They would have shown it as a deterrent example of degenerated art at an exhibition called “Entartete Kunst”, and then they would have burnt it. What happened then, we all know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow, your words moved me Bjorn, I wish I could post them on every bleddy 'anti' site! Having just watched 'Borgia' the Bonfire of the Vanities is fresh in my mind. Make up and cosmetics were among the 'vanities' incinerated alongside the books and works of art.

      I can see now why I am so unpopular on MMM. The are they, are they not, provocative argument turned to the art of Graham Ovenden and his sensual picture of a beautiful very young girl, with long flowing locks, with one nipple exposed and wearing blue eyeshadow. I actually found it quite beautiful, and haunting, it captures the beauty of a young girl becoming a woman.

      I stood alone! One member of MMM wanted to projectile vomit at the sight of it! I actually find it quite scary that so many people are deeply disturbed by the sight of a nipple, coyfully referred on MMM as the 'chest area'. Contrary to popular belief the sight of a nipple it is not the road to hell.

      I don't know the details of Ovenden's trial, but insanity won the day. His works and the works of 19th century artists among his collection were removed from galleries and destroyed.

      It saddens me that wannabe oppressors can so easily sway the minds of the public and they always begin with the destruction of art and ideas.

      How anyone can see anything dark, sinister and evil in those pictures of an innocent 3 year old child astounds me. If I were Gerry and Kate I would want to knock their blocks off. How would they like it if strangers online scrutinized pictures of their kids and concluded there were signs of sexual abuse?

      And the only evidence they have for these vitriolic accusations is suggestion and innuendo from 10 years ago! All the wilder and more outrageous allegations come purely from the freaky imaginations of the seriously deranged. I mean bed hopping? Purrlease, interfering with kids, Purrlease and yuck.

      I'm going to look up "Entartete Kunst", it will be interesting to see art that 'approved' and 'disapproved' (ffs!). I am really interested in the art and culture of Germany pre war. By many accounts it was party town for all the libertarians, writers, artists and poets. It should be noted, that even when society breaks down into a free for all orgy, no-one ever invites kids.

      Delete
    2. As Brendan O’Neill said, Graham Ovenden’s art is controversial, but its destruction is a scandal.

      It seems that Ovenden was accused by four former girl models of abusing them between 1972 and 1985.

      If there was reason for blame, shouldn’t those models have addressed their parents?

      Delete
    3. Isn't it terrible that in the 21st century, history has taught us nothing!

      Being flippant, was he abusing them for 13 years? What I don't get with these claimants, is why did they voluntarily, keep returning time and time again? If someone abused me, they'd only do it the once.

      And of course, presumably these parents were regularly delivering these young girls into the hands of a predator. As Dickins might say, shut up and drink yer gin.

      Delete
    4. @ Ros 12.26

      What strange comment for you to make! Were you only abused just the once then after you were put into "care"?

      Delete
  15. I have to agree with you on this one. (I often agree with you, anyway). I've looked at all those photos and thought that there is absolutely nothing sexual about any of them.

    Nor do I think that Madeleine looks unhappy in the make-up photo. With the angle her head is on (tilted upwards), it's impossible to be certain of her mood. And even if she'd been sad for a moment or two; being sad now and again is part of even the most happiest child's life. She might have simply been tired. The fact that she's not beaming with smiles, says nothing.

    The overwhelming majority of photos of Madeleine McCann (and let's face it, there are a lot of them on the internet!), show a happy, confident little girl who knew she was loved.

    I think Tony Bennett and his cohorts are a real worry. I dread to think of what goes on in the mind of Tony Bennett. I know he presents himself as a "Christian", but again, what kind of man could view that make-up photo as sexual?

    I've followed the Amanda Knox case in great detail. I think she is totally innocent of any crime. It was the middle-aged, male prosecutor who first came up with the idea that she and her female flatmate were involved in a sex game gone wrong. A sex game which ended up with Amanda cutting the other girl's throat. Again, I wondered at what kind of girl on girl porn the prosecutor (also a devout "Christian" (Catholic, this time) had watched. Unfortunately, there's a lot of hideous porn where girls hurt other girls during sex - all made by males and for males. In reality, it doesn't happen; it's just not something that women get their kicks out of. Just like mothers don't tend to dress their daughters up as sexual beings.

    I mean, there are exceptions in third world countries, where (sadly) some families do sell their young children into prostitution. But that's because the rest of the family is starving. I still don't condone it (I think I'd rather starve, personally), but once again, it's not done for the purpose of fantasising about daughters as sexual beings. And we all know that the McCanns are not one of those families that would have any need to sell their child into a sex trade.

    It all says more about Tony Bennett, than it does about anyone else. There's something very sick about this man, (and he wouldn't be the first "Christian" to be into sexualising children). Again, of course I have no evidence that he commits sexual acts on children, and I'm sure he probably doesn't, But he certainly has some kind of child/sex fantasy that goes on in his mind. That's the only way I can explain why he views perfectly normal photos of a female child as sexual.

    I have a daughter, and as you say, I recall many times where she asked me to put make-up on her, or help her with old make-up that I'd given her to play with. I guess that if Tony Bennett saw many of my photo albums from when my daughter was a little girl, he'd want me investigated for possible child sex industry connections too! The man is a moron.

    And also Rosalinda; I'd like to congratulate you on your more balanced analysis of the McCann case. Even though I know that you believe the parents were involved in her disappearance, you are not prepared to demonise them in every other way. That shows a much greater form of "research", than what is revealed by Tony Bennett. I couldn't care how many law degrees the man has - he's just an idiot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many thanks for your interesting, considered reply 02:27. It is always a 'phew' moment when others confirm that they can see what I see!

      Throughout history the religious Far Right have demonised sex in every way, shape and form. They would probably burn the contents of art galleries and smash all the naked sculptures, Michelangelo's David is always under threat.

      Their ignorance is astonishing, so too their fear of genitals. Their reaction to a small child wearing makeup is curious? Who see's that as a turn on?

      Most of the people who follow this case want the truth 02:27, but they are enticed into groups where others share similar doubts. Unfortunately, in their search reasons why, they are too easily persuaded by the extreme prejudices of those who lead the groups. That is the religious nuts, the vigilantes and the over imaginative. And those 'leaders' will not allow alternate views. Are they seeking justice or simply go straight for punishment and retribution?

      Totally agree on Bennett. The man is a moron.

      Delete
  16. A couple of my clearest early memories are my Mum putting her excess Oil of Ulay on my face and me drawing huge circles on my cheeks with her red lipstick. When my daughter was 4, she was into pink and fluffy as much as most girls of that age. She had a fairy outfit, a feather boa and we would have girlie nights where we would do each others nails and - occasionally - make up. It is a rite of passage for most Mums and daughters and sisters, sometimes. Yes, I ended up looking like Coco the Clown but it was our bonding time so I didn't care - and I wasn't going out in public like it, lol! She got better as years went on and our home was often turned into her beauty salon as she gave me manicures and styled my hair. I bought her some make up of he own - lip gloss and a couple of other bits specifically for little girls - and she decided to wear some to her holiday club. The lady running the club was so rude, accusing me of using make up to hide the fact that my daughter was ill and saying how inappropriate it was for a 10 year old to be wearing make up in public. All this over a little lip gloss, blusher and eye shadow. Now, my daughter is nearly 20 and she loves making herself up just as much as she did as a child, albeit that it takes her at least an hour now. She has a 10 year old sister and they make each other up, just like she and I used to - her sister idolises her. She is actually very good and was considering a career as a beauty therapist at one stage but she prefers to keep it as a 'hobby'. I do not consider her exposure to make up from a young age to be anything sinister. Play acting, dressing up as Mummy, being allowed to be children - all very important processes in growing up. Play acting can help us choose our future careers, allows us to express things that we may not be able to in another medium and gives us some often needed escapism. These days, there is no trust because these people that were hidden in shadows are now standing in the sun, seemingly challenging us, until we see everyone and everything as a threat. There is a big difference between someone who sees a child and smiles because children should be smiled at and one who looks at a child and imagines doing disgusting things to them. Our job in life, especially as parents, is to raise our children in safety but not in a way that squashes any chance of self expression and individuality. We must do our best to keep them away from 'bad' people but we cannot police their every move. We should also do our best to realise what amounts to true abuse and what has been misconceived as such. It is too easy to take something innocent and demonise it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That was a joy to read 10:30, I read it twice! And I couldn't agree more, those playful games give us a lifetime of precious memories. Perhaps, why I am so angered by those trying to destroy this mother's memories. It is cruelty just for the sake of it.

      I love your description of your relationship with your daughter, I smiled throughout. I had 'orrible litte boys, who may indeed have been made of frogs and snails and puppy dogs tails, lol. As I rushed out the door one morning, fully made up and wearing a new suit, little one advised me not to put snails in my pocket, because they go icky if someone bumps into you. Sound advice, that I have stuck with to this day.

      I had an adorable Croatian au pair, who still calls me her 'English mum', she also helped out in my little son's infant class. Asked how she got on, on her first day, she replied the little girls were beautiful and sweet (smelling, lol), but the little boys were 'orrrrible' she replied. She was joking of course, my own little lads had her giggling non stop, and the 'orrible little boys in the infants class adored her.

      I do have precious memories of times with own mum though. I remember her cutting up one of her own dresses to make a mini skirt and matching headband for me. I wanted to look like Lulu!

      To be fair, dressing me up was mostly a losing battle on her part, I utterly refused to wear ribbons and frills. We once had an almighty row because she bought me a pair of posh 'baby doll' pyjamas with frills on top and bottom. I was so angry apparently, that I got out of bed and wandered through the packed living room (we had relatives staying)stark naked taking the hated PJs to the outside bin.

      I was very fortunate to spend many happy hours with my mum in her later years. And she would laugh her head off telling me stories of what a 'bold little bitch' I was. My aunts would recommend a good hiding, but she never did. Probably because we shared the same mischievous sense of humour and she was little more than a child herself.

      I can't help but smile at children when I am out and about, but I always try to make eye contact with the parent as well. And I agree, of course we can't protect them all the time, the best we can do is teach them to protect themselves. Surrounding them in cotton wool doesn't work for anyone. Of course they will encounter creeps online, but they will encounter them in the real world too, and ahem, that is where most of the danger lies.

      Pictures of children, even naked ones, are not evil! And the sight of such images doesn't send audiences off on a killing spree. The naked human form, man, woman, adolescent, child, has been deified throughout history. Do those seeking life on other planets flash Da Vinci's Vitruvian Man throughout the universe to send the message 'hey boys, there's a party going on down here?'. Should he be wearing speedos or boxers?

      Delete
    2. Hi Rosalinda
      It’s funny that you mention the Vitruvian Man in this context

      Two or three years ago, at a school here in Sweden, where grown up people studied art and culture, a few students had been allowed to choose what should be painted on a corridor wall, and they chose this motif, as they were inspired by the Italian Renaissance, and they had of course also learnt, that this little chef d’oeuvre had become the very symbol of science and of art in our modern society.

      Other students, however, felt that, they were offended by meeting a naked man in the hallway every morning. So the principal apologized, and the apology was also published in a local newspaper, and Da Vinci's paedophile was then painted over with thick white paint. Very thoughtful of the school management. Was it not? Worst of all, no one had a different opinion.

      Delete
  17. Belated New Year greetings!

    Does anybody have evidence that it was the Mccanns who first bought up the claim Madeleine could have been taken by paedophiles.

    All of the paedophile nonsense was emplaced first by British Government officials and THEN the Mccanns ran with the idea.
    This is one of the most enduring myths in this case that the Mccanns started the paedophile theme but can anyone state exactly when this happened.
    Somebody must know!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And a Happy New Year to you JJ! Always good to see you :)

      I have always thought it began with an overheard telephone conversation. That is, Gerry was on the balcony and the witness heard him say PDL was known for having paedophile gangs. Now that is not verbatim, I haven't looked it up and can't remember the name of the witness. It is probably also worth revisiting those early interviews to see who, if anyone raises the 'P' word. I am guessing most sensitive interviewers avoided it, it's a pretty disturbing thought.

      I think one thing that should be clarified however is the distinct difference between the way in which both camps are using this terror modern times.

      The McCanns are projecting the paedophile accusations OUTwards, towards an unknown, predator or gang of predators. They have accused innocent people along the way (Murat) God forgive them, but their main objective has been to take on those supposed 'paedophiles' hidden in our midst using their computers to look up works by Caravaggio.

      The antis claiming Paedophilia are using the 'P' in an entirely different way. They are alleging, and let's make no bones about it, that Madeleine's parents AND their parents were sexually abusing her and possibly all the other tapas kids as well.

      Those are pretty serious, and highly abusive allegations, made towards living people, their families and their young children. In their hatred of the McCanns, too many antis are prepared to cross any line, in order to say nasty things about them. It is quite sickening to watch, but those are the popular themes in the forums, the ones that get the most hits and shares. If you can't say anything nasty, fuck off.

      I'm not defending the McCanns, they have a lot of questions to answer and there are many out there who deserve justice, starting with their daughter and Goncalo Amaral.

      These allegations that Madeleine was an abused child are hurtful, deliberately so, another twist of the knife. There is NOTHING to suggest Madeleine or any of the other children were abused. I think all the parents were selfish and irresponsible, but that doesn't make them child abusers ffs. And here's a thing, in order to abuse a child, shouldn't you at least be in the same room as them, or even the same building?

      Delete
    2. That Ros is the nub of the matter.

      Bennett castigates the Smith family as liars because they never came forward for 13 days.
      Mrs Fenn must be a liar for not coming forward for 111 days.

      But Graham McKenzie the source of Gerry saying paedos took Madeleine NOT coming forward for 136 days warrants no research or vitriol whatsoever.

      Every aspect of the Smith family and Mrs Fenn minutely inspected and scrutinised but McKenzies version accepted without a murmur

      Why is that?

      Look back at all these myths and there somewhere will lurk Bennett Hall Peter Mac and the CMOMM.

      I think they enjoy taking their disciples for fools

      Delete
    3. At around 24h00 01h00

      "I looked to see who I now know to be Gerry McCann stood above me on the balcony/patio about 3 metres away speaking on a mobile phone. I cannot recall his exact words but I got the impression that he was speaking to perhaps a family member or someone he was very close to due to the nature of his conversation.

      He said something along the lines of there being Paedophile gangs in Portugal and that they had abducted Madeleine. I was so shocked by this, having originally thought that she had just wandered off."

      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GRAHAM-MCKENZIE.htm

      On the matter of the photograph, although I agree there is nothing sinister about it, it was used in the John Corner video. The picture is not a "still" as you wrote above. It is a picture released for the video, obviously by the parents as they would be the only ones in posession of their children's pictures. . Although I do not perceive the picture as sinister , I do believe its release in a Madeleine appeal film was ill advised, since it would clearly generate precisely the type of discussion it has when so much focus on paedophilia was put on the case by the family & friends and others like Jim Gamble.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghIWyEdEB00

      Delete
    4. You are right, it does seem to be the front page of the video and indeed stills captured by the editor. It was probably intended to be haunting and ethereal, that's the message I get.

      Given the cynical way in which Madeleine's image has been used, it has been helpful to keep the 'P' word in the public mind. It keeps everyone looking outward and away from the parents.

      It was a given that the McCanns' enemies would put the pictures under a microscope and indeed look for those 'special' qualities that made Madeleine an abducted child. The thing with Bennett, Hall, Hyatt etc, is that they are so predicable.

      It does sometimes seem as if they are trying to goad 'trolls' and the like to attack them for publicity. And indeed they have got quite a few sensational front pages out of them.

      Delete
    5. Hi JJ, Rosalinda has already given you an answer, but, anyway, here is the witness statement from the person Rosalinda refers to.

      The witness statement of G McKenzie ( in the p j files)
      “Mr McCann was looking out over the swimming pool and did not see Mr McKenzie.

      Mr McCann was absolutely distraught telling the person receiving the call, that he feared 'she (Madeleine McCann) had been taken by paedophiles”
      So we may now conclude, who invented the paedophile scenario!

      Delete
    6. Bjorn

      What you are quoting is not the Police witness statement of Graham McKenzie but a Crimestopper report.
      McKenzie never gave a police statement until Dec 6, 217 days after the disappearance and at the time he said he heard Gerry speaking about paedophiles Gerry was with PJ officers

      I just find it very odd we are expected to believe McKenzie without question and why did he wait so long to report this damning information

      Delete
  18. I think i feel another 2-parter coming on for this thread. Brace yourselves, i shall return ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  19. Dear Mr Bennett. He really needs to lighten up, doesn’t he?

    I would recommend that the Pit has a whip-round and organizes a surprise outing for him in appreciation of the work he has done over the years. Yes, he would look a little doubtful as he is led down the badly-lit basement steps of Peckham’s Purple Screaming Grotto Bitch Club, might flinch a bit as he hears the giggles and screams from the throbbing dance floor, might even hesitate as his foot scrunches an empty ketamine bottle in the doorway…but a little nudge and the rather burly, male clientele will drag him in with tremendous roars of welcome.

    And imagine him coming up those steps at five in the morning utterly changed…the Marks and Sparks suit has lost its jacket, his shirt collar has been torn off, he’s wearing a new chunky brass chain round his neck…up he comes, glasses twisted, great bald head gleaming, walking as if hypnotised…

    Just picture it in your mind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I did Mr. John Blacksmith, and it gave me a darn good giggle! I somehow doubt he has ever crawled in the gutter looking for a contact lense, or indeed his underwear! Well, not unless he inadvertently wanders into a meeting of Sex Addicts Anonymous at his local church hall, ha ha. But I would recommend he goes for the full gimp costume, the head mask especially!

      Delete
  20. JJ @10:55

    Might be of interest:

    "He [Alipio Ribeiro] confirms that the paedophile abduction theory came from the McCanns."

    http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/INVESTIGATION.htm#i18

    ReplyDelete
  21. I've always said that derision is the tool of choice to prohibit true investigation and this site proves me correct again and again . It really is unnecessary to pillory those ( in particular Mr Bennett ) who have differing theories to yourself to what actually happened to Madeleine. Surely the aim of all forums about this case is to find out what DID befall an innocent child and not to claim the moral high ground when others' opinions differ from our own. To personalise it as you have done just make me suspicious of your motives. We should all be working together on this one ...............justice for Madeleine should be the only aim ...........and not personal point scoring. We all know that this case is far deeper than the MSM would like us to believe and any roads of thought are acceptable if they finally lead us to the truth. Don't knock it just because it seems abhorrent to you . Your beliefs and thought processes are just a result of YOUR life experiences and as such are very limited.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have no interest in Mr Bennett, but this is Cristobell’s blog and I applaud her for allowing comments like yours and mine for example. Something for everyone. I for one look forward to Ziggy’s ‘2-parter’.

      Delete
    2. I'm sorry 18:22, but there are occasions when I cannot and will not ignore Bennett. In accusing Gerry, Kate, David Payne etc of sexually abusing their young children, they are hurting the very children they claim they want to protect!

      Those kids are now of an age where they are moving up to big school, and for some kids it can be a very daunting transition. The playground is the first, and arguably worst, social arena, it can make or break us.

      Kids are merciless and dissing each other's parents is a daily sport. I once arrived to pick my son up from school with the mutt in the back of the car. As I wound the window down, the mutt barked and one of my son's mate's said 'was that your mum?'. My first thought was 'cheeky little fecker', my second, actually that was quite witty and it gave me the giggles. I didn't know half of what went on in the playground apparently, 'and trust me mum, you don't want to'.

      I want to give the McCann twins and the other children something to fight back with should they or their friends come across the filth that is being hurled at them. And it is the lives of those children he is damaging, he is labelling them as victims of sexual abuse. How do you get past that in a job interview?

      As long as Bennett and all those creeps continue to make up and spread false rumours in this case, I will continue to rebut and ridicule them.

      I'm not interested in anything other than the truth, and the same applies to my readers and posters. The addition of sexual deviancy is totally unnecessary and I question the minds of those who insist on it.

      Delete
  22. On the subject of Tony Bennett, not defending him or his micromanaged forums. I feel however that by some of the comments were stooping to his level.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ John1006 January 2017 at 18:23

      You mean the level of producing and selling leaflets with hundreds of reasons to say the Mccanns dunnit!

      You mean distribution his crappy leaflet to the neighbours of the Mccans whilst hiding in the bushes!

      You mean ending up in Court because he LIED about an agreement!

      You mean like saying live on TV that he would never comment about the Mccann case again!

      Everyone knows that bennett is looking for a Gofundme to take/defend action with his continual comments about the Mccans.

      What he doesn't realise is that publishing photos of "lolita" will get him in a lot more trouble.

      Delete
    2. I have the gift of the gab John. My dad always used to say 'don't destroy someone just because you can'. My mother on the other hand, a Queen of the one liner, would always say, go for the jugular.

      On the whole I stick with my dad's advice, words used thoughtfully and with tact can turn an enemy into a friend.

      Bennett as my mother would have said is 'one of those people' who only understand one thing. I like to think I am speaking on behalf of every poor sod Bennett has hounded and tormented over the years. Mostly in an effort to create some sort of right wing religious cult, intent on stamping out sex, art, drugs, alcohol and partying (a given). Gerry and Kate are Satan's demons, disguised as normal people in the fucked up holy war that is going on in his head.

      Bennett thrusts himself into the centre of high profile cases to attract maximum publicity for himself. He creates Trusts and Foundations in the hope he can fool enough people to pay for his defence when his victims have had enough.

      The best and only way in which to end Bennett's little reign as Witchfinder General, is to point out how ridiculous and creepy his allegations are.

      Delete
  23. Shit - Enid is very slow in commenting on the accounts that have been submitted?

    ReplyDelete
  24. ( apologies in advance)
    Part1 of 3

    Hi Ros and everyone
    The subject matter of this thread is probably the most emotive, obviously.As such, it's bound to simmer and blow from time to time.It seems that a lot of people have made their mind up on the issue of whether little Madeleine's fate was brought about as the final act of a paedophile, or if it was just a final act of paedophilia that ended an ongoing series of acts. Each od these scenarios are difficult to imagine for obvious reasons. And, depending on what you believe, and how strong your convictions are, your blood will rise and fall in any discussion about it. On this I would advise that making a decision takes thought. If it's an important decison it takes more thought. The worst time to make important decisions is when you're feeling emotional. It's worse again if you're angry.It's hard to see anything clearly when you're in the middle of a hurricane; you'll miss things, or misunderstand things. There's always time later to reflect when it's passed and to look again. Calm reflection followed by a rethink is never wrong. Admitting you may have made a wrong decision or that you've had a rethink and have changed your mind is never wrong. But I see little of this when the case of Madeleine McCann's story is discussed. I see people take hold of an idea, then grip it tight like it's a lifeline and refusing to let go.Try taking it away and get ready for irrational attacks . Irrational again, because clear thinking isn't present. It's nasty.

    I think, concerning many of the points already discussed here, a key to calming the storm would be context, which would lead to perspective.If we can introduce these two components to the discussion we should then find it easier to differentiate between conjecture that holds no evidence and fact. It comes down, in most cases, to the ability to read something and decide if it's fact or opinion. facts can't be disputed ; opinions can. Facts speak for themselves, opinions guess . Nobody should have their fate decided based on an agreed upon guess. With that in mind, the facts need little or no discussion beyond when they need referencing as such. Opinions on the other hand need supporting. The stronger the opinion, the more support is needed . Arguments such as 'it's obvious' or 'you can just tell' aren't worthy of discussion. They're for the playground .

    I'm Not going to try to defend anyone alleging that Gerry or Kate McCann or the Tapas group were paedophiles. What I'd ask of them is evidence. Not suspicion - evidence.

    I see a few 'nuggets' that the accusers cling to:
    Kate refers to 'perfect genitals'.
    Kate ( or Gerry) mentions paedophiles.
    'That' photo.
    The Gaspar statement.
    Shall we look at those for 'evidence' ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was a joy to wake up to such an interesting read Ziggy, now on read 2 (with a nice cuppa)and looking at the highlights!

      Absolutely agree on 'act in haste, repent at leisure'. I am afraid I learned the hard way. As much fun as it was pointing out my former bosses' inadequacies and inciting mini uprisings, it usually ended in 'never darken our doorstep again'.

      Accepting when you are wrong is the road to enlightenment. It opens up new areas of the brain and gives you wider vision. Wo wants to be the same dumbass they were at 16?

      Totally agree on the playground arguments, astonished they still remain at the forefront of this case.

      I applaud your determination to stick with the evidence Ziggy, too few do.

      Delete
  25. Part2 of 3

    Kate's 'perfect genitals' remark.
    If Kate is haunted by the nightmare that might have happened , as horrible as that particular reference sounds, it isn't outrageous to imagine it.It's a fear to big to hide from.It's a scenario that's best imagined ahead of time rather than suppress in order that you have at least some strength to take the blow. Answer me this, how would you refer to that part of her body. What words would you use ?If you have better or more appropriate ones, the floor's yours.

    Kate / Gerry mentioning paedophiles. If it was your child, grandchild or any small child close to you and she disappeared in the same circumstances, would you, in all honesty, not jump to the conclusion that there's a strong likelihood of sexual abuse ?Wouldn't you swear and curse and punch tables and doors in rage-even if you didn't know for sure ?I suggest any parent would . How many of the child abductions, or child deaths don't end that way ?
    'That' photo. What is now becoming 'the Lolita' photo is being talked to death. Let's get some perspective. There's not many things cuter than little girls dressed up and made up as mum. They're treasured memories of all involved of happy times and innocent days . The 'Lolita' syndrome is not a factor in such scenarios. You have to understand what that syndrome is about to accept it. The Lolita syndrome removes the innocence and replaces it with pseudo-maturity for effect, the little girl lost and vulnerable a la most Hollywood screen sirens. The same little girl is taught to look like a little adult with make up and with certain ways to 'look' and to move.None of which are natural for little girls. The intention is to draw the 'awww's from the audience, which it does, but it also placate the unnatural sexual desires of paedophiles who want to control and take ownership of that child as they can't with real adults. These girls are 'performing' as taught and to order and those in charge are blinded by their little 'darlings' winning a trophy . I haven't seen any pictures or video of Madeleine that fits any Lolita scenario or 'performing' one, but I've seen the picture of her that was the private property of the family. It fitted the former scenario, not the latter. ''But Katie or Gerry mentioned paedophiles..and there's a picture of her with make up..and there's Lolita porn''. Calm down.Think.You see how these pieces are forced together ? That's suspicion. I see no facts.

    The Gaspar statement.

    Gaspar needs to be grilled on this statement. Pressure would be the technique.If Gaspar is sure and being truthful, then Payne needs to be pressured to explain it. As it stands - it's hearsay until further notice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've never understood the hysteria around 'perfect genitals' Ziggy, it wasn't the most eloquent of descriptions, but then Kate is a doctor, not a writer.

      I tend to think Gerry's reference to paedophile gangs was to get the investigation away from themselves as quickly as possible. Instead of searching the immediate area (most likely chance of finding child), they wanted police and public services putting up roadblocks and shutting borders.
      Kidnapping was not an option. There would never be a ransom note or any demands. The 'P' word was literally all they had.

      Hmm, I might have to argue with you on the Lolita syndrome. Is it a removal of innocence or homage to it? This refusal of society to acknowledge that blossoming young girls are as beautiful as budding young flowers, and wobbly young foals, is almost Amish. As a young teen I would have been delighted to pose in nothing but a ruby necklace, for any Leonardo.

      And of course young girls are sensual! Even I, as a mojoless old woman can see it. What a shame for women everywhere, that just when we are at our most powerful, we are also at our most stupid, doh! Our hormones are all over the place and we can we can fall in love at the drop of a hat. And such is life, the pimply youth with attitude wins over the heir to the Duchy of Richville every time.

      continues......

      For an artist, or even a photographer, they have little time or inclination to errm, interfere with their subject. Their aim is to create something exquisite, something that will outlive them.

      Delete
    2. I hate to see the Arts attacked Ziggy. Works of art should reflect the culture that exists at the time - warts and all. Who is to decide what is obscene, and what is the criteria for obscene? Members of MMM are currently fainting at the sight of a young girl's exposed nipple - should they be the Judges?

      As for the tots and tiaras pageants, I do find them curious on many levels, but I don't see them turning straight men into paedophiles or parents into abusers. For kids with OCD parents, if it's not one thing, it's another.

      The little girls acting provocatively, doesn't real mean anything, because they wouldn't know what provocative meant. Little girls do love dressing up, but I wouldn't be comfortable with devoting that much time to it. For me it seems to be more about the mother's competitive nature than the child's. I have to say I do find it distressing to see the little ones crying as they have false lashes applied and their hair pulled back, it looks like torture. We suffer enough for beauty when we are older, why begin so bleddy young?

      Regarding these pageants being a turn on for paedophiles, again that is an argument lost in the 'literally anything can be a turn on' debate. How can you possibly define one area of, let's call it entertainment' as a trigger for monsters to abduct children. How about child gymnastics, skating, ballroom dancing, cubs, brownies, kids in school uniform.

      The Ramseys, like the McCanns have always placed the blame for their daughter's demise on a stranger intruder. In Jonbenet's case the most scenario was a family row that got out of hand, but it wasn't important to find reasons for Jonbenet's murder. That she was known on the pageant circuit became part of the narrative.

      Delete
  26. Part 3 ( nearly there )

    I know certain people say we shouldn't compare the case with that of Jon Benet Ramsey. I think it's inevitable, though. Both Little innocent girls who met there fate on a dark night, indoors. Both daughters of professional well-to-do parents. Both cases contaminated by either the family or police( In the McCann case it was dismissed, In Ramsey's it was contaminated by parents then ruined by the investigation team- both cases saw investigators replaced). In both cases, hints of the Lolita syndrome are hinted at or pointed out as contributory triggers.

    Jon Benet was from that tacky little world of Little Miss Pageantry, Tantrums and Tiaras etc. Little girls with big hair, lip-gloss, trashy make up. and in bathing costumes taught to parade and walk in ways which are unnatural. This is supposed to appeal and charm.Another word is seduce but let's not say it.On a psychological level they are having a heavy burden placed on them to tick like a time bomb. They're having heavy conditions of worth placed upon them ; appear beautiful and pretty and you're our star and you're worth so much. Surface is all- forget content;forget childhood and play.You can have bits of those if you perform well.Horrible. The stage looks like it's filled with pretty midgets.Pretty empty frightened midgets.Recently a 4 year old was encouraged to wear a padded bra in her 'Dolly Parton' persona; another (3 year old) took the part of the Julia Roberts prostitute character in Pretty Woman. That's a far cry from playing with mummy in her make up at home in private. Jon Benet's death was a violent sexual murder.A sexual murder doesn't require any semen on or in the victim by the way.The act of violence or torture is the act of sex more often than not. As an aside, while the Jon Benet world panders to paedophiles it has to be noted that most victims of the crime just look like ordinary little kids in their ordinary clothes being themselves. Its the vulnerability and innocence that attracts most of the time.It ignites the power button.

    Vladimir Nabokov, the author of Lolita has a lot to answer for.So do the pretentious literary critics who place the book as a 20th century masterpiece.Yees, it is superbly crafted. But Humbert is a 50 plus child molester and rapist.He is manipulative and self serving.He is a pervert.He describes brilliantly how he molests Dolores-12-( Lolita). He kidnaps her from a hospital and drugs her with an intent to rape. He forces her to give him hand relief under her desk at school. He basically rapes her innocence and steals her life and rapes her body. Critics call it 'tongue in cheek'. Ironic that it started its life in France, the first Country to ban miss pageant shows.For me, it's a nihilistic piece . Nobody comes out alive. In a horrible twist, Lolita dies on Christmas day giving birth to a stillborn child.I wont go further than this here..

    Somehow, today, the victim who was the original Lolita is now the temptress. The paedophile is seduced rather than the child being kidded and groomed.

    So- perspective.Context.Facts.Conjecture. If you out there must go along with whatever's 'trending' or 'going viral', at least check it first. If you have the wrong pieces of a jigsaw it takes too much squeezing, cutting, and breaking to make it fit. You get no finished picture.Ten years and counting...


    ''My car is limping, Dolores Haze,
    And the last long lap is the hardest,
    And I shall be dumped where the weed decays,
    And the rest is rust and stardust.''

    Good

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've not read Lolita, so couldn't possibly say one way or the other at this moment, except that I would rather know what goes on inside the head of a paedophile than not.

      I could go into a whole aesthetics argument, what is good or bad taste, and again who is to judge? Would the banning of a book in which a dirty old man is actually saying 'outloud' what many dirty old men think, save a single child from being abducted/ murdered?

      And to be honest, I would be most surprised if the semi literate monster who killed Tia Sharp had read the works of Vladimir Nabokov!

      Delete
  27. So Mr. Bennett, why would a group of successful, upwardly mobile group of professionals be involved in the sickest and most heinous crime know to man and womankind?

    The more taboo and heinous a crime committed against a child is, such as incest for example, the more difficult the case is to prosecute, let alone secure a conviction, especially when the parents deny guilt. Yet, here is one such successful prosecution of such once "trusted" parents in Australia.

    NSW parents sentenced to lengthy jail terms for sexually abusing, torturing daughter

    Key points:

    Both parents deny guilt, show no remorse, judge says

    Father found guilty of repeatedly raping girl since she was five

    Pair worked in teaching profession, had links to elite sport

    Community 'hoodwinked' by trusted parents

    The pair, who cannot be identified for legal reasons worked in the teaching profession and also had links to elite sport.

    Judge Huggett said the community around the family was "hoodwinked" into trusting the parents.

    The judge also described how the mother was complicit in the sexual assault of her daughter.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-28/nsw-parents-sentenced-for-sex-abuse-of-their-daughter/7970146

    ReplyDelete
  28. @05:32

    ''There were two daughters in the family, and both gave victim impact statements at a sentencing hearing in Sydney in September, describing their parent's abuse as "putrid acts of torture".''

    If the victim(or victims) had vanished, I wonder which way the case would have gone.It sounds like the parents were arrested based on their daughters reporting their experiences to the police, and having them as star witnesses. Another 'P' word is 'psychopath'. Never expect remorse from a psychopath.They have certain parts of their brain disconnected. Psychopathy exists in people regardless of their station in life.Harold Shipman was a benevolent old man ostensibly. There's a list of clergy who have killed and a list of politicians who have taken part in similar abuse as this case paints. In the case mentioned, luckily, two victims survived to tell the tale. That was the one mistake the parents made. Once the girls took back their control it was a home run.Unfortunately,most other psychopaths and perverts who carry out such sickening abuse make sure nobody's around to blow a whistle.This happy ending only came about because there were two witnesses with solid evidence.Had they not been around, the parents may never have been suspected of anything and the conjecture of suspicious minds would have been matched by those who had been 'hoodwinked'.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Hi Ziggy
    As for the McCanns, whatever it now may be, that makes them feel uncomfortable, it certainly isn’t remorse.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Hi Bjorn
    It's hard to say in reality.Do they feel uncomfortable or frustrated and angry ? They haven't said either way so i think people are reading their mood and guessing. Again, it's conjecture. For every one man who says they look guilty, another will say they look angry. I suppose the real test is if Gerry McCann gets the independent enquiry that he's requested.If a genuine, rather than staged, independent enquiry is granted who knows what it would entail, what they'd be allowed to look at and so forth. Some might read Gerry McCann's request as a way of actually getting something done. It could be read as him protesting at the lack of progress or the amount of interference from higher ranks . Would he do this if he was guilty ? Or is he bluffing ? you say : ''whatever it now may be, that makes them feel uncomfortable, it certainly isn’t remorse.'' Couldn't that be the state of mind who has no need to feel remorse ? This is why I emphasised the need to check the evidence . If there isn't any-it's opinions. They can be wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Ziggy, totally agree with you reference looking at the evidence. What I would start with is a reconstruction of events that night and follow the evidence from there.

      Delete
    2. Hi again Ziggy
      Has Gerry really requested an independent enquiry? I didn’t know, but if, so, I assume that he’s not going to allow the Portuguese P J ask him any embarrassing questions.

      Delete
  31. Ros :-)
    Thanks for taking the time to read my diatribe and responding.

    I wouldn't attack the arts as such. I value creativity in all it's forms more than the colder and clinical in life.The latter is a necessary evil in my opinion, and the former is undervalued generally. having said that, there are some aspects of art that make me shake my head ( you can get away with anything if you have a reputation, a canvas and some paint).I reserve the right, however to attack the creators even if what they create is great. Lucien Freud ( yes, there's more of the feckers) was brilliant but, shall we say ''sexually unusual ''. Eric Gill ( we all use some of his fonts ) had a tall reputation too. It was quite a 'gig' he got in designing the famous 'religious' scene that stand at the front of the BBC ( yes, that nest).But he was a depraved pervert. He had sex with a couple of young girls and at least one was his own biological daughter, a sister and he evn shared his affections with his dog.He's remembered in arty circles as 'outrageous'.How very 'bo-ho'.Even Rolf was a dab hand with a brush.

    I take on board 15 year olds and those awakenings. I remember those days.I as 15 once and hunted for many a nipple myself( girls didn't have the monopoly on awakenings). But there's a big gulf in development, not just physically but emotionally and psychologically between 3,4,5 and 15. Think about who you were at 4 and think about who you were at 15. It's like two different people in two different worlds.The core remains the same but so much has been added to it . At 15, legally you're crossing a threshold anyway. That's probably why,when arrests of men who have had experience of 15 year olds are given the benefit of the doubt and are acknowledged as sometimes being duped( i hasten to add, this is when the girl had consented, forcing is another matter entirely).

    I think if you read a few excerpts of Lolita you'd understand my point about the creator of Humbert. Great wordsmith. But...
    The underpinning of my argument was supposed to be about how we got to this point of Lolita this Lolita that . It went, in about 20 years, from the fictional victim of a paedophile to the first major and well circulated child porn empire created in Holland by a woman -hating pervert Joop Wilhelmus.His flagship publication named 'Lolita'. Today there's fashions based on Lolita( Japan). There's some weird thing called 'a little' that's spewing all over the internet. It's a dangerous trend . I don't think adults with no inclination are 'converted' . Nor do I think viewing, reading or listening to a paedophile will flood the streets with them. But the diluting of it's strength isn't a good thing.This is why so many online 'readers of people' ( yes, online- imagine that lol)talk so casually about it ( a kid in makeup-oh yeah, that's Lolita porn that is, i've heard about that ).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your first paragraph brought to mind an A2 literature class I once had, when a strict Christian student questioned the morality of studying that well known old reprobate Lord Byron. I threw the question out to the class generally, I had a couple of reliable students who I knew would answer the question much better than I.

      We then went on to have a very interesting and lively debate, that led on to the Nazis, book burning and Bonfire of the Vanities. My star students didn't let me down!

      The comparison of 3 year old Madeleine to Lolita is ridiculous. A 3 year has no idea of the meaning of provocative, or how their poses affect dirty old men. Those describing a toddler as provocative are the weird ones.

      I think it's a bit much to lay the launch of a child porn empire. You could just as easily blame the Spartans, or the Prophet Mohammed. You cannot legislate against human nature, nor indeed, supply and demand.

      I am loathe to comment on Lolita as I haven't read it, but it is certainly something I shall try to get hold of. Or maybe I will look for the movie, ha

      Delete
    2. Ziggy @19:20

      Radical left wing Wilhelmus became an alcoholic millionaire and drowned. Sometimes evil punishes itself.

      NL

      Delete
  32. "Erroll Garner wrote:

    Imo, McCanns offered their daughter up for a ritual sacrifice."
    -----------------------

    More lunacy st the cesspit.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Whatever one may think about his subjects, Nabokov’s writing style is poetic. Personally, I am more concerned with how he writes than what he writes. Moreover, we may reasonably expect there is a distinction between novels and journalism.

    That aside, isn’t it interesting that Nabokov is not a fan of Freud. In his own words:

    “I cannot conceive how anybody in his right mind should go to a psychoanalyst, but of course if one's mind is deranged one might try anything; after all, quacks and cranks, shamans and holy men, kings and hypnotists have cured people - especially hysterical people. Our grandsons no doubt will regard today's psychoanalysts with the same amused contempt as we do astrology and phrenology. One of the greatest pieces of charlatanic, and satanic, nonsense imposed on a gullible public is the Freudian interpretation of dreams. I take gleeful pleasure every morning in refuting the Viennese quack by recalling and explaining the details of my dreams without using one single reference to sexual symbols or mythical complexes. I urge my potential patients to do likewise.”

    Food for thought?

    NL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I tend to agree NL, I went off Freud years ago, dragging up miserable old memories doesn't do anyone any good at all.

      Delete
  34. @ those last few above ^^^

    The 'independent' enquiry, if it's genuinely independent will have no side.It can ask anyone anything and make a judgement impartially. I suppose, if it happens, it's a question of just how impartial they are. I think if it's funded by the McCanns then technically it's funded by the government and that isn't impartial( it was them that got rid of the original police).Also, it would be nice to see a reconstruction.There's been 4 or 5 so far-all scripted and overseen by Clarence Mitchell who wasn't even there on the night.All actors had to sign an agreement to stay quiet.

    Madeleine or any girl her age as a Lolita being ridiculous was(is) my point. Little girls, left to be just little girls are playful and innocent.Their only agenda is to giggle and eat sweets and try to stay up late.They have to be coached, taught, programmed, call it what you will, to be a 'Lolita' as has been discussed online. I made the comparison to the Pageant crowd for that reason. Explaining how the casual acceptance of the whole concept of a 'Lolita' has only served to perpetuate peoples even more casual conclusion-jumping whenever they see a hint of makeup on a little girl . It isn't hard to see the difference between little girls just playing innocently and little girls who are like puppets . As for the launch of the porn empire, i didn't say that. The porn empire was launched already. It was the launch of the porn empire i mentioned and the significance of them choosing 'Lolita' as it's flagship.It was always going to be launched anyway.

    As far as commenting on censorship goes. I don't think double standards help. I'm against the 'thought police' more than most. The Lolita novel was obscene in it's subject matter but got through. Lady Chatterly's Lover after several ludicrous replacements of words like 'penis'( they replaced it with 'liver'..some date that would be) it went on trial not long after Lolita had been launched. Class again rasied it's ridiculous head when the prosecution's main thrust( no pun intended) was :
    “Would you approve of your young sons, young daughters – because girls can read as well as boys – reading this book? Is it a book that you would have lying around in your own house? Is it a book that you would even wish your wife or your servants to read?”
    ( i can't speak for anyone else, but my servants enjoyed it )

    Meanwhile, Humbert was waxing lyrical about the first time Lolita rested across his lap :
    ''between my gagged, bursting beast and the beauty of her dimpled body in its innocent cotton frock …I felt I could slow down in order to prolong the glow. …while I crushed out against her left buttock the last throb of the longest ecstasy man or monster had ever known.''
    See, the man was a wordsmith.That poetic description of a little frottage would be fine if he was describing a woman..

    As for Sigmund Fraud, he was a very smart man.He wasn't a very smart psychologist though. He didn't even start out as one, he stumbled into it. He catered to a specific group of clients( middle class housewives mainly who could pay) and related everything to childhood, even though he didn't really have the credentials to discuss child psychology( or sex come to think of it).He was a great liar and made a suspiciously large amount of money once he broke bread with the Nazis.

    Book burning..
    I'm for burning many.Not creative ones though.Not anything artistic in fact.If you enjoy fiction, study history.If you want to understand our history, study economics.If you need to study economics, you'll probably be happier going back to fiction. :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "if it's funded by the McCanns then technically it's funded by the government"

      Eh?

      ...Chez

      Delete
    2. Nabokov's writing is indeed exquisite Ziggy. One part stood out for me, 'innocent cotton frock'. Not saucy undies, fake lashes or a little Miss USA costume. Tis the innocence that appeals to those who would prey on the very young, not the look of a hard bitten drag queen.

      Delete
  35. Top of the morning to you Ziggy.

    I am confused about this new Inquiry, have I missed something?

    I think I may have confused the Lolita matter. That genre of porn would have developed anyway, we are agreed, I just think Nabokov gave it a catchy name.

    Was it Bennett who introduced the 'Lolita' concept in the Madeleine case? It looks to me as though it was, because only a right wing Christian fundamentalist could see 'sex' in the photographs of a 3 year old. Lolita is a young girl verging on womanhood, Maddie was little more than a baby. There is no comparison.

    Yes the Lady Chatterley trial came out with some gems. My servants disappeared off into the bushes and I haven't seem them since! lol

    Freud was indeed an odd bod. At one time he sang the praises of cocaine using a friend as his subject and recording his amazing work performances whilst off his nut. Unfortunately, he turned his friend into a hopeless drug addict and the research was quietly dropped.

    Oooh no, I couldn't burn a single solitary book, though to be fair I would be 50/50 on Jane Austen. Mark Twain once said 'Every time I read Pride and Prejudice, I want to dig her up and beat her over the skull with her own shin bone'. I know how he feels.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As far as I know someone in PT introduced the 'lolita' label (May 2010). Then further ‘elaborated’ in the UK?

      Delete
  36. "Tony Bennett Today at 15:24
    PeterMac has sent literally dozens of analyses of evidence to DCIs Redwood and Wall at Operation Grange over the years. They are meticulously compiled and exhaustively referenced. To my mind they each contain valuable and irrefutable evidence. Has he been wasting his time?"

    http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t10497p700-another-look-at-the-last-photo#354130
    -----------------------------

    Yes and wasting the time of Operation Grange too - but that is quite deliberate isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would say yes too 16:29, and no doubt it is a source of amusement to the real detectives. Petermac has been working on 10 year old files that contain very limited information. There has been nothing released since.

      Delete
  37. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton7 January 2017 at 11:14

    I've not read Lolita,
    ---------------------

    Maybe you should read it before commenting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nabokov’s Lolita is classic literature, although also regarded as controversial. Labelling Madeleine as a ‘lolita’ is 'tabloid fodder', that played into the hands of the McCanns and their helpers. I’m convinced team McCann couldn’t care less.

      Just don't mention the dogs.

      NL

      Delete
    2. @ NL - yes it is classic literature - that Ros has never read.

      The Mccanns have never quoted it. Just the various cesspit forums.

      Your point is?

      Delete
    3. @22:20

      It's up to your interpretation.

      NL

      Delete
    4. You do seem to have a bit of a bee in your bonnet about the fact that I haven't read Lolita. Hmm, old guy with hots for very young girl, not my own particular genre. And besides, I haven't read ALL the classics, have you? lol. I haven't, as yet, got past two of James Joyce's Ulysses, though not yet given up.

      Delete
  38. by HiDeHo Today at 14:06
    Maybe some dont realise I spent 4 years compiling hundreds of timetables and timelines from statements and subsequently comparing them to reveal an extraordinary amount of discrepancies....
    --------------------------
    Christ!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Christ indeed, lol, and perhaps Why?

      Never, throughout history has there been a headline, 'Scotland Yard employs keen amateur detective'. It just doesn't happen. No-one other than the deranged wants citizen armies of snoopers and vigilantes.

      Instead of highlighting the martyrdom of her 4 years hard labour, HDH, should perhaps examine her motivation. She chose to do that 'work', no-one asked her to.

      Delete
  39. (1)
    Hi Ros
    It wasn't a recent thing, but it's part of the PR narrative Mitchell probably came up with. Or maybe Gerry McCann went out on a limb. The way it's worded makes it smell of spin though.

    13/05/2011
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1386093/Kate-McCann-Kidnapper-drugged-twins-night-Madeleine-taken.html

    '' ...to this end, we are seeking a joint INDEPENDENT, TRANSPARENT and COMPREHENSIVE review of ALL information held in relation to Madeleine's disappearance. Thus far, there has been NO formal review of the material held by the police authorities - which is routine practice in most major unsolved crimes...''
    I have no doubt that Gerry McCann okayed this letter, but that's the hand of a politician. There's only one politician close enough to the family and who happens to speak political bullshit and happens to be a puppet master and script writer and that's Clarence I'm- taking'-over-everything- Mitchell. Either way it's well considered and careful and meticulously written. It's just hard to understand how the request for two Governments in the context of the enquiry thus far can be considered independent. The Portuguese government disagreed with how their police had botched it.They spotted this after talking to Tony Blair ( demon). The British government , military intelligence, home office et al put our own experts in- that fine body of men and women more commonly known as the met. They wasted no time in criticising the Portuguese police and wasted even less in confusing matters to the point that nothing could be trusted ; statements, witness testimony, forensics and so on. Mission accomplished.So what would a joint operation achieve ? Dubious 'sources' sending lots of happy policemen on freebies abroad to chase leads we all know will lead nowhere. Every time we hear one now the cynic in us, rather than saying 'yes, great, this could be it' inwardly says 'yeah, ok, another one..we won't hold our breath - again'. It's no wonder people are suspicious about the whole pantomime. And thus began the head hunters.The online Miss Marples and Sherlocks. The CSI appreciation society.Worse still, the hunger for drama became the heartbeat of the beast . it seems the majority of the online social media muppets have decided the McCanns did it. But how ?

    The over -involvement of important people looks wrong. The profile of the case has dwarfed the Lindberg baby mystery and the Ramsey case. It all suggests a cover up. But by who, why, and who for. There's no way on earth it would all happen to defend two ordinary people.The McCanns, as I've said before, are not politicians or royalty.But, so covert, so well oiled and so expert in deceit are our government( and others) it's much harder to research. The McCanns are far easier targets.
    If they killed their daughter how did they or why ? If it was an accident the forensics would have been taken into account and they'd have been charged.If it happened when we're told, how did they find the time to cover it up and hide it? If this happened, they're guilty and the tapas 7 are accessories - case closed. A lot of evidence is needed to prove all of that. The preferred scenario that's gathered momentum is far meatier to chew over. It involves a rehash of all the nightmares that we've seen on documentary channels or read about. The well to do middle class parents hiding a dark secret ; a dark secret equals sexual . Enter - Lolita....

    ReplyDelete
  40. (2)

    The biggest news since dear old Jim'll fix it died and left so many politicians in a state of panic clinging to their empty diaries has been of hundreds of paedophile claims being buried by various police departments and politicians. They keep throwing us crumbs ( celebrity rapists etc) to look like they care.But that's all they admit to.Social media has reacted to the shock by seeing ghosts everywhere. Take Jon Corner. I keep seeing 'Creepy Jon Corner' on the internet. Define 'creepy' (and offer evidence other than he's baldy). He happens to be a close friend of the McCanns and is quoted thus when speaking of Madeleine : '' So beautiful, astonishingly bright, and I’d have to say very charismatic. She would shine out of a crowd.'' Now, if you read that in an obituary column you'd think 'what a nice tribute to a little girl. That's not creepy. But he then added :''So—God forgive me—maybe that’s part of the problem. That special quality. Some ******* picked up on that.'' Objectively, that would make sense to me. But, apparently, it was the still from his video that the infamous 'that photo' was taken from. So, he's creepy because he uploaded that photo and made a youtube vid. Would anyone so creepy broadcast his 'preference' ? Or does it all mean, because he's a friend of the McCanns on top of all of this, he as well as them-and the tapas 7 are a nest of them ? It takes an elastic imagination and aversion to logic but you could say it. I believe the Corner /Kate interview on youtube had an agenda. It's only 7 minutes long but nobody seems to have picked up on it. I won't say what it is but i think it's obvious and i'm shocked the anti brigade haven't done it to death. I'm sick of reading so much crap about it all to be honest. Reading twitter and youtube comments must be like the days when people were allowed to stand on balconies laughing and pointing in places like Bedlam and watch the lunatics screaming and repeating babbling mantras.The lunatics had an excuse then though..





    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ZiggySawdust @19:23

      "I believe the Corner/Kate interview on youtube had an agenda."

      So does Lorraine 5.1 at 17:31 (if I am not mistaken).

      And I and several others, I believe.

      NL

      Delete
    2. the Jon Corner/Kate interview Ziggy, isn't that the one where Kate mentions tiny tears and the 'full English'? I've always thought the agenda there was to push the 'someone was watching us' theory Ziggy, but I'm intrigued, do tell.

      I will take another look, but from what I remember the lack of emotion from Kate is chilling. She looks and speaks as though she is having a relaxed carefree holiday!

      Delete
    3. Jon Corner looks creepy in black and white : https://goo.gl/images/Fov6iG

      Cast us a spell, please, JC :
      https://goo.gl/images/jTye8N

      Delete
    4. Assigning some sort of 'special' quality to Madeleine by gushing about how charismatic this particular 3 year was, is indeed creepy Ziggy. But it had a purpose. In the bedroom that night were 3 children, two of them babies, boy and girl. The babies were of course perfect for 'someone who wanted a child to love', far more adaptable and much easier to transport. Why didn't the abductor take one of the babies? the police and indeed the world asked, because Madeleine was 'special'. They were being watched, 'they knew' Kate said.

      It is a fairy tale narrative that ends with the princess being rescued from the tower. Embraced by Kate to avoid reality and the Fund Directors to keep the donations coming.

      The nod to reality is the 'P' word. Alternately, Madeleine could be in the hands of a paedophile gang, of which there are many apparently, and in PDL especially. However, if there were any truth in this, the chances of her being alive are zilch, though incredibly, the parents still dream of a rescue from some sort of dungeon, prison scenario. The thought of their child being tortured every day for 10 years not having turned them into hysterical lunatics as it would for every other parent.

      As for the CSA Inquiry etc - all BOLLOX. The majority of the child abuse that went on in the 60s/70s/80s, was carried out by employees of local authorities who had care and control of vulnerable children. That is, orphans and those rescued or seized from dysfunctional families.

      This has turned into a blog Ziggy, thanks for the inspiration!

      Delete
  41. Just a few words about freedom of expression and literature, regarding the discussion here between Rosalinda and Ziggy

    All arts and all creativity have an intrinsic value and a right in their own to have a place in our hearts, but we need to make a clear distinction between the author and his/her works, in my opinion.

    I hate the idea of banning books, especially fictitious stories. All literature is of course not fiction, but sometimes political propaganda, memoirs, etc., but all of it can, or should be, discussed, criticised, appreciated, disliked or questioned, but never censored or forbidden, because we would then not have so much to disagree about.

    As for pure fiction in literature, which may seem to be immoral or repugnant to many readers, the best way to criticize it is by deconstructing the text and explain it from new perspectives.

    Another way to criticise a text is to do what Jean Rhys did in her novel ”Wide Sargasso Sea”, in which she tries to explain the backgrounds of the characters Robert and Martha (Anette), in Charlotte Brontë’s ”Jane Eyre”, by writing another fictional story about them. In doing so, Rhys didn’t have to discuss racism explicitly. Instead she cleverly managed to illuminate the underlying colonial values in Brontë’s novel, who lived in a previous era.

    Had Brontë got a chance to read Rhys’s novel, she would certainly have told Rhys, who had a postcolonial approach to her criticism of “Jane Eyre”.” “Oh dear Jean, I didn’t really know what my characters had gone through, before they appeared in my novel. So thanks a lot for telling me. I see things differently now”. So an intellectual person, who finds “Lady Chatterley’s Lover” disgusting, could approach D.H Lawrence in a similar way, and the author would perhaps appreciate that very much indeed, in his heaven. And the readers of today would also be pleased, and by treating all literature in a similar way, there would be no need to ban any books or to change any authors choice of words.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've honestly never understood how a person can get all worked up about a book or work of art Bjorn.

      Many years ago I went to the 'Sensation' exhibition in London (Tate iirc), which was pretty much devoted to the subject of child pornography. It caused quite a stir as you can imagine, particularly as the centrepiece of the exhibit was a wall sized portrait of child murderer, Myra Hindley made up of childrens' handprints. Whilst I was there, a demonstrator threw a can of emulsion over the Myra Hindley picture and then chaos ensued!

      The purpose of the Sensation exhibition was of course to shock, and that is often the purpose of art! We need to 'feel' what we are looking at, it is supposed to incite emotion. Many artists use their work to draw attention to injustice and humanitarian causes. Last year Michael Dean, a Turner Prize contender exhibited a pile of £20,436 in pennies to represent the amount the Government says 2 adults and 2 children can live on, for example.

      Unfortunately, there is still an air of elitism with art and literature, as if they are 'them' and 'us' subjects. Poncey subjects for stuck up intellectuals boring for everyone else and why hasn't Narcissus got any pants on. To Henry Higgins' 'why don't the English teach their children how to speak', I would add 'why don't they teach them about art?.

      The Bronte sisters had the power to move to tears and passion Bjorn, unlike, Ms. Austen! Charlotte hints at the darkness and allows the reader to fill in the rest with their own imagination.

      I have to say the McCanns constant attacks on Freedom of speech and horror of horrors, their malicious attempts to ban Goncalo Amaral's book is another strong reason for my still being here. Watching the nonsense that is the Lisbon trial is like being back in the middle ages.

      They have always had the power to rebut everything Goncalo said in his book. They have countered with one of their own, explaining why they wouldn't co-operate with the PJ and why they are 100% innocent.

      That they have not been able to do dismiss his arguments with good arguments of their own, is not Goncalo's fault.

      And sadly, in the 21st century, people who still want to attack and burn books.

      Delete
  42. '' UPDATE 09/01/17
    I see the God of all hellfire (Bennett) has revived an ancient thread giving 60 reasons why the pictures of Madeleine in make up were/are deviant. The 60 reasons are a selection of comments found by Bennett online that support his own twisted imagination and agenda. And in this instance, he fully supports the views of Mark Williams-Thomas, another 'expert' who interpreted pictures of 3 year old Madeleine as sexually provocative. There are a few dissenting voices on the thread, those who point out how nonsensical the Lolita idea is, but they are deemed the deviants and the paedophile appeasers and most have disappeared never to be seen again. ''

    Why does anyone care what Bennet thinks. His notoriety exists because he was brought down for his ideas, thoughts and accusations in a court of law and it gained national coverage.His determination to bark up empty trees has caused him to lose sight of bigger pictures. Those bigger pictures have not only the McCanns in them, but the 'watchers' who are guarding the facts and want to censor opinions and discussions. It could land him back in court again. The outcome could be jail this time as warnings haven't done much to deter him.Maybe his 'celebrity' status is why so much attention is paid to his blog. His little clique are convinced that they're special.The attention and discussions about them only reinforce that opinion.They're not special. They're like a the vast majority of discussion boards, blogs, social networks and youtube comment sections , that is, short sighted, narrow minded and gullible. Their problem is choosing to breathe life into dead theories . It doesn't matter to them that there's no evidence - they'll bend, shape, twist and invent some.If you ask if they'd go to court and produce it all , what do you think they'd say ? They'd be humiliated . The 'Lolita' theory is ludicrous. Based on an empty space where Madeleine used to be, they've not only decided she's dead, but that she was a paedophile plaything and they know who for and who had to kill her then hide her body. The two latest 'proof' toold being a photograph of a little girl wearing her mum's makeup, and the observations of a parlour trickster who claims he can 'read' between peoples lines and watch their subconscious 'tells'. I can't even watch any videos of the McCanns now because of the irritating pricks who comment. They've been sat like sparrow hawks for ages now hoping for a new angle instead of going over and over and over the same things. Now all you see are new psychology groupies referencing Hyatt and his ilk saying things like ''if you watch the video of Hyatt you can see these two are lying bastards, watch it then try it''. I swear these fucking morons only went to school on a Saturday.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree and indeed applaud everything you say about Bennett, Ziggy. However, with the 'Lolita' suggestions in the Madeleine case he has somehow managed to make his deviant thinking mainstream.

      It is incredible how many 'antis' are repulsed by those pictures of a little girl dressing up. They have bought Bennett's debased allegations hook, line and sinker.

      Bennett has taken those precious, happy, loving, moments between a little girl and her mummy and turned them into something seedy and odious. DRESSED BY AN ADULT as Lolita! WTF? Those are Bennett's words and sleazy allegations, the words of a right wing Christian fundamentalist who believes the world was made in 7 days.

      As much as I have scorned and derided the introduction of 'haters' to the lexicon, I now have to admit that this case attracted them in thousands. People who have such a need to hate that it overrides every other area of their lives.

      Gerry and Kate are not likeable, mostly because we ALL have a natural ability to spot lies, they make us uncomfortable and suspicious. How much we make use of this natural ability is up to us. Mostly we choose not to, because as Jack Nicholson might say, 'we can't handle the truth'.

      A lot of people in this case have gone around with their 'flight mode' off, because the abduction story suited their own personal agenda. But for ordinary people watching the saga unfold, that niggle just never went away. And for too many, it turned into irrational hatred.

      continues....

      Delete
    2. That is, they were ready, willing and able to believe ANYTHING of the suspects in this case, even the most lurid of allegations. Actually, the more lurid the better.

      Why would the parents (doctors) not give up the body, the world mumbled. Could it be that this group of doctors used their, err, skills, to enjoy childfree evenings knowing their children would sleep undisturbed? HELL NO! Far too simple.

      The child MUST have died from sexual injuries, brought on by a senior cabinet minister/ royal/ pope, who flew in to Warners PDL for their annual paedo party after seeing Maddie advertised by her parents on the dark web.

      Those so called caring parents out there who scrutinise pictures of Maddie for signs of misery and abuse make me sick. Highlighting every bruise and claiming Maddie has a 'knowing' look in her eye. Wtf, does that even mean? If it means what I think it does, shame on you! What a terrible thing to say about a small child.

      Naturally, they use themselves as fine examples, as in 'they never would have.....', then pat themselves on the back and have a mutual admiration group hug. They are so overwhelmed by the stench of sanctimony, that they do not for one moment consider the very real distress they are bringing to very real children and have been for the last 10 years. How would a 12 year old feel reading that his/her 3 year old sister was seen as some sort of sex symbol ffs? Or that she had a 'knowing' look in her eye?

      I sincerely hope that Kate, Gerry and all those people around those kids, reassure them again and again, that the weird people who think like that are a very small minority, and all are cowards. Not one of them has the guts to challenge my words or defend their disgusting allegations.

      Delete
    3. Rosalinda, as you know I agree with you with regard to the 'lolita' nonsense, but 'that knowing look' is mentioned as one of the 23 reasons why the McCanns miss Madeleine.

      http://www.sundayworld.com/news/gerry-and-kate-mccann-have-23-heartbreaking-reasons-they-miss-maddie

      I also think the McCanns couldn't care less about the allegations concerning sexual injuries, because they know what really happened.

      NL

      Delete
    4. I am much relieved to be corrected there NL, many thanks. I don't know what I was thinking, but clearly the connotations I was seeing were my own.

      Coming from the parents and loved ones it is understandable. I will happily admit that each of my sons were able to outwit me by the age of 3. I didn't refer to them as 'knowing' so much as 'little feckers' whilst the battle was ongoing.

      Eg. The LFs knew when I was dying to get them in bed and asleep, so I could open the vino and get on the phone to my best mate to tell her all about a saucy suggestion put to me by my new boss. I could always see 'what's in this for me', in their cherubic little faces when they knew I wanted them out of the way. How quickly they shut up when given a sweety and permission to snuggle up and watch a movie with you!

      As for the McCanns' feelings, you may be right. In their libel trial against Goncalo Amaral they were protesting headlines the twins might see, while creating headlines they would see.

      And in many ways, the crazed allegations of Bennett et al, have helped to keep this case in the public eye. Bennett is the archetypal pantomime villain, the evidence of online harassment they can use as proof of the damage done by Goncalo Amaral's book. Bennett is just too vain and stupid to see it.

      Do they care? Who knows. I do worry for the kids though. I hope the sane adults around are constantly reassuring them and guiding them on how to cope with any unpleasantness. And I don't mean by restricting their access to the internet or hiding books and newspapers from them. Kids will always find a way, pretending they don't and won't is delusional. The parents have to accept that they don't have the power or the resources to remove every negative comment about them from internet or anywhere else. No one does! See daily cartoons of Donald Trump.

      At some point the parents' fake reality bubble will burst NL. How long can they continue to kid their children that they, and the entire world, are still searching for their big sister. Deceiving your children can only alienate them, because they will feel betrayed by your lack of trust in them. They will also remember the scary nights they lay in bed listening to whispering or raised angry voices. And they won't understand why.

      I do fear for anyone who takes child guidance advice from the batshit crazy Pike. On what planet is it a good idea to tell toddlers that monsters climb in through their windows at night and steal children. I'd be astounded if those kids ever slept again!

      Delete
    5. Thank you for your response Rosalinda. I too will happily admit that my children were able to outwit me by the age of 3, lol. And child guidance advice from Pike is not something I would recommend, but, although unlikely, it is possible the twins know the truth.

      Just some thoughts concerning your update:

      “I am now universally despised by more antis than pros in this case.”
      Perhaps because there are more ‘antis’ than ‘pros’? :)

      “Sex sells”
      Kate & Co know.

      “What would be the most logical reason for doctors, holidaying with doctors, not wanting to give up the body of a child who died accidently or otherwise?”

      If I had to choose between the two options, I’d say ‘an overdose of miscalculated drugs’. Far more likely. But why are the McCanns reassured that the MPS has a much clearer picture of the events in Praia da Luz leading up to Madeleine's abduction in 2007? What events?

      NL

      Delete
  43. "On what planet is it a good idea to tell toddlers that monsters climb in through their windows at night and steal children."

    The same planet where monsters steal children from streets, gardens and beaches?

    ..Chez

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ 19:41
      So much for your planet. How about 'a good idea' and 'tell toddlers'?

      Delete
  44. "What would be the most logical reason for doctors, holidaying with doctors, not wanting to give up the body of a child who died accidentally or otherwise?
    1. An overdose of miscalculated drugs.
    2. Deviant child sex involving the Labour Cabinet, Clement Freud, etc etc"

    Of course a far more logical and plausible option is neither of the above.

    ...Chez

    ReplyDelete
  45. 1. The devil.
    2. The deep blue sea.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I see Ms Hutton is censoring again.
    Anything that falls under category of 'debunks my blanket pronouncement'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I haven't censored anything. If you have something to say, say it!

      Delete
  47. Great, the cookie crew have run out of 'special' photographs to paw over and they're out to annoy. I think 'Ms Hutton' is more than fair and patient regarding what gets to see the light of day on her blog. personally, i wouldn't give them oxygen.

    ReplyDelete
  48. "One well known journalist I know remarked that they were the most despicable people he/she had ever encountered."

    Would that be Sonia Poulton by any chance?

    ReplyDelete
  49. "It's ironic to see the sanctimonious claim that they are 'thinking of the children', especially on the McCann hashtag which is devoted entirely to ripping the twins' lives apart. They squeeze out crocodile tears as they claim to be 'doing it all for Maddie', a 3 year old who died years ago, and who wouldn't want their kind of help anyway. 'We vow to make your parents and siblings suffer every day for the next 10 years+', yeh, she would have loved that.

    Most don't have the guts to reveal their real names and faces. Understandable, daily hate mongering is hardly a noble profession and they have much to be ashamed of. As thick as they are, they know they are universally despised, and quite rightly, they are not seeking justice, they want blood. They are the scabby unwashed who fight for front row seats at the scaffold, salivating as the axe comes down. The McCanns are not human apparently, but then neither are they.

    I believe beyond reasonable doubt that the abduction was faked and the McCanns and all those involved in the cover up should stand trial."

    It's your tragedy that you get the idiots on social media spot on, yet get the parents' involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine so wrong.

    ...Chez

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tis true Chez, I could have saved the McCanns millions, if it wasn't for that darn truth getting in the way. Such is life.

      As for the low lives, they were out in full force while I was offline, as soon as I appeared, they scarpered. Not one of them has the guts to face me head on. Not only are they the dregs and faeces of social media, they are spineless cowards. They only want victims who can't fight back.

      Not one of them is capable of composing a post that will demolish my arguments one by one. So they retort with playground name calling because they are too ignorant to do anything else. Then
      they wonder why they are the most despised group of trolls on the internet. If I were popular among them I would be doing something very, very, wrong.

      Right now, I will leave them sweating, not knowing where or when I will unleash my sword, it's the least they deserve.

      Delete
    2. "I could have saved the McCanns millions..."

      Eh? What millions?

      "....if it wasn't for that darn truth getting in the way"

      You mean your darn opinion. But you are wrong. Operation Grange has not spent 5 years building up a case against the McCanns - it wouldn't have taken that long to build a case against known individuals. I suggest you consider re-examining your position before it's too late.

      ..Chez

      Delete
  50. Kate McCann saying They [the twins] still raise money at school for the Find Madeleine Fund which is great., is asking for trouble. Nevertheless, one doesn’t shoot children used as human shields.

    My anger is mainly aimed at the fact that innocent (sighting) children fell prey to the McCann circus. A circus consisting of politicians, police, journalists, bandwagoners, the McCanns & ‘friends’ and god knows who. It is disgusting beyond words. I hope one day all these girls will be able to tell their own story. Sadly, for Mari Luz and Peggy Knobloch it’s too late.

    Above all, I can hardly believe there are still people out there who have faith in Operation Grange.

    NL

    ReplyDelete