DEAR ZIGGY, WHO ARE YOU?

Many thanks for keeping myself and my readers so intrigued this past few weeks, but now I am itchingly curious as to who you might be.  I agree, the comments have been coming thick and fast, and some have disappeared under the radar.  This evening for example I stumbled upon your post of February 14th, and was quite hurt and taken aback -  and just as we were getting on so well.....

I am guessing you are male, simply because you tried to flirt with me.  And, kudos for that, tis a tactic I often use myself, but I'm not gender biased.  I have narrowed you down to Michael, John, Jon or Jim.  Long shot, Hugh.  Whilst I secretly wish you were Gerry, tis doubtful, I read his blogs.  Whilst he ticks all the boxes for anger, hostility, arrogance and need for pay back, his writing lacks that, err, certain eloquence displayed by Ziggy in full on charm mode. 

Somewhat disappointingly, Ziggy may turn out to be one of those loons who always attach themselves to martyrs.  Their loyalties are transient however, they swiftly move on when there is a new headline. They don't have in depth knowledge of the case (arguably, nor does Ziggy), but they don't have in depth knowledge about anything else either. 

Whoever you are Ziggy, you are taking this much too personally to be a casual observer.  I suspect you are using this blog to test the waters.  That is you are trying out ways and means in which to spread the blame around.  Ie. It was all down to Clarence.  What would be the public's reaction to that one?  Kudos for that, you have few options.  But he wasn't there on the night. 

Anyway, I have no problem with that!  Why would I, it increases my readership. Besides which, since this case began, I have longed for the opportunity to 'hear' the McCanns side.  Not the Clarence approved press releases, but directly from them.  Much as I hate to give Gerry and Kate marketing ideas for the 10th anniversary, that's the angle they should be going for.  That is, the unpolished, unrehearsed, real people.   There is nothing wrong with showing raw emotion, in most cases, it is endearing.  Nothing compares with honesty when it comes to tugging at the heart strings. 

I am happy to play the game as long as you are Ziggy.  Be assured, I have no idea who you are at the moment and probably never will. I am just guessing, and trying to narrow it down with speech patters, ha ha.  Though I have ruled out the loons (not entirely), there are other 'suspects'.  I am not sure if you are an older gentleman or maybe, an aspiring 'gentleman'.  Well read should be thrown in somewhere, which again, rules out Clarence and Gerry.  But,the well read however, carries shades of Nazi and a total misinterpretation of every text. 

Your hostility perplexes me Ziggy.  Why so angry?  I am not sure if you are coming from a 'dashed impertinence' perspective, or angry young man.  Or possibly woman, I haven't entirely ruled out the mad aunts and Jane Tanner, nor even the 'subjugated wife' Kate, the angle she might well play when the chips are completely down.  And all the hand holding and dependency gives her a pretty good case.  Kate is just as wiley as husband, of that I have no doubt. You could even be the female half of Summers and Swan, somewhat embittered at being made to look like a total sell out see you next you next Tuesday, and trying desperately to hang on to some sort of credibility.  Perhaps I should hold a competition, who is Ziggy, I am sure it would amuse both of us.   

Your refusal to read books, both Goncalo's and Kate comes more from a book burning stance, rather than that of enlightenment and the search for the truth. I'm afraid refusing to read a book, in my opinion, is the height of ignorance.  It's not an admirable trait, it demonstrates that you are closed off to alternate ideas, not something to be proud of and a bit Amish.  You might just as well put on blinkers, cover your ears and pretend the 21st century isn't happening.  Just as you dismiss the greatest threat to humanity, a madman in the Whitehouse, as a distraction to the innocence of the McCanns.  It is without logic. 

You confuse truth with hate Ziggy.  Truth being the bad guy, because it upsets the paradigm.  Let's all tiptoe along as if we live in a Stepford World where nice people like Gerry and Kate don't commit heinous crimes.  It's far too easy to believe that dark forces have dark skins and nice, middle class, church going white people are automatically innocent.  And in the case of Gerry and Kate McCann, this was an 'Executive Order' from New Labour carried out by the UK's mainstream media.  How does it compare to the invasion of Iraq, time will tell.

I don't care who you are Ziggy, nor will I try to find you out.  IP addresses are as interesting to me today as they have always been, that is they remind me of boring filing cabinets.  In some areas I have the attention span of a goldfish - as confirmed by two qualified psychiatrists, Smart Arsed Sons, and a variety of ex angry bosses.  If you reveal who you are, it will be your option. 

I would like to think of this as an intelligent chess game Ziggy , but naturally I have never had the patience for that.  It is more cat and mouse, and from my perspective (as the mouse), it's getting quite exciting to meet the enemy head on.  On this occasion the mouse will not be running away.  I have longed, this past 9+ years to discuss both sides of this case rationally.  But, it has been impossible because both sides have become so entrenched, every attempt at rational discussion has descended into a slanging match. 

Much to my extreme frustration over the years, the forums and facebook pages have immediately censored and shut down any discussion at the point where it became interesting!  And probably why, I eventually had to 'create a system of my own'. 

Continue trying out your ideas Ziggy, this blog is as good a reflection of honest public opinion as any.  Some ideas will probably fall on stony ground, but ce la vie, at least here, you are in an unbound stadium and you are getting unbiased feedback. You may argue the feedback is biased, but it's an equal playing field, you can persuade the opposition over to your way of thinking, or you can throw a hissy fit and instruct lawyers.  And on the instructing lawyers bit, the McCanns might want to ask themselves, how that's worked out for them so far?