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.