Sunday, 12 February 2017

MISSING PEOPLE AND KATE

It was inevitable that there would be repercussions from last week's damning McCann headlines, and one of the first among them is the questioning of Kate's role as Ambassador for the national charity, Missing People.  Her appointment caused outrage at the time, but once again it was written off as the rantings of a small group of trolls on twitter. 

Now that questions are being asked about Kate and Gerry McCann, quite rightly, questions should also be asked of a few major Charities.  Following the Madeleine case has been enlightening on so many levels, and many of us are now seeing Charities in a whole new light.  It would not surprise me if Missing People were among the collateral damage when the proverbial hits the fan.

But why did they select Kate?  Kate had proved herself to be an outstanding fundraiser, the millions raised by herself and her husband for ONE child was unprecedented.  In the McCanns' slick, professional, 2007 'Find Madeleine' campaign and European Tour, the stalwart Kate didn't miss a single camera call.  No matter what was going on behind the scenes, this neat and tidy, devoted family woman and good Christian, could give interviews and hold press conferences without turning into a blubbering mess. And she already had a public role.  That is, as the mother of the most famous missing child in the world, she was the 'go to' commentator and renowned world expert on child abduction, Amber Alert, the Nasty Press and fundraising with a little 'ffff'.  Not forgetting of course, both Kate and her husband, get their highs from competitive sports.  Whilst others in PDL searched for their daughter, they were running up mountains trying to achieve their personal bests.  What better for a Charity than a sporty celebrity wearing a vest with their logo all over it?

Call me an old cynic, but the answer to every question is money, and reasons to appoint Kate Ambassador, outweighed all the reasons not to.  It is not up to the Charity to question the guilt, innocence or motives of those who need their help or those who assist them, and that's what they will say.  The have the same role as the Church effectively, that is their role is philanthropic, they are not there to judge.  They have the get out of jail free card without all the ceremony. 

I suspect that the word 'Charity' will protect them, just as it did with Jimmy Saville and Lance Armstrong.  I don't think it should.  Missing People is a national charity with hundreds if not thousands of live and findable kids. Imagine, if they had received just a fraction of the time, money and resources as the non findable Madeleine, how many families could have been reunited?  It was also misleading.  Madeleine is not a typical Missing Child. How many cherubic 3 year olds are stolen from their beds in the night? Answer, almost zero. Most missing kids are spotty, troubled and belligerent adolescents who have gone off in a huff.  Happily, most return, but some don't.  It was disingenuous of the Charity to use the face of Madeleine - putting it bluntly, she is not representative of their product.  Carry on stepping over the kids huddled in doorways, and focus on well cared for, pretty little 3 year olds out with their families with a distinctive mark in her eye.  If you find one, photograph her, sell the picture to all the national newspapers, Oh and, report her parents for child abduction.
 

There are many aspects about this case that are extremely distasteful, not least the dreadful monetary exploitation of this poor little girl and her memory. Not just by the McCanns, but by all those who opted for the profit making side of this tragic human interest story.  There are many mainstream journalists out there who should hang their heads in shame.  Not just for not doing their homework, but for choosing the more popular (and more profitable) alternative facts over the truth.  But please don't misunderstand, I don't blame any journalist for trying to make a buck, even a fast one, what they do is entirely down to their own conscience.  I just hope theirs are troubling them now, particularly with regard to the way in which they have treated Goncalo Amaral, to whom they now have the opportunity to make amends. 

Given the choice however, most people opt for the truth.  That is they don't have the time and inclination to continue reading something they know to be absolute bollox. Or they read parts, just as I do, to wind themselves up.  Ultimately, I hope, truth will be the winner.  That is, readers will seek out and stay loyal to, writers who are not out to bullshit them.  I have to say, I was exhilarated yesterday to receive well over 5,000 hits to my blog!  Ie. 5 times my usual daily average.  Whoever shared, a big, big thank you :) 

Just to assure new readers (those who come back), my interest in this case is mostly academic.  I have no truck with vigilantes.  I, like most of readers have been drawn into this real life (though somewhat niche) reality show.  And we are not entirely to blame.  The parents of Madeleine enticed us into their interactive saga from the start.  It was very progressive of them, it was pre Kardashians I think, but for a while there Jon Corner had a whole 'At Home with the McCanns' thing going on.  Unfortunately, the Pleasantville lifestyle has no audience today, had Gerry dossed on the sofa with a bottle of beer and a spliff, and Kate been caught telling the kids to shut up and eat their McDonalds, it may have had a chance. 

But I digress.  Missing People are a Corporation like any other, but with a charitable status that gives them exemptions, not least, it would be impolite to question their motives.  Ultimately, the decision to appoint Kate McCann will depend on charts and graphs.  Has her appointment raised their profile and brought in more donations, or have they plummeted?  Will these latest revelations from Portugal have a knock on effect?  Will those who appointed Kate Ambassador be held responsible for any huge drop in their income? With corporations, karma usually comes in the form of loss of profits and changes at the top.  Nah, who am I kidding, someone in the post room will get fired.

220 comments:

  1. Is there a legal difference between the words 'charity' and 'charitable'? I've noticed people on social media have no problem calling the fund 'charitable', yet they don't actually say it's a charity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think when you refer to charitable you mean FUND. When we say Charity (capital C) we mean a fund that is set up under certain rules\Charities Commission, that has tax benefits and widely considered to be above board & vetted. Therefore, the No Stone left unturned Madeleine Fund LIMITED, is in fact a private Limited Company and complies to usual rules of submission for tax purposes. Although the Madeleine fund, does publish an 'ethos' of best practice. Of course, you might be playing with semantics.
      You will note of course, that I'm being particularly charitable with my reply.

      Delete
    2. PS\addional to above A Fund accepted by the Charities Commission, abiding by certain rules and conditions, will be known, therefore as a REGISTERED CHARITY. Thus people should have confidence that said 'charity' does what it sets out to do.
      But nothing is often as it seems and most large charities good deeds are never equal to the good will of the givers, with overheads far too often, FAR TOO HIGH.

      Delete
    3. "We would be grateful if you are considering fund raising that you do not refer to Madeleine's fund as a registered charity as it is not. If you are embarking on a type fund raising which may carry an element of risk you may wish to consider your position regarding insurance cover."

      http://bit.ly/2kA2u7i

      Delete
  2. "I suspect that the word 'Charity' will protect them, just as it did with Jimmy Saville and Lance Armstrong."

    Welcome to the @jillycl and McFadden club, a club most would be ashamed to belong to.

    Chez

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @13:56

      Sorry, never heard of the @jillycl and McFadden club. I wouldn't want to belong to any club, last of all one you would like to welcome me.

      Delete
  3. It's strange that Kate is quite happy to front a registered charity, but the Madeline fund is anything but. I wonder how many donors regret their donations now?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi John,
      Yes, if those, who have donated to Circus McCann, have any common sense at all, they'll all realize that they have been fooled.
      Other people, who now may consider to donate to the McCanns' private fund, because the "poor" couple lost their battle against GA, should be told, that whatever their money are being spent on, it won't be on the search for Madeleine.

      Delete
  4. @Bjorn 15:07

    I'll take your word that it ''won't be on the search for Madeleine''. I have no choice as I don't have any of the private details of their money or accounts whereas, you do-apparently. What will it be spent on instead then ? I'm curious. If it's anything that isn't 'in the small print' you should report them...

    @Ros

    I don't share your compassion for journalists who 'make a fast buck'. They struggle reporting simple news at the best of times and lie elsewhere. The bastards have no scruples. They've lined the pockets off Madeleine McCanns image and the hounding of the parents.The invented leads and other lies have made a fortune for their oily bosses and tormented the McCann family ( that's Gerry's family and Kate's family..they all share the grief).

    Blogs such as this and its bigger brother run by looney tunes and his ghouls should consider challenging people. How about Mitchell ? How about Lord Bell ? We're not talking chicken feed. We're talking amounts big enough to pay for pretty sizeable houses for cash.Demand justification from them . It doesn't mean blogs can't still be used to swap hate stories, that's separate. But the gravy train, or band wagon, or whatever you call it has feathered many nests in the name of Madeleine.

    Choosing Kate McCann as an ambassador for missing people was nothing more than cashing in on her image.her face was 'good for business' and some sharp knife jumped on the idea.But I dare say it'll be Kate McCann's evil and conniving mind that will carry the blame. She should have refused. But can you imagine the backlash if she had done that ?

    ''Given the choice however, most people opt for the truth. That is they don't have the time and inclination to continue reading something they know to be absolute bollox. Or they read parts, just as I do, to wind themselves up.''

    If you stop halfway through the journey, you don't know where it was going to end, you can only guess.And a guess is just a guess . But selectively reading ''to wind yourself up '' is an odd choice. it's a bit self -defeating don't you think ? It's also to an obstacle to thinking more objectively and arriving at more objective conclusions.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Ziggy@17:08. I'm afraid you've got it wrong again. The fund itself is Private Ltd Co, therefore they don't have to specify what the money is spent on. As long as the money is accountable, taxed, vat, salaries ect. Secondly by their own admission the fund has been used to pay for dodgy investigators, mortgage payments (2 that we know of) and legal fees. Add that to the £12 million of taxpayers money wasted on this case, no wonder people are fed up with them. Not hate I might add, just fed up with them and their self inflicted problem.

      Delete
    2. John 100, Where on earth do you get the figure of £12 million from?

      I have just been through the accounts - they are audited and have never received an audit qualification.

      The board of directors, who control the company, are broad and certainly not restricted to the McCanns. Therefore, if you want to blame anyone for misuse of donations, then you have to blame the board as a whole - that's how companies work!!

      Delete
  5. Ros: you have posted a lot of hateful blogs but this one takes you to a new low.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In what way 20:36?

      Who or what should be above suspicion and above questioning? Appointing Kate McCann as Ambassador for Missing People was a controversial decision and it is presently being discussed.

      I really do not understand the mentality of avoiding subjects for fear of causing offence or distress. It is just another form of censorship.

      Delete
  6. If you've decided the McCanns are criminals then you're not going to have a good word to say for the fund....

    Taxpayers' money is never wasted on investigating crimes such as the disappearance of a child. Everyone tried, but so far with no apparent success.

    BTW There's no circus or team McCann, just like there's no conspiracy or cover up.

    Chez



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Chez
      As long as the McCanns are not being investigated, and as long as there's no real search for Madeleine's remains in the area around PDL, the so called investigation isn't just incomplete and insufficient, but also reduced to a huge international search party, with the aim of finding Madeleine alive. If Madeleine should be dead, all of it, has just been a waste of time and money; taxpayers money.

      Delete
    2. @Björn at 22:19

      The McCanns have been investigated - what makes you think they haven't?
      As for searching for remains, I guess the investigators will know whether that's worth doing. Not sure you're qualified to adjudge the investigation to be incomplete and insufficient if not done.
      How can investigating the disappearance of a child be a waste of time and money if it turns out the child is dead? That's bizarre!

      Chez

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 12.2 @20:59

      "Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories..." (George W Bush)

      Right you are sir. Whatever you say sir ('is my microphone still on?')

      Delete
  7. @john100

    '' 2 that we know of'' says a lot there. Let's pretend we want justice for a little girl. In the meantime, let's scrutinise beneath every single stone to see if we can find anything at all to inflate and pass around that reads badly for the parents.

    ''I'm afraid you've got it wrong again''

    Is that right ? Where ? I asked questions. There's mo such thing as a wrong question, only a wrong answer.

    I can't imagine either of the parents asking Mitchell and co ''Here, Clarence mate..take a really big wedge and find dodgy investigators that need a load of money, and find some fat ex Tory who has connections in the dodgy media and give him even more..by the way, we've had to stay off work a while, take some to keep the roof over our heads but make sure it goes in the papers..nobody thinks bad enough of us yet see..''

    I won't make the distinction between embezzlement and murder. I'm backing the long shot and assuming you know the answer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, Ziggy, maybe not the McCanns saying so, but I can very well imagine CM suggesting something like that, perhaps just using somewhat different words, but with the same intention of course.

      Delete
    2. Ziggy, do you really think it is just a case of bad luck that Team McCann managed, every instance to employ criminal private 'investigators' with no experience or record of recovering missing children?
      If I recall one firm wasnt even incorporated until after it had been engaged.
      Is it not suspicious that Dr's McCann managed, within days to surround themselves with the very best legal, advisory & PR teams that money can buy and that those experts couldn't manage due diligence?
      Again, after being duped (accidently on purpose) if you ask me, that as pointed out here, that Team made no effort to recover monies fraudulently obtained but pursued (of course not about the money), a detective who wrote a factual book that wasn't even available in English?
      You are either naive or know nothing here of the history of this case.

      Delete
  8. Hi Ziggy, don't know what is the matter with you. By your own admission you have never read any of the books involved in this case. Yes at the end of the day a little girl is missing, yes the parents are at fault for leaving not one but three alone in an unlocked apartment. Yes they did hire dodgy investigators, yes they used the fund for mortgage payments & legal fees. Now without getting into a slanging match, might I suggest you read up on the case, this might help you to understand were people are coming from.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @john 21:35

    John, I wouldn't get into a 'slanging match' on an internet blog for the same reason that I wouldn't try to explain a rainbow to a rabbit.

    I don't know which book to read. I'm convinced that leaving children alone in that situation is wrong and amounts to negligence, but no matter how many times i roll that around, i can't see it as an accusation of murder. It seems no single copper here or there can make that connection either.We all seem to be missing something crucial.

    By the way, if some double glazing salesman took you for thousands in a new house, and then a building contractor did the same and you couldn't get that money back, would you expect the internet to unite against you for being conned out of so much money ? I'd go after the parasites who took the cash under false pretences.

    Ten years. It's not me who needs to read up on anything.I haven't been on the case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But Gerry and Kate didn't go after the parasites who took the cash Ziggy. They paid hundreds of thousands to phoney detectives without making even the most rudimentary of checks. Not just one dodgy firm but several. Why have they never sued them?

      I agree with John. It really would help your understanding of this case Ziggy if you were to read The Truth of the Lie. It is a quick and easy read, a simple account of the police investigation in the summer of 2007.

      Delete
    2. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton12 February 2017 at 23:05

      why do you continue to encourage people to read pirated copies of Amaral's book and deprive him of future income. Maybe if you posted a link to an officially translated English copy and authorised by Amaral and his publishers it would be appropriate. But there isn't one yet.

      Delete
    3. The translation of Truth of the Lie online reached thousands, hence the donations to Goncalo Amaral's fighting fund.

      I will also encourage people to buy the book as soon as it becomes available, which I hope will be very soon.

      Delete
  10. Another McCann supporter mentioning the M word....ooh dear!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thanks for that remarkable insight Thomas. Back in your box now please....

    Ros, I know the McCanns didn't go after anyone who screwed the fund, I've mentioned it elsewhere.What I'm driving at is, instead of all the Bennet clones repeating the same old lines and convincing anyone who'll listen just how 'obvious' this all is and then setting about scrutinising the parents for something else to hate them for, why not freshen it up. From what i see and read every piece of evidence is in the possession of bloggers and twitterites. More importantly, they're so positive they have an air tight case . So, why not solve the mystery on behalf of everyone who is curious and two police forces that haven't got the information ? When it comes to the fund and money matters, and the fraudsters who dipped it, what's wrong with going after them and attacking them ? Who chose them ? Who advised the McCanns that it was money well spent ?

    John keeps repeating the 'they were left alone', i keep saying that isn't a cause of death. No book needed for that fine point of law.
    With so many police officers involved in this case for so long, and no arrests but hundreds of hoax sightings fed to the media, is it just me that needs to understand the case ? I can't buy the reason for the 'stalemate ' that's been woven throughout the forest of legal jargon . I believe a lot of people know Madeleines fate . I mean 'know' in the literal sense, not the internet sense.

    If you keep running in a circle you won't move forward. That's all I was suggesting. The ten year stalemate supports that. Just redirect your aim.The alternative is this situation, as it is now, will be permanent.

    ReplyDelete
  12. @ros 23:05

    ''phoney detectives without making even the most rudimentary of checks. Not just one dodgy firm but several. Why have they never sued them?''

    The thing is with con artists who play for high stakes,is that they never advertise that bit on their websites.

    Had the McCanns 'gone after' them, what do you think would take up most of the web space once it came out ? The collective orgasm of the massed ranks of online haters would probably wipe everyone's internet out for a week.Lose, lose...

    ReplyDelete
  13. @Bjorn 21:54

    '' No, Ziggy, maybe not the McCanns saying so, but I can very well imagine''

    And therein lies the problem...

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hi Ziggy@22:04,

    Again here lies the problem, either your not reading the blog's properly or you like putting words into people's mouths. The reason I keep mentioning the children being left alone is because that is what started the whole chain of events. It's not the cause of death, but it's the cause leading to either an abduction or a tragic accident leading to Madeline's death. I have never accused or have I read in this forum to my knowledge apart from you, accusing the McCanns of murder. My theory is Madeline died tragically within the apartment and for whatever reason the parents couldn't inform the authorities straight away.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John100 @03:29

      "I have never accused or have I read in this forum to my knowledge apart from you, accusing the McCanns of murder."

      You are right. Bernard Hogan-Howe ‘mistakenly’ said ‘murder’.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kbp53fvtL3Y

      0:36
      "...the family handed to our team who are investigating or reviewing the murder of, sorry, reviewing the missing girl, the McCann daughter."

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

      "If she is dead then she is dead, but not by their hand." - Clarence Mitchell.

      http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/maddie-police-to-search-reservoir-960388

      Delete
    2. Yes John, I agree. If Madeleine didn't die when they were present, then Madeleine being left alone is, as you say, the cause of either a tragic accident in the apartment, which I've always believed or of a stranger abduction, which, I suppose both the Portuguese P J and the S Y still believe.
      So I cannot understand why you Ziggy doesn't see the obvious correlation between the McCanns' kids being left alone and Madeleine's mysterious disappearance. If leaving Madeleine alone wouldn't be the cause to whatever happened to her, there could of course still have been an accident, but the McCanns must then have disposed of her body.

      Delete
    3. Sorry, I addressed Ziggy of course. It should have been "you Ziggy don't see". I was not talking about you Ziggy but to you.Not so easy with a foreign language.

      Delete
  15. 24 September 2007

    "It was reported earlier today that the family had hired a private security firm with extensive experience of kidnapping situations to help find Madeleine.

    A source close to the couple's legal team told reporters that Control Risks Group had been working with the family since May and is in regular contact.

    "You can assume that Control Risks are doing some of the things that the Portuguese police can't do," the source said.

    An insurance expert founded the company in the 1970s, utilising former SAS soldiers to help combat the kidnapping threat to businessmen in south America.

    Control Risks describes itself as a "leading international business risk consultancy", helping corporate, governmental and non-governmental organisations.

    The firm's website says that over the past 32 years it has worked in more than 130 countries for more than 5,000 customers. Its main clients are multinational firms and government departments and employs some 200 security staff in southern Iraq, mainly protecting Foreign Office and Department for International Development personnel."

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/sep/24/ukcrime.world

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

    "Gerry McCann reportedly approached several private investigation companies in May, just weeks after his daughter went missing."

    http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=3659821

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous @07:24

      Kerchiinng...!

      'It was reported earlier today that the family had hired a private security firm...'

      'Control Risks Group had been working with the family since May...doing some of the things that the Portuguese police can't do'.

      'Control Risks describes itself as...helping corporate, governmental and non-governmental organisations.'

      '...security staff in southern Iraq, mainly protecting Foreign Office and Department for International Development personnel'

      Once again we are invited to see the McCanns as principals to an arrangement they definitely did not make.

      As Kate McCann tells it: "We were told that an anonymous (but evidently very generous) donor had set aside a considerable sum of money for us to put towards the cost of hiring a private-investigation company if we wished. Hugh had been brought in by a firm called Control Risks, which was primed to help."

      Control Risks were primed using someone else's money (the McCanns didn't have enough of that at the time, nor did they do the priming).

      Who were Control Risks already doing important work for again...?

      Delete
    2. KM (‘madeleine’, the birth of our campaign):

      "At the last two meetings the barrister and legal assistant were joined by a consultant called Hugh, whose profession was not at first explained (‘Just call me Hugh,’ he said enigmatically). It transpired that he was a former intelligence officer, now a kidnap negotiator and counsellor.”

      Corporate security!

      Delete
    3. Anonymous @13:07

      'Corporate security!'

      On behalf of UK Ltd. The alternative is to imagine it was the McCanns' risks that required controlling.

      If 'Hugh' and his mates had 'children at risk of abduction' listed within their professional portfolio they were already too late!

      Delete
  16. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/13/ex-gchq-whistleblower-attacks-plans-to-extend-dragnet-of-secrecy-act

    ReplyDelete
  17. @john100 03:29


    '' Again here lies the problem, either your not reading the blog's properly or you like putting words into people's mouths'

    Probably wasting my time but show me where i did that. If I quote someone I'm using their words, not putting my own in their mouths.

    ''The reason I keep mentioning the children being left alone is because that is what started the whole chain of events. It's not the cause of death, but it's the cause leading to either an abduction or a tragic accident leading to Madeline's deat''

    When i continually suggest Madeleine was abducted i also say there's no defending the McCanns leaving her vulnerable. But it doesn't make them guilty of murder, only neglect until evidence( a body might help) pinning the death to them comes forward. It's really that simple.

    '' I have never accused or have I read in this forum to my knowledge apart from you, accusing the McCanns of murder. My theory is Madeline died tragically within the apartment and for whatever reason the parents couldn't inform the authorities straight away.''


    So with that theory, they probably didn't leave the apartment open or the twins alone with a dead body.The checking in on the twins every so often was what ?An elaborate plan drawing in their tapas friends to cover up an accident ? They would have called emergency services. There's no 'for whatever reason they couldn't' if there was an accident surely. Or did you mean 'wouldn't', as in, wanted to rehearse their stories as they were responsible ? An abductor watching, then pouncing and then leaving seems more feasible the more detective novel theories i read...

    @Bjorn 10:21
    '' John, I agree. If Madeleine didn't die when they were present, then Madeleine being left alone is, as you say, the cause of either a tragic accident in the apartment, which I've always believed or of a stranger abduction''

    Glad we cleared that up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Ziggy@13:16

      Sorry your not making sense, please read The Truth of the Lie & Madeline to get a balanced view. Then perhaps you can understand why we have come to the conclusions stated.

      Delete
  18. @john100

    If I'm not making sense when i quote you, who shall I apologise for.You love riddles. A 'balanced' view is when two sides of an argument are given an equal and unbiased examination with a view to coming to a fair conclusion given the limited evidence. In simple terms, entertain the occasional notion that you might actually be overlooking or missing something and need to address it. The fact that you use the phrase '' why we have come to the conclusion''. Who's 'we' ? I don't need to join a club or follow a trend. Is your 'we' the collective haters ?I rarely see anything more than a token word or two from any hater that entertains an alternative view to their mantra.That's not balance.

    I see talk of corporate security and control risk groups above this post ^^. I wonder why they were brought in..the more you look the bigger this whole thing is.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Why was Kate made an ambassador for Missing People charity, and why do they continue to keep her in that role? IMO it's the same reason that the McCann group launched a fund within days of Madeleine's disappearance and publicised it in all the papers calling it No "Stone" Unturned (rather than something simple and predictable like "Bring Madeleine Home" or "Maddie's Fund"). I don't say this reason is in any way responsible for Madeleine's disappearance, just for all the inappropriate support that followed, and which has dogged the pursuit of justice for Madeleine ever since.

    ReplyDelete
  20. @16:12

    Generally, politicians and media moguls share two common factors :greed and dishonesty.

    When these team up as one, forget trying to find real truth; not when the band wagon keeps getting money thrown onto it.

    With regard to the 'war fund', i see the same tired lines. How much the McCanns used for their mortgage and whatever else is 'evil'. However,when those who jumped on board to milk it, i see the McCanns criticised for not hunting them down( which would inevitably be assumed as ungrateful or greedy ).

    Mitchell ( PR /Media/Politics) and Bell ( ex politics and media) were responsible for 'buying' headlines. As such they had to keep finding some to justify the pay out. Even the haters can see that.

    It's my contention, therefore, that the only worthwhile question worth asking those who ran the show is this : If you were of a mind that a child had been kidnapped how did you know so early that you'd need a fund big enough to last for years ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "If you were of a mind that a child had been kidnapped how did you know so early that you'd need a fund big enough to last for years ?"

      Crazy question, Ziggy! They didn't know!! The fund became big. There was no knowing involved.

      Chez

      Delete
  21. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton12 February 2017 at 23:20

    "I really do not understand the mentality of avoiding subjects for fear of causing offence or distress. It is just another form of censorship."

    So Ros when you say: "There are many aspects about this case that are extremely distasteful, not least the dreadful monetary exploitation of this poor little girl and her memory." Will you now discuss in a sensible way why you have a Donate button on this mainly Mccann hate blog?

    Don't forget - you were pleased with having 5000 (or some other made up number) hits (lol)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have a donate button because I am a writer trying to make a living out of my craft.

      What is so hard to understand?

      Delete
    2. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton13 February 2017 at 19:13

      What is so hard to understand is that your craft is to post hate blogs against the Mccanns.

      Delete
    3. I don't think the fund was primarily about raising money to search for Madeleine - there were police on the ground doing that; nor do I think it was really about possible future legal bills - though I daresay it's come in very handy in that department. I think its main purpose was to rally support for Kate and Gerry McCann, especially the right kind of support. No "stone" unturned, and all that.

      Delete
    4. 19:35. I don't write hate blogs. And if that is what you are getting from this site you are not reading it properly.

      Supply and demand 19:35. I write about the McCanns because there is an audience there for it. You may have noticed that the MSM write about Madeleine regularly too. As you know, the name Madeleine shifts copy.

      This is not a hate blog. It's actually a TRUTH blog, that is I, and my readers have been drawn into the McCann story, just as they wanted us to be. This blog is no different to an unfavourable review.

      People are still discussing this case, and having been hooked in the beginning, I still want some answers too. You can't stop the discussion!

      I have studied this case in depth from the beginning, my reasons are many and complex and I won't repeat here, suffice to say, my degree only took 3 years. As a writer I study human behaviour, and this case really has been a once in a lifetime golden opportunity. The characters are so compelling!

      My blog actually has very balanced, and largely non hysterical contributors. I don't ban alternate views, on the contrary, I encourage debate.

      People will comment on social media about this case regardless of my contribution. They can do it under the censorship of the facebook groups and the batshit crazy forums CMoMM and JATKY2 or they can find intelligent conversation here.

      Without banning or censorship, my blog has reached it's own adult level of discussion. Most of the trolls and hatemongers have dropped out, because, well, they just look stupid.

      We don't all agree, but we are able to discuss our disagreements rationally and with respect. This is not a hate site.

      Delete
  22. I contributed to the Madeleine's Fund - 'Leaving No Stone Unturned'.

    I have no problem or questions about how the money was spent - especially as I read the third objective: "To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you OK with them using it to sue people and avoid answering questions about their daughter's disappearance?

      Delete
    2. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton13 February 2017 at 19:14

      Yes I would encourage them to sue people.

      Yes - I would recommend that they took legal advice and upheld their right not to answer questions that were designed to implicate them. it is the right under law.

      Delete
    3. to anonymous 13 February 18:22
      And above all "To threaten and sue as many people as possible, who dare question their innocence", which was another objective, that they should have mentioned as well, but didn't.

      Delete
    4. I, and I imagine every parent out there, cannot imagine putting their own self preservation above the fate of their missing child 19:32.

      Innocent parents wouldn't care what happened to them, they would put their faith in the police telling them anything and everything. And innocent parents would very quickly be eliminated so the police could focus on the search.

      It wasn't in anyone's interests to frame the parents 19:32. Police men and women are no different to the rest of us, they don't want a child predator loose on the streets! And it was their neighbourhood! And the same argument applies in the case of Joana Cipriano.

      Gerry and Kate took a very hostile stance with the Portuguese police from the very beginning. Why? She calls the first two policemen on the scene Tweedledum and Tweedledee. What was she expecting in a sleepy seaside town with a low crime rate?

      Both Gerry and Kate's first calls home were 'no-one is helping us'. That was blatantly untrue as most of the staff, holidaymakers and locals were out searching as they spoke. The Portuguese police launched the biggest missing child search in its' history.

      But back to their rights. Do you not think odd that they had no faith in the police? Had I been dependent on those guys to find my child, I would have treated them like Gods! And I would have been eternally grateful to them for everything they did. It is not too dissimilar to a medical situation, where we put our faith in the doctors.

      A suspect who refuses to answer questions will always be under more suspicion. Kate's refusal to answer 48 questions was damning. Equally as damning as Goncalo's book. Who pleads Fifth Amendment when their child is missing?

      Delete
    5. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton13 February 2017 at 21:13

      So you are just repeating the hatred that has gone on for nearly 10 years - no original points or observations.

      Kate had just been made a suspect (in your words) into the disappearance of her own child.

      You may know exactly hoe you would react - but I doubt it very much.

      "28. Did you manage to sleep?" Such an insightful question into the disappearance of her daughter.

      The questions were pulled by amaral from reading fucking forums or was that a standard interrogative fact finding question?

      Delete
  23. Ros says: "It was inevitable that there would be repercussions from last week's damning McCann headlines, and one of the first among them is the questioning of Kate's role as Ambassador for the national charity, Missing People."

    Apart from hater havern who I pointed out to you on your previous blog has written to Missing People - where else have you seen "repercussions" and "questioning of Kate's role as Ambassador"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mostly on twitter, ie. the quickest way to see to what's trending.

      Delete
    2. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton13 February 2017 at 19:17

      which hashtag would that be Ros?

      Delete
    3. "Mostly on twitter, ie. the quickest way to see to what's trending"

      LOL- It's the quickest way to see to what's trending ON TWITTER.

      There's a difference, which is why there is no questioning of Kate's role as Ambassador for Missing People.

      Chez

      Delete
  24. Ros says: "I really do not understand the mentality of avoiding subjects for fear of causing offence or distress. It is just another form of censorship."

    So maybe you can discuss why Leanne Baulch and murky macleod who were so actively involved in the Amaral GoFundMe disappeared so suddenly after the double donation by apparently serving UK Police officers?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I imagine Leanne Baulch, as a young mum and a student, had a life to get back to. But what she did was amazing, she has much to proud of.

      Took a while to work out 'murky macleod', I imagine he is sitting on a fence somewhere to see which way the wind blows.

      Delete
    2. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton13 February 2017 at 19:21

      Do you think "I imagine" is a genuine answer or is it a guess or is it a cover up, or is it that you can't be bothered with a possible scam that does not implicate the Mccanns,

      Double standard.

      Delete
    3. Gerry and Kate were extremely peeved that the public responded so generously to the appeal for Goncalo Amaral. Especially as they are never likely to see such donations to themselves again.

      The only people shouting 'scam' are McCann supporters. The money was honestly raised and handed over in full to Goncalo's legal fund. And we know that is what he used it for, because we saw the result last week!

      Delete
    4. It has been tremendously encouraging and heartening, and it must unequivocally be stated that without you, it would simply not have been possible to walk this road towards Justice.

      http://pjga.blogspot.pt/2017/02/thank-you.html

      Delete
    5. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton13 February 2017 at 19:43

      The only people shouting 'scam' are McCann haters about the fund.

      See how it works?

      Show me the Amaral fund accounts - you know the fund that has been running for years and was topped up (cough) by the GoFundMe.

      Delete
  25. Well 18:15, you get your lovable comment published, free of charge!

    Rosalinda, keep up the good work (& donate button).

    NL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's great that you support donations to a hate site instead of a missing child site.

      Delete
    2. NL

      do you have a problem with somebody asking questions?

      Delete
    3. NL 19.13 - how do you know who has donated here? Are you saying the donations are nil - if so - where did you get that information from?

      Delete
    4. @19:47
      “a hate site”, that’s your opinion.
      You don’t know whether I support a missing child site, you're just guessing.

      @20:04
      No.

      @20:44
      Where did I say that?

      NL

      Delete
    5. @ NL Anonymous13 February 2017 at 20:04

      do you have a problem with somebody questioning the person asking questions?

      Delete
    6. @23:05

      Is your question addressed to me or to the person @20:04?

      I don't have a problem with somebody questioning the person asking questions.

      NL

      Delete
  26. As costs were awarded against the Mccanns will Amaral be refunding the unnecessary donations from the GoFundMe?

    Or maybe I can look forward to him donating it to a Charity - oh no Ros doesn'e like them - as was originally stated.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Hi Ziggy@15:46

    If I'm not making sense when i quote you, who shall I apologise for.You love riddles.

    No need to apologise as your not even quoting me correctly anyway. Yes I do love puzzles.

    A 'balanced' view is when two sides of an argument are given an equal and unbiased examination with a view to coming to a fair conclusion given the limited evidence.

    I have a balanced view, as I have listened to and read both sides of the case in question. Now I will be the first to put my hands up if I'm wrong, that's the nature way of debating. As I said previously I will not get into a slanging match with, and again perhaps I can suggest you read the books and see my point of view. The same applies to me so I can understand why others support the abduction theory. I will say this to you, at no point did I ever accuse the McCanns of murder or that I hated them. Please if you are going to quote me, please have the decency to get it correct. As I said if I'm wrong or mistaken I will be the first to apologise.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You don't have a balanced view - yours is based on 'fake news' - see above the response to your statement re £12 million donations!!!!

      Delete
    2. Quite right John, and it reiterates my point that this is not a hate blog. Not believing the McCanns does not equate to hating them. And those who read it that way have very poor comprehension skills.

      Delete
  28. Ros blogs: "my interest in this case is mostly academic. I have no truck with vigilantes."

    But allows hate/libel to be posted on here all day every day.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Prediction - some time in the future Ros will ask for donations to keep this lively, informative, truth seeking hate blog going!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By all means disagree with her misguided, nay odious views, but I can't see what's wrong with her asking for payment for her efforts.

      More generally, in the absence of any evidence that the McCanns have committed any crime, it was predictable that the idiots would turn on slagging off the McCanns. Two minutes on Twitter and Facebook shows this to be the case. In such a corrosive atmosphere anyone who puts their head above the parapet is likely to get the same treatment.

      Chez

      Delete
    2. 'Prediction?'

      You're behind the times (see top right-hand corner of this page).

      Delete
    3. And no time like the present 22:20!

      To those who enjoy my blogs and would like to make an occasional donation, it would be much appreciated. Whilst I write on here I am not selling books. And that is fine, it is my choice and I love the interaction, but it doesn't pay bills! A small donation, the price of a magazine or book will help to keep the wolf from the door.

      As one of the few writers brave enough to speak out against not only the McCanns but also the Establishment, I have had my name and reputation smeared, and indeed, every door closed to me. Perhaps that's one of the reasons I am still here and still fighting to remain unbound!

      However, I love the idea that my blog is free! In fact it's one of the reasons I haven't (yet) written a separate book. At the moment this is a live, ongoing saga, it doesn't have an end. Free it reaches a much wider audience (a buzz for a writer), and it steers people away from the pitchforks and hatred.

      Hatred is borne out of ignorance, and where this case is concerned, that 'ignorance' has been exploited by both sides of the McCann debate. This case is like a simmering pot with the potential for a lot of nastiness. There are a lot of people involved and many young children.

      Much as I hate pompous statements, one of my objectives is to keep a sane and rational dialogue going. I don't want to see angry mobs descending on Rothley. I want to see justice, but I want to see understanding and compassion and as few innocent lives wrecked as possible. That is not hate!

      Delete
    4. Many thanks Chez, and if I may say, you are quite an unlikely champion for my cause!

      Unfortunately, most of my critics do not see writing as a 'proper job', and basically I should know my place! As one of my critics said, 'if you enjoy it, it's not work'.

      Regardless, I'll forgive you the 'nay odious' lol, because on this subject at least, you show signs of sanity! ;)

      Delete
  30. Ros:

    "UPDATE - 28.10.16

    Now that the fog of my tantrum has subsided, my reasoning, such as it is, lol, has returned. In closing my Blog, I am effectively censoring myself! Doh! I want my work to be read, it would be daft to say I don't.

    Anyway, this has indeed been a bit of a watershed, and there's nothing wrong with them! I'm delighted to say, I have (since 4.00am), been working on a book I have been planning in my head for over 30+ years. I have returned to my favourite genre, comedy, well comedy mixed with the kind of advice you can take, leave, or laugh at.

    But as my critics have so eloquently pointed out, it's about time I got down to a bit of hard work! I'm still around, and I will still comment if and when I feel like it, but I've given myself a Christmas deadline!"

    No problem in quoting you Ros.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. None at all 22:55. But as I have said on numerous occasions, I am bipolar with multiple personalities! Having been on a downer for several months, I just wish I could get that one back!

      Delete
  31. @ros 21:13

    ''I, and I imagine every parent out there, cannot imagine putting their own self preservation above the fate of their missing child 19:32.''

    Imagine if you had twin toddlers as well. They've possibly lost a sister, and now somebody's like a dog with a bone trying to take the remaining kids' parents to jail.

    ''Tweedledum and Tweedledee. What was she expecting in a sleepy seaside town with a low crime rate? ''

    Competent, alert policemen.You don't pick a police team based on low crime rates, you pick them on their ability to police.

    '' Had I been dependent on those guys to find my child, I would have treated them like Gods!''

    If those Gods made it clear that ,in return, they'll treat you like suspects, would you change your mind and tone ?

    ''A suspect who refuses to answer questions will always be under more suspicion.''

    Not always, but most of the time. If the McCanns thought their child had been abducted, you have to entertain that notion if you're a policeman and include questions relevant to scenarios of abduction-even if you don't believe it.

    Q17- What did the phrase 'we let her down' mean? ( Wouldn't any parent who'd left their kids alone say that if she came to some kind of grief in that absence?)

    Q6-why did you say from the start that Madeleine had been abducted ? ( she'd gone)

    Q30-before the trip to Portugal did you have a premonition or 'bad' feeling ?( what, that we'd kill our daughter ?)

    ''Who pleads Fifth Amendment when their child is missing?''

    Someone who'd been advised by their brief that the dice were loaded.

    @ anon 18:41

    Who can say if it was bad luck ? How did the Dr's manage to ''surround themselves with the very best legal, advisory & PR teams that money can buy and that those experts couldn't manage due diligence? ''.

    Did they surround themselves or were they surrounded by ? They didn't find and pick the team. How would they have the contacts ?
    Had they chased to recover money every bile -spitter on line would have had a nasty implosion. They trusted those who accessed the money and 'handled things'. They went after Amaral to either prove his facts or go back to the wine bar. If his 'factual book' is really a factual book, why was he removed from the case and why where the McCanns not put on trial and jailed? I'm not naive. Naive is when you think you can charge someone, put them on trial, and send them to the gallows based on 2 things ; 'i don't believe you' and a good old fashioned suspicious mind.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ziggy Sawdust 13.2 @23:32

      "If his 'factual book' is really a factual book, why was he removed from the case?"

      Be careful. This reads as though GA was stood down on account of his book. Publication followed his demotion. It did not precede it.

      Juxtaposing demotion with the evidential facts does not require you to emphasize to the book.

      Delete
    2. I can understand the parents' fear for the twins Ziggy, but I would have thought that fear would be more along the lines that the kids could have been seized by the authorities because of the parents' neglect. Surely, the priority should have been to get them home to the UK and out of reach?

      I truly do not understand the fear the parents had for themselves Ziggy. Why would they assume the police were trying to frame them? Where's the motive? It is in no-one's interest to leave a dangerous child predator on the loose, least of all local police officers because it would leave every child in the area at risk. Police hunting down dangerous criminals, don't say, let's just call this a wrap so we can have an extra long lunch.

      The McCanns will say the Portuguese police wanted to close the case quickly because the eyes of the world were on them. But that in fact, was all the more reason to be especially thorough.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 14 February 2017 at 09:45

      “Ziggy Sawdust 13.2 @23:32

      …Be careful…”

      Reminds me of the shepherd in http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZNPrjsyw9Ss/Vfvs09qvFiI/AAAAAAAArpQ/D5LHzbXa7T8/s1600/Consiracy%2BSheepdog.jpg

      No disrespect to both you and Ziggy.


      Delete
  32. OK getting down to basic facts and investigation and referring to tweedledum and tweedledee.

    Examine the released files and tell me how many cars were parked in the street between the entrance to Tapas restaurant and appt 5A. Then tell me how many of those cars were identified and the owners interviewed for their explanation for being there?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now that is an interesting point 23:34. And not something I know the answer to.

      However, and this is in reply to Ziggy too, how many local police forces have a rapid response team set up in case of child abduction? I don't mean in the sense of amber alert and closing borders, but I mean ordinary policemen being given trial runs of abduction scenarios? I am guessing few to zero because it almost never happens.

      When the first two policemen arrived their first thoughts would have been the missing child would soon turn up. Most do. 5A did not become a crime scene until much later, and, as you point out, how many cars were out there? Abduction is so rare, it is understandable that the first police would not immediately treat the apartment as a crime scene. And it wouldn't happen in this country either. Maybe there is a police manual that tells officers called out for missing children to underplay the alarm. That is do all the rudimentary checks before declaring the case an abduction. In the case of Jonbenet Ramsey, the parents, family, friends etc, were trawling all over the crime scene for several hours. Nearer to home, the case of missing Tia Sharpe, the murderer, her step grandfather, was giving television interviews in the house where he killed her. To the interminably thick Mark Williams Thomas as it happened.

      It is a little unfair therefore to blame those two police officers for not declaring an abduction and sealing off the apartment immediately. It just doesn't happen.

      Delete
  33. Did tweedledum and tweedledo seal off the apartment and put uo crime scene tape - or did they further contaminate the crime scene by adding a fingerprint to a glass door and trampling through the apartment?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Ros says: "Now that questions are being asked about Kate and Gerry McCann, quite rightly"

    Apart from haterland I have seen no questions being asked of Kate and Gerry. There status in law has not changed one iota.

    You should not confuse a civil case with a criminal case - oh but hold on - you were a legal secretary for 30+ years!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Given the number of people who don't, or no longer believe the McCanns weren't involved in their daughter's disappearance - around 90% I believe - Haterland is expanding rapidly!

      The key words you appear to have missed from last week's verdict were 'not cleared'. Take a minute and let that sink in. Gerry and Kate for the past 9 years have been trading on the misinterpretation of the Archiving report. That's pretty major.

      Delete
    2. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton14 February 2017 at 00:11

      So you have fallen for all the hater crap.

      They were released from arguido ststus because there was insufficient evidence to take them to court in 2008.

      The SC judgment did not change that position whatsoever - it just confirmed it.

      Delete
    3. If you understood how scrupulously I have examined every facet of this case 00:19, you would not be accusing me of falling for hater crap.

      The SC Judgment did more than confirm it, it made it public.

      Delete
    4. If you believe that 90% of the populace believe the McCanns were responsible for the physical disappearance 0f their daughter because of a number of hate trolls and tweets posted on the internet then you are living in cloud cuckoo land!! Personally, I do not know one person who now believes that - and I swear that is the truth.

      Delete
    5. I suggest you look at the comments sections of the national newspapers 09:05, they are a cross section of the public rather than a small corner of the internet. Over 90% of the comments are negative towards the McCanns. And not because of Goncalo's book, the majority are not even aware of it, but because of the odd behaviour of the parents.

      Delete
    6. Oh come on Ross – with your 30 years experience of being a legal secretary, journalist and researcher, you at least should understand that the comments sections of newspapers, or tweets, does not in anyway reflect the views of the majority of the populace. The McCann case has created a very vocal group of haters, a lynch mob as it were, who will always make their opinions known in any news story that might be associated with them. No journalist worth their salt would use these comments as indicative of general feeling.

      Delete
    7. @12:20

      Is that why some 'newspapers' didn't allow comments previously?

      Delete
  35. Björn13 February 2017 at 21:01
    to anonymous 13 February 18:22

    And above all "To threaten and sue as many people as possible, who dare question their innocence", which was another objective, that they should have mentioned as well, but didn't.''


    This is one of the most repeated myths of haters. It's clever(for them). Can you, Bjorn, find me the quote that came from a McCann or their PR crew that contains this : ''We will sue anybody who questions our innocence'' ?

    If you can, great. If you can't, it's slander /libel. You have to realise that there is a very big difference between :

    ''we'll sue anyone who questions us'' and :

    '' we'll sue anyone slandering us, or making allegations which they can't substantiate''

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ziggy Sawdust 13.2 @23:59

      Calm down.

      '...find me the quote that came from a McCann or their PR crew that contains this : "We will sue anybody who questions our innocence"'

      No one can do that if, as Bjorn states in his post, it was an objective they never even mentioned.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 14 February 2017 at 09:55

      “No one can do that if, as Bjorn states in his post, it was an objective they never even mentioned.”

      Cool! :)

      Delete
    3. To Anonymous 14 February 09:55
      Thanks! Please be my defense lawyer in case I should be the next person to be sued by the untouchable couple.

      Delete
  36. Ros at 0.11

    "the number of people who don't, or no longer believe the McCanns weren't involved in their daughter's disappearance - around 90% I believe"

    Perhaps you would like to prove that statement.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I can fully understand SC judgment that the release of arguido status did not PROVE the Mccanns are innocent. But that does not overule the PRESUMPTION of innocence until they are charged and proven guilty in a court of law.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gerry, Kate and Clarence have traded, and very successfully some might say, on the 'we've been cleared' line, knowing full well they hadn't. That's fake news with huge implications.

      As for the PRESUMPTION of innocence, the concept is well intentioned but in reality it rarely works. It's human nature to gossip and that is something you can't legislate against.

      In almost every high profile case, people will take sides. Again, not something you ban. You can argue presumption of innocence until you are blue in the face, but you can't stop the tide of public opinion.

      Gerry and Kate have abused their right to presumption of innocence by trading on it and using it to attack others. Most notably, Goncalo Amaral and Brenda Leyland. It may be their right, but it certainly hasn't made them popular.

      Delete
    2. Unless or until called for jury service we are free to presume what we wish. It's as much an aspect of liberal democracy as freedom of the press.

      For how much longer, I wonder?

      Delete
    3. Good answer 10:00, and I share your fears.

      On the plus side though, if the President of the USA cannot command the masses to believe him, Gerry and Kate have got no chance.

      Delete
  38. Hi Ziggy@23:32

    Q17- What did the phrase 'we let her down' mean? ( Wouldn't any parent who'd left their kids alone say that if she came to some kind of grief in that absence?)

    Sorry your wrong again, as you have so quoted, WE LET HER DOWN, that again is the reason why ME & others, yes Ziggy there are other people who have the same view, as well as people who agree with you. Now looking at the phrase WE LET HER DOWN. What about the twins. Now if honest I don't think Kate said that but however she still left the apartment with the twins still inside. Despite the fact Madeline was missing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree it is a curious thing to say John. That it was police Q17, makes me think it very likely she said that.

      My first thoughts too were 'what about the twins', and I also wonder if it was the truest thing she said all night. To do a bit of statement analysis, 'we let her down' - true, and the guilt is there in those few words. Singling out Madeleine with 'her', shows Madeleine was the dominant thought in her mind as she ran down that hill.

      Some might say, with a bit of method acting, Kate was playing the part of a distraught mother, whilst actually being a distraught mother. Ergo, she wanted to sound panicked, but she already was panicked and got confused.

      There are other reports that Kate said 'they took her' or the 'fffing bbbbs took her'. These are not confirmed as far as I know, but it sounded as though Kate already had an idea for who to point the finger at, but was later dissuaded.

      Leaving the twins alone in the apartment, again, was indeed bizarre. And a question raised by the divine Sandra F during a stage managed stroll along the promenade. Doctors are trained to run and get help Kate said, and Gerry confirmed it too, without any sense of irony. Yeh, that's what doctors do.

      If the apartment was so close to the tapas bar, why not just shout from the balcony, or use your mobile!

      And of course, it was another police question Kate refused to answer.

      Delete
  39. @john1000

    ''WE LET HER DOWN, that again is the reason why ME & others, yes Ziggy there are other people who have the same view, as well as people who agree with you. Now looking at the phrase WE LET HER DOWN. What about the twins. Now if honest I don't think Kate said that but however she still left the apartment with the twins still inside. Despite the fact Madeline was missing.''

    Here we go again. Are we in embedded confession territory again.OK, here's MY take on the quote, seeing that we're using our capslock...

    We = parents

    Let her down = weren't there to prevent the event

    ''What about the twins''

    Unless I missed an update, they were still in the apartment and unharmed.

    ''Now if honest I don't think Kate said that''

    So wtf is the post about ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was an odd thing to say Ziggy, that's why it was one of the police questions.

      Delete
    2. @Rosalinda/John100/ZiggySawdust

      Kate said that, according to Fiona Payne, who also gives an explanation.

      "She was angry at herself, she kept saying 'I've let her down. We've let her down Gerry'"

      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm

      Why didn't Kate answer that question?

      Delete
  40. @Ros

    ''When the first two policemen arrived their first thoughts would have been the missing child would soon turn up. Most do. 5A did not become a crime scene until much later,''

    That would make sense. But, you've said more than once on other threads that the parents and tapas 7 wasted no time contaminating the 'crime scene' when they discovered Madeleine had gone.

    So, panicking parents and friends should think 'crime scene' first instead of running around like headless chickens looking for the child ?

    ''Abduction is so rare, it is understandable that the first police would not immediately treat the apartment as a crime scene''


    That would be part of their training manual no doubt. But parents should stand back and think crime scene.There'd been 31 kids snatced the year before in Portugal by the way.


    ''It is a little unfair therefore to blame those two police officers for not declaring an abduction and sealing off the apartment immediately. It just doesn't happen.''

    And that's not the fault of a McCann or Tapas member. It's 'unfair' to criticise the police for not sealing off a crime scene, or even identifying it as one, but it's ok if we all join the chorus yelling criticisms at the parents and friends who lost a child for 'messing up the evidence at the crime scene'

    If the police fail to carry out a duty it's unfair to criticise.But if the family panic and interfere with the scene they're doing it to pervert the course of justice. That doesn't seem right now, does it ?

    ''around 90% I believe - Haterland is expanding rapidly!''

    Any fool can hate. it becomes habitiual eventually if you don't keep it in check.

    Does this sound familiar :

    ''How different it was in November 1982, when a supreme court jury in Darwin found that Chamberlain was guilty of murder and her husband was guilty of being an accessory after the fact. For the six weeks of the trial, the atmosphere had been at fever pitch. Young people were parading in front of the court with T-shirts reading: "The dingo is innocent!"

    Imaginne if we'd have had internet access back then

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jun/12/dingo-baby-azaria-lindy-chamberlain

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Err, the big difference Ziggy is that the parents were claiming Madeleine had been abducted. The first two policemen on the scene did not know wtf was going on.

      'I knew immediately she had been taken', Kate said. That is, she, her husband and all their friends KNEW right away it was a crime scene and every fingerprint would count, the police did not.

      As for final paragraph, please no dingos!

      Delete
    2. Ziggy Sawdust @01:42

      "There'd been 31 kids snatched the year before in Portugal by the way"

      I think you're getting carried away. The topic (discussed here: http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3542.0) doesn't come remotely close to that conclusion, although the SUN newspaper (3 May, 2012) declared "30 kids lost in Portugal since Maddie went missing".

      That's 31 if you include Madeleine McCann. An anniversary announcement of course.

      Delete
    3. Thank you for picking up on that 10:18, I had meant to come back to it!

      31 kids snatched! What absolute bollox. During the summer of 2007, PDL had more crime journalists per square inch, than Fleet Street and the Old Bailey! Are you seriously saying Ziggy, that not one of them got a whiff of a snatched child story? Especially at a time when newspapers were splashing around big bucks for a story they could relate to Madeleine. Look at how much has been made of so little, an oval picture of an egg with hair, made the front pages! We all had thousands of lookalikes (minus the hair)in our fridges.

      Bizarrely, for whatever reason, Operation Grange went with the strange notion that 31 British kids were targeted, but put a proviso on their press release asking the media to respect the privacy of the alleged victims.

      I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not buying it.

      Delete
    4. All it needs is one snatched .....

      Delete
    5. @12:48

      You sound like a sex-starved American.

      Delete
    6. 14 February 2017 at 16:24

      Is that you again, Tony?

      Delete
  41. It's strange isn't it that the Madeleine Fund comes under so much criticism and accusations of fraud, but yet it publishes audited accounts each year.

    On the other hand we have:

    bennett who sold leaflets and booklets - no accounts or even income and expenditure.

    amaral fund: no accounts or even income and expenditure.

    amaral GoFundMe: no accounts or even income and expenditure.

    mccanfiles: no accounts or even income and expenditure.

    And now we have Ros wanting money: no details of donations made.

    How strange.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The audited accounts the McCanns publish each year are so lacking information they are meaningless. In fact the complete opposite of the transparency promised.

      The Madeleine Fund comes under scrutiny because it's main objective is to search for Madeleine, and no-one's seen any sign of that. It also clocked up millions, something unheard of, for just ONE missing child. As it was largely made up of public donations, questions are inevitable.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous @01:42

      "mccanfiles: no accounts or even income and expenditure."

      Did Nigel Moore EVER ask you for money? No? Then STFU!

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 14 February 2017 at 01:42

      “It's strange isn't it that the Madeleine Fund comes under so much criticism and accusations of fraud, but yet it publishes audited accounts each year.”

      It’s not strange in the least.

      The ‘accusations of fraud’ most importantly stem from the allegation that the McCanns have been aware from the outset that there had been no abduction and therefore the donations to their ‘fund’ have been and are accepted under false pretences.

      Also, the McCanns made a voluntary undertaking (http://www.findmadeleine.com/about_the_campaign/ ), which they have allegedly failed to fulfil, that “The Fund is following best practice governance procedures as set out in the Good Governance Code for the Voluntary and Community Sector” ( http://www.governancecode.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Code-of-Governance-Full1.pdf ) and “An experienced Fund Administrator has been appointed to ensure the highest standards of transparency and accountability.”

      Delete
    4. Good post 10:53, and I agree, of course it's not strange to question the Fund. It is probably the largest Fund ever accrued for a single child. The lack of transparency however blurs the actual amount they raised, but we can safely say it ran into millions.

      A decade later, there is nothing to show for all that money donated, other than a string of malevolent and petty libel actions. The Fund is strange, not only is there no named Fund Administrator, there are no employees.

      Why are people who assist the McCanns so reluctant to be named? Both their website and their facebook pages are run by anonymous web masters. The infamous death dossier too, was compiled by people desperate to hide their faces while exposing Brenda Leyland's. Why do the McCann supporters hide behind anonymity? Are they not proud of what they do? Would it not show more solidarity if they stood proudly beside them?

      Delete
    5. "The audited accounts the McCanns publish each year are so lacking information they are meaningless. In fact the complete opposite of the transparency promised." ..... Erm, they are audited - any financial irregularities would have been resulted in the accounts being qualified!!!

      Delete
    6. Ros,

      As a legal secretary I would have expected that you would have picked up a little insight into how most companies operate. This is not a Fund, just a company owning and controlling assets that originated from public donations and are held in a bank account owned by the company. These monies will be controlled by the board of Directors of the company, which I believe originally numbered about 10 - no need for employees or a 'Fund Administer' who would only contribute more expense. All perfectly normal, and all accounts have been subject to full audit.

      You really should do your homework before making such false and inaccurate statements!

      Delete
  42. @Ros

    ''It was an odd thing to say Ziggy, that's why it was one of the police questions.''

    I call your attention to the horror story that was little Jamie in Liverpool. I remember a documentary marking a ten year anniversary. Mum, Denise, getting on with her life and moving on but still obviously torn apart. Dad, Ralph, was never the same.He was at the scene and told the viewer all the various forms of counselling (church, buddhist retreats and so on).He's haunted by the thought that his little boy must have wanted him in his final moments and he felt like he'd let him down. It isn't that odd.

    ''Err, the big difference Ziggy is that the parents were claiming Madeleine had been abducted.''

    Err, there was an empty bed that Madeleine had been in.No open door to suggest Madeleine had nipped out to a garage for some late shopping.Empty bed, closed doors, no Madeleine.She didn't evaporate.And, from Amaral's endless collected statements, the place was heaving with activity that night.I think someone would have spotted her.

    ''As for final paragraph, please no dingos!''

    Don't worry, these aren't the typing variety you're used to. Worth a read if only to see how reliable a general consensus of pseudo sleuths can be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ziggy Sawdust @02:23

      '"As for final paragraph, please no dingos!"

      'Don't worry, these aren't the typing variety you're used to.'

      Blimey! Typing Dingoes? They've moved on apace from folding clothes. Evolution must be rapid 'down under'.

      Delete
  43. @ros

    ''Gerry, Kate and Clarence have traded, and very successfully some might say, on the 'we've been cleared' line, knowing full well they hadn't. That's fake news with huge implications. ''

    I see you've caught the currently trending 'fake news' bug.How is it fake news ? And what are the huge implications ?

    ''As for the PRESUMPTION of innocence, the concept is well intentioned but in reality it rarely works''

    It's more than a concept-it's the law.If they've been guilty for 10 years, I'd say the presumption of innocence is working quite well here.

    ''It's human nature to gossip and that is something you can't legislate against.''

    It's also something you can't use to secure a conviction. Human nature has a filter. How we use it (or choose not to) can determine if we get our back cheeks kicked by the laws of slander and defamation.

    '''In almost every high profile case, people will take sides''

    That's not the same as being asked for opinions and theories. If the public gallery of a court behaved like twitter and blogspot it would take 2 weeks to convict a shop lifter.

    ''Gerry and Kate have abused their right to presumption of innocence by trading on it and using it to attack others''

    They retaliated to attacks.

    ''it certainly hasn't made them popular''

    It hasn't made them guilty either.

    ReplyDelete
  44. When a child's bed is empty Ziggy, we don't automatically think abduction because in 99.9% of cases there is a far simpler explanation. And it is certainly not something local police forces deal with on a daily basis. To expect a full scale alert within moments of a child going missing, is simply not realistic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The police were called after an initial search by many at the hotel - staff and guests - failed to find her. Surely abduction is therefore the next logical presumption

      Delete
    2. To Anonymous 14 February at 12:55
      No, if a child disappears and is not immediately found, it has most likely walked off on its own (even if it's about a 4 years old child). If not found within hours, it must be assumed, that someone has taken the child away, and statistics tell us that it is more likely that the parents or people close to them are implicated in such crimes, than complete strangers.

      Moreover, Kate "knew",immediately, that is, shortly after 22H00, that Madeleine had been abducted, just because her bed was empty. Yet, neither she nor Gerry bothered to call the Police until 40 minutes later and then they spent the rest of that night without searching physically, while the Ocean Club staff did that job for them. Searching for almost 10 years thereafter, but not searching the first 48 hours is quite illogical and strange, in my opinion.

      Delete
    3. A child disappearing from a hotel room in a foreign country is completely different from a child leaving its home.

      I think that your statistics do not hold up when applied to this scenario. The child was in a foreign country!

      Immediately after her disappearance was noticed everyone went into overdrive looking for her. It is natural that when she was not found her mother presumed that she had been abducted. As for searching during the following 48 hours, I think that you would have to ask the police why the parents weren't searching every minute of the day - as you would have to ask the police in any jurisdiction why parents are expected to be constantly available after a child is missing whilst the experts do the searching - its called police procedure!!

      Delete
  45. If the presumption of innocence is working quite well Ziggy, why are you complaining?

    The majority btw, couldn't give two hoots about getting getting their back cheeks kicked by the laws of slander of defamation. But again with the hostility and megalomania, are Gerry and Kate going to sue everyone?

    I find it bizarre that the parents cannot see, let alone accept, that it is their own behaviour that makes people suspicious and that makes people dislike them. It is as if they are without any social skills whatsoever, a bit a like Donald Trump.

    What have Gerry and Kate achieved with all that suing Ziggy? All the money they won initially has been ploughed back into more legal actions. They have spent a once in a lifetime fortune, on the cream of the British and Portuguese lawyers, but what do they have to show for it?

    Despite all their legal actions, considerably fewer people believe the parents now, than they did a decade ago. And again, this is all down to their own actions, not the book of Goncalo Amaral.

    ReplyDelete
  46. "the number of people who don't, or no longer believe the McCanns weren't involved in their daughter's disappearance - around 90% I believe"

    This is either sloppiness or dishonesty. The 90% sounds suspiciously like the results of a poll carried out by an unemployed, middle-aged, American woman (you know who I mean) who spends her days spouting lies about Madeleine's parents. Her poll was carried out on the Twitter #McCann tag, a tag which is predominantly used by the thick and the malicious to attack the McCann family.

    Misuse of percentages, statistics and polls are common on #McCann. Repeating such nonsense on a blog is to be regretted.

    Chez

    ReplyDelete
  47. @ Ros

    If'' the presumption of innocence is working quite well Ziggy, why are you complaining? ''

    I wasn't complaining.I was replying to your assertion that it rarely works.

    ''The majority btw, couldn't give two hoots about getting getting their back cheeks kicked by the laws of slander of defamation.''

    They wouldn't would they ? The 'majority' are made up of online detectives with anger and bitterness and nowhere else to direct it.Plus, the majority are online' personas'.

    ''It is as if they are without any social skills whatsoever, a bit a like Donald Trump.''

    I see it's still trendy to throw the Trump name in to any sentence whatsoever no matter how tenuous the connection. Yes, Trumps a lunatic.But he's a kitten compared to Obama.

    ''What have Gerry and Kate achieved with all that suing Ziggy?''

    Not what they should have achieved. It wiped the smile of Amaral's face for a while and i believe it will wipe it off again eventually.Unfortunately, it inspired the blinkered haters to come out screaming .It inspired blogs that are, in all but name , fan pages to worship Amaral, who managed to screw it up even though it's a cut and dried case(apparently), or tributes to the obsessive Bennet. Let's not mention Gerry McCann saying '' we don't care what people think about us, we just wan't to find Madeleine''. He went on to explain that he accepts that people will take a close interest and talk about it but there has to be a line in the sand so they don't go overboard. In reality, he was saying, ''ok suspect us, hate us, but try and keep it rational and not insane and obsessive''.

    He should have known to never underestimate a sick mind.Or should i say an army of sick minds.

    So now, in between gushing over the 'flawed genius /hero', Amaral, it's time to go over the McCanns books remotely from behind our computers.Guess where that will lead.

    ''considerably fewer people believe the parents now, than they did a decade ago. And again, this is all down to their own actions''

    Considerably more people hate them now.That's different and more accurate.It isn't down to their own actions, it's down to the interpretation of what they've said, what Amaral said, and magic people who can read expressions and hidden meanings ( as long as it supports the 'parents did it'' theories).

    An honest reading of this blog shows that any post, regardless of it sounding like unfounded nonsense or being nothing more than opinion laced with spite, is welcomed and you never challenge it if it accuses the parents. Any post or reply that challenges that kind of BS is discounted and challenged.It's a mini version of what is referred to as the 'cesspit'.I though it was a blog for balanced mature discussion ?'Not a hate blog but a truth blog' ?


    ''31 kids snatched! What absolute bollox'' ( see ?)

    Anonymous14 February 2017 at 10:18
    Ziggy Sawdust @01:42
    "There'd been 31 kids snatched the year before in Portugal by the way"I think you're getting carried away.

    Great counter arguments there.

    Here's the link to the 'absolute bollox' i'm carried away with.
    You can ignore the unicef figures and go down to the final third.

    http://www.ipsnews.net/2007/05/portugal-some-missing-children-more-equal-than-others/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ziggy Sawdust @14:47

      You are letting your emotions get the better of you.

      From your link:

      "In Portugal, SOS Criança Desaparecida (SOS Missing Children) of the Instituto de Apoio à Crianza opened 31 new cases last year of missing children, involving 19 girls and 12 boys."

      The statement concerns people reported missing. It does not even suggest how many of these might have been abducted ('snatched' in your parlance).

      Quite apart from the balancing remarks posted by Anonymous above (19:42), you might care to consider the situation in the UK.

      Whereas the charity Missing People is quick to cite alarming statistics, the police themselves are fully aware that a significant number of the missing persons reports they have to deal with involve juveniles who go temporarily AWOL from domestic custody (Care Homes). They are not abductees.

      Missing People: "...of the 5929 instances of a citizens (sic) of Leicestershire who go missing every year, the vast majority are young people. Each instance of a missing person is caused by a failure to protect often the most vulnerable in our society."

      Note the cynical 'weasel' that is the second sentence. 'Protect the most vulnerable' indeed. And who might that be?

      "many of the cases did not require police involvement" and "roughly one third of (those) cases – approximately 1,800 alerts – were generated by 73 teenagers, most of them living in city or county council children's homes. Mental health units also generated an average of 15 cases a month." (Source: Leicester Mercury).

      If you read their publicity carefully you'll discover that 'Missing People' do little more than duplicate the work of the Police. And who pays the Police? The Exchequer - with OUR money.

      There is a saying, 'But cheap, buy twice'. In this case I beleive the more traditional investment to be the stronger.



      Delete
  48. Complete (?) Dr Martin Roberts’ writings 2009-1016

    2009

    https://web.archive.org/web/20160508155736/http://www.mccannfiles.com/id260.html

    2010

    https://web.archive.org/web/20160421163337/http://www.mccannfiles.com/id301.html

    2011

    https://web.archive.org/web/20160504220143/http://www.mccannfiles.com/id356.html

    2012

    https://web.archive.org/web/20160410163208/http://www.mccannfiles.com/id436.html

    2013

    https://web.archive.org/web/20160410163208/http://www.mccannfiles.com/id436.html

    2014

    https://web.archive.org/web/20160410125551/http://www.mccannfiles.com/id479.html

    2014-2016

    http://onlyinamericablogging.blogspot.com/search/label/Martin%20Roberts

    ReplyDelete
  49. "Most children aged under nine who were reported missing were cases of being taken by their mother or father without the spouse's consent and most of these cases occurred in August, during the summer holidays.

    Many disappearances in youngsters aged 15-18 were voluntary and often had to do with exam results, the minister said."

    http://www.theportugalnews.com/news/police-investigating-64-missing-childrens-cases/28502

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

    Missing persons Portugal: six grown men and MB McCann.

    http://www.safecommunitiesportugal.com/missing-persons/

    ReplyDelete
  50. Hi Ziggy@02:41


    ''Gerry and Kate have abused their right to presumption of innocence by trading on it and using it to attack others''

    They retaliated to attacks.

    Again I'm afraid to say wrong again. They didn't have to sue the UK newspapers or GA. Once again the McCanns seek publicity to highlight their search for Madeline, but as soon as someone with a different view they attack that person or organisation. They could easily walk away and remain quiet and dignified. Again it is all self inflicted. Also why is it that anyone who doesn't accept the abduction theory is labeled by you as a hater?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Just a stupid question to whom it may concern.
    Has any British child ever been abducted anywhere in the world by a stranger, while on holiday together with one or two of its parents? I've heard about children, who obviously have gone missing, like Madeleine and Ben Needham, but I mean explicitly KIDNAPPED or ABDUCTED beyond reasonable doubt.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Bjorn@21:37

      Not a stupid question at all. In all honesty not to my knowledge, but I'm sure if yes then it would have been highlighted by both camps.

      Delete
    2. Hi Bjorn, a site I regularly refer to is
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_kidnappings

      It puts kidnapping and abduction into perspective, that it is, it illustrates just how rare stranger abduction is. You can see why local police forces simply aren't equipped or prepared for it, nor do they need to be. Their focus and training should be on actual crimes that happen every day, not a crime they never likely to see in their lifetime.

      Delete
    3. Thanks for info Rosalinda
      As for the McCanns they seem to think that there should always be a stand by rescue team in every holiday resort, equipped with helicopters ready at any minute to start a large scale search operation

      Delete
  52. Hi, Rosalinda

    I've posted the same several links twice today but they still don't show.

    Perhaps you could be so kind as to check your spam box in case they have been diverted there by ‘dark forces’.

    :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Apologies 22:09, that's exactly what happened, I have 'unbound' them :)

      Delete
    2. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton 14 February 2017 at 23:21

      Morning.

      Not at all. Many thanks.

      Delete
  53. "Has any British child ever been abducted anywhere in the world by a stranger, while on holiday together with one or two of its parents? I've heard about children, who obviously have gone missing, like Madeleine and Ben Needham, but I mean explicitly KIDNAPPED or ABDUCTED beyond reasonable doubt."

    Kids get abducted by strangers.

    Limiting the question to that of 'a British child whilst on holiday' makes me wonder the motive for the question.

    Chez

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Chez
      No motive, just my curiosity. I just focus on British children, because we're discussing a British-Portuguese case, but I'm actually just as interested in knowing more about kidnapping of children of all nationalities all over the world.

      I've always had the impression that Kate seems to believe, when she speaks on behalf of Missing People, that children, who go missing,often are kidnapped. What about statistics?

      Delete
    2. Good luck with your interest, Björn.

      I'm sure that KM doesn't believe that missing children often have been kidnapped.

      Chez

      Delete
    3. @Björn 15.2 at 20:17 "What about statistics?"

      Kate McCann (‘madeleine’):

      “What is not in doubt is that the available statistics underestimate the scale of the problem. Child abductions and attempted abductions are not isolated incidents and occur in every country. Authorities and governments who suggest otherwise are likely to be hiding the truth.”

      What is not in doubt is that Kate's ‘likely’ is subjective reasoning.

      Good luck with that Chez.

      Delete
    4. FAO Chez

      Anonymous 16 February 2017 at 07:45

      “Good luck with that Chez.”

      And the same from me, Chez.

      T

      Delete
  54. "the McCanns seek publicity to highlight their search for Madeline, but as soon as someone with a different view they attack that person or organisation."

    There's no justification for linking the first part of that sentence to the second part!

    "They didn't have to sue the UK newspapers or GA. ..... They could easily walk away and remain quiet and dignified."

    The McCanns were being being lied about by the national Press! Not trivial stuff but monstrous lies that were in fact libellous. Walking away 'with dignity' would never have been an option.

    Chez

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You may have a point there Chez, the tabloids had really worked themselves up into a frenzy trying to outdo each other with sensational Maddie front pages.

      In 2007 most of us were still getting our news from the papers, but they were already in a decline. The McCanns captured the zeitgeist, the first high profile missing child case sent viral on the internet.

      Newspaper sales were going through the roof with Madeleine stories, ergo, when they began to dry up, they filled the void with the more outlandish and indeed libellous stuff. There were no ethics or morals in the tabloids battle to find new angles, but arguably, this is what the weirdos like Bennett picked up on. Arguably, it could also be said that it was the tabloids who wrecked the parents' reputation long before Goncalo Amaral published his book.

      What could they have done? I honestly don't know, but every legal action they have taken has had the Streisand effect. That is they have brought more publicity to the crimes they have been accused of, and the book they wanted to ban.

      Walking away with dignity has always been an option Ziggy, staying in the public eye is much harder and of far more expensive. Famous people drop out of the limelight all the time, even when they don't want to.

      Their pride was hurt, understandably, but today's headlines are tomorrow's chip paper, very few remember who said what about who. The furore would have died down and been replaced by another, as happened.

      Delete
  55. Björn14 February 2017 at 21:37

    Just a stupid question to whom it may concern.
    Has any British child ever been abducted anywhere in the world by a stranger, while on holiday together with one or two of its parents?

    John10014 February 2017 at 22:06
    Hi Bjorn@21:37

    Not a stupid question at all. In all honesty not to my knowledge, but I'm sure if yes then it would have been highlighted by both camps.

    Ben Needham's. 1989. Kos.
    its been referred to endlessly here

    He was never found. Occasional digs have taken place there as recent as last year.

    No reliable evidence or eye witnesses or DNA. I suspect the mothers boyfriend. There was too much evening 'socialising' and too casual approach to parenting for my tastes. I couldn't back that up though. It's an opinion.

    Most people think he was snatched.No evidence of an abduction, it's just a general consensus .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Ziggy
      No Ziggy there is not any evidence of Ben Needham being abducted, just a guess or maybe a hypothesis, pursued by the South Yorkshire Police (correct me if I'm mistaken here), who now believe, that Ben may have died due to an accident as there was a lot of digging going on in the area.

      Delete
    2. Sorry Ziggy
      I didn't read your last sentence. "No evidence of an abduction", you say. So no reason to emphasize that, but I still question your "general consensus". I doubt that.

      Delete
  56. @john100 21:34

    ''

    Again I'm afraid to say wrong again. They didn't have to sue the UK newspapers or GA. Once again the McCanns seek publicity to highlight their search for Madeline, but as soon as someone with a different view they attack that person or organisation''

    I said they didn't trade on their innocence by attacking others, but retaliated to the attacks and accusations that couldn't be proven.If someones slapping you in the face you're entitled to land one on them in return.

    ReplyDelete
  57. @anon 14:47

    I appreciate your thoughts.

    I only posted that link as it reflected the local feeling around PDL. I have little or no faith in statistics ; they're a tool favoured by too many sleight of hand merchants.

    I posted a better link on another thread here with the UK details of missing younger children. I have a mistrust of NSPCC, Childline and care homes in general with what continues to come to light. But i keep abreast of things generally as i always feel that the more you learn about the world around you, the more you need to learn.
    I try to balance everything before i make decisions.

    There's two ends to every stick.I don't let myself fall for the 'knee-jerk' , there's never any need for it. I could have trawled for better examples and more than mere numbers, but the flavour here is that of Bittertwitter, and it wouldn't be worthwhile. There's a strict 'eyes wide shut' policy on ''justice'' blogs. But I can't respond to one liners such as 'that's bollox' with anything of weight.It goes against my integrity.

    Namaste and such

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you mean me (I replied to your 14:47 comment) that's o.k.

      "I have little or no faith in statistics ; they're a tool favoured by too many sleight of hand merchants."

      Indeed. Although in reality the appropriate phrase ought perhaps to be 'faith in numbers'. I doubt journalists and their ilk who trot out 'statistics' even understand the concept (110% and all that).

      "But I can't respond to one liners such as 'that's bollox' with anything of weight."

      Nor should you. Like for like is a fair ratio.

      Sorry about the earlier 'typos' btw. I can spell. I just type too quickly sometimes.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 15 February 2017 at 09:13

      “… Although in reality the appropriate phrase ought perhaps to be 'faith in numbers'. I doubt journalists and their ilk who trot out 'statistics' even understand the concept (110% and all that).”

      Indeed. I’ve been wondering about Ziggy’s attitude towards ‘statistics’. Sorted now. Thank you.

      T

      Delete
  58. ZiggySawdust 14 February 2017 at 23:25

    “@anon 14:47”

    Am I right, Ziggy, in thinking you meant Anonymous 14 February 2017 at 20:56?

    ReplyDelete
  59. Namaste

    Ziggy

    You frequently refer to ‘haters’. Could you please clarify your view on what makes one a hater.

    Thanks

    T

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. hater

      noun
      1.
      a person who has an intense dislike for another person or thing

      2.
      Informal. a person who thrives on showing hate toward, criticizing, or belittling other people or things, usually unfairly:

      Delete
    2. To Anonymous 15 February 16:43

      Almost as if you were quoting Gerry's and Kate's CV

      Delete
  60. @anon 08:08
    I have no idea. I try to address posts but it's hard sometimes.There's too many 'anon' and then there are inserts of posts that weren't there earlier.

    @ 09:13
    Agreed - numbers. Maths isn't the only 'universal language' - social networks have introduced one too.

    ReplyDelete
  61. @ T
    What makes one a hater.

    I suppose, at the basic level, a hater can be defined by the amount of charge that's loaded into their expressed anger and the lack of objectivity in their observations. It's all well and good to hold an opinion and back that position up with theory or theories that have brought you there.But when you refuse point blank to entertain any notion that suggests you could just be wrong, and that other opinions and theories are also worth entertaining, your embracing of the opinion becomes a stranglehold. Nobody will be able to prize you away from it without a 'hater' kicking and screaming.It can seem, in some cases, like it's the theory strangling the holder, rather than vice versa.

    I was of the mind that 'the parents did it' for a while. But i never discussed it in depth so couldn't claim to be 'certain' like others do.When my interest in it all was revived, I looked at it with more focus and with an open mind.I won't read KM's book or Amaral's as they are both written by opposing camps.; KM isn't going to slip up and accidentally discuss how often she lost control and Amaral isn't going to slip up and say he just had a feeling.

    What we're left with is the refined-for-public-consumption press interviews and reports.And that's not enough for anyone to say with absolute certainty what could have( realistically) happened. We've seen and read time and time again over the years how surviving husbands 'did it' ( or wives). We've seen Doctors, nurses, men of the cloth-you name it- all banged away for crimes they should be way above according to their station. I believe that's what's coloured the public perception of the ' good doctors'. Add to that, their choice to leave their children without a baby sitter, and bingo- we have a show.

    Now that we have identified our targets, let's scrutinise every word and every move they make in public. By this point, the haters are convinced ahead of the game. So, if Kate looks miserable, it's 'evil' ( just like her eyes ).If Kate is caught smiling she's 'heartless'. If Gerry displays a stiff upper lip he's 'cold' or 'vicious' or 'arrogant' .If he smiles, he's every kind of 'bastard'. You can see twitter, fakebook, youtube, blogs..the echo hasn't ended yet. If you are foolish enough to point this out to the haters they'll divert to something-anything-else to prop up their flawless theory. They'll imply that they set up a fund to get rich ( but haven't yet called this as a motive).They'll accuse them of being 'false' in interviews even if they accept that interviews are scripted by Mitchell, the Government's man on the inside.They'll skip around the vast amounts of money spent on private detectives, PR headline hunters, and the likes of G4 and Oakland International so they can say 'they didn't search'. They don't acknowledge that the blame for that wasted money should rest at the feet of whoever recommended them to the parents.They enjoy the 'they didn't search, they just enjoyed their holiday' narrative as it fits their theory.

    The latest 'victory' orgy for the haters is the decision of the courts to allow Amaral to become an author of his thoughts( the ones that had him removed from the case). Don't suggest that hate should be directed at his bosses though.It won't work.And the suggestion that the interest of governments from two countries is too OTT for an abduction or murder is ignored. I've asked a few why the McCanns, if so obviously guilty,are so protected by the powers that be. I get nothing.

    If you want to gauge the hatred , it's there in the words. It doesn't matter how powerful an adjective is if all it's describing is an opinion. it's in the personal criticisms of the alleged culprits far more than it is for any credible evidence of their deeds.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Does anyone know if Verdi and Bennett are the same person?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No verdi is female and resides outside the UK.

      Delete
  63. @Ros


    '' I don't write hate blogs. And if that is what you are getting from this site you are not reading it properly...one of my objectives is to keep a sane and rational dialogue going. I don't want to see angry mobs descending on Rothley. I want to see justice, but I want to see understanding and compassion and as few innocent lives wrecked as possible...''

    '' On the plus side though, if the President of the USA cannot command the masses to believe him, Gerry and Kate have got no chance.''

    Am i one of the many who aren't reading the blog 'properly' ? Because I can see a clear contradiction there. Apologies if I'm missing something.


    ReplyDelete
  64. Hi Ziggy@16:12

    Whilst I agree your comments
    apply to on both sides, especially Bennett's forums, but most of all the comments written seem to describe yourself. You hate anyone who doesn't subscribe to the abduction theory. You refuse to read KMs & GAs book but your research stems from newspapers & the internet. If I wanted to learn to fly I would enrol at the nearest flying school, not watch the film Biggles. All authors put their thoughts on paper, the same applies to artists who put their thoughts on canvas.

    ReplyDelete
  65. According to this article Kate and Gerry McCann are alarmed that child trafficking is not taken seriously enough.

    June 16, 2007

    "Kate said last week, 'This is my job now. I can see this becoming my full-time career, with this whole issue of child welfare and opposing pedophiles'"

    http://www.nationalledger.com/politics-crime/madeleine-mccann-mom-an-activi-117188.shtml

    "Her plans come after meeting child welfare groups and politicians on trips to European capitals."

    Child welfare groups and politicians!

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

    http://portugalmundial.com/2013/09/provas-escondidas-contra-o-casal-mccann-provocaram-jogos-politicos

    ReplyDelete
  66. And you John 100 are a hypocrite - you comment on the accounts of MADELEINE'S FUND: LEAVING NO STONE UNTURNED LIMITED without any understanding whatsoever of them. In other words - if you want to make ridiculous statements on the accounts like you have posted earlier then you should perhaps train to be an accountant, not watch the film The Producers!!!

    ReplyDelete
  67. Hi Ziggy@16:12

    ''Whilst I agree your comments
    apply to on both sides, especially Bennett's forums, but most of all the comments written seem to describe yourself. You hate anyone who doesn't subscribe to the abduction theory. You refuse to read KMs & GAs book but your research stems from newspapers & the internet. If I wanted to learn to fly I would enrol at the nearest flying school, not watch the film Biggles. All authors put their thoughts on paper, the same applies to artists who put their thoughts on canvas. ''

    John, You, nor anyone else on the internet, can say with any degree of certainty what 'describes' me. You wouldn't know me if i stood a foot in front of you. You know nothing about me or what I'm about. You're reading the general tone of my posts and my criticisms of a narrow view that needs more flesh on it's bones . From this you sum me up ? I'll say it again - I don't know what happened to Madeleine. I used to think the parents did it.Then i believed the abduction . Then I looked at the elite and their predilection for small children as objects of fun and political leverage. I believe a much bigger picture exists and it requires a viewing from further back. I have considered that the McCanns could know what happened but they're immersed in the company of psychopathic villains. The game, as it is being played out, guarantees a stalemate. To us, that's a draw. To whoever's responsible, it's a win.

    You say I 'hate anyone' who doesn't support an abduction theory. That, once again, is you coming to a cast-iron conclusion based on a guess and opinion. Quote anything I have said that supports it.
    I have said I won't read GA or KM books. If you're right about the bias i apparently have, I'd read KMs book wouldn't I ? I've said i won't read either as both have an agenda. I don't want to see through the eyes of either as I trust my own more.

    You say my research stems from newspapers. Evidence ? I believe very little that's fed to us by MSM and have felt this way for years. I won't buy a newspaper and, If i watch the news on television, i see the game and agenda. As big as the media is, the ownership is very small-and elite.It's fiction but with added smidgens of truth to appear credible.

    '' All authors put their thoughts on paper,''

    So did Jeffrey Archer and other liars.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Hi Anonymous@21:57

    Your not Ziggy in disguise by any chance. Please explain my criticism.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Hi Ziggy@22:17

    Trust me Ziggy I don't want to know you.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Ros says: " I don't write hate blogs."

    Hell Ros you will be telling us that bennett is your best friend next!

    I suggest you look back through some of your masterpieces on the Mccanns and come back to us. You could start with the interview with Sandra blog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 23:08. You act as if the not declared innocent Gerry and Kate have been spreading sweetness and light this last 10 years! They haven't. There have been victims, not only Madeleine, Goncalo and Brenda, but all the kind people who believed in them.

      If Gerry and Kate have the brazen front to lie directly to us, they can't then complain that others have the brazen front to question them. Their demands for a one sided narrative are absurd.

      I challenge those lies because I can see the amount of people who are being hurt by them. In the case of Goncao Amaral for example, their pursuit of him has been vindictive and malicious. This is worsened by the fact that they know his only 'crime' was to tell the truth. They are hounding an innocent man and that to me takes wickedness off the scale.

      I make no apologies for challenging fake news and alternative facts 23:08. Since the McCanns' libel victories in 2008, they have been able to whip the entire UK into one party line. It was an abduction. End of.

      Whatever. The UK mainstream media kowtowed to the former suspects and their spin doctor, Clarence Mitchell.

      I have a very heightened sense of injustice 23:08, I cannot bear to see people treated unfairly, and no-one has been treated more unfairly than Goncalo Amaral. I present the other side just to even things up a bit.

      You McCann supporters play fast and loose with the word hate 23:08. I don't hate Gerry and Kate. I find them intriguing, I am studying the human behavioural aspects of this case, hate doesn't come into it.

      However, as fascinating as they are, I cannot stand back and watch them hoodwinking people without saying anything! My conscience simply would not allow it. When people set out to deceive there are always victims.

      The one sided reporting of this case for the past 8/9 years in the UK has been shameful. It shows the huge chasm that still exists between the classes, middle and working especially.

      As has been said hundreds of time before in this case, had the parents been working class and from a Council estate, this case would have been solved as quickly as that of Shannon Matthews.

      And for anyone who watched the Shannon Matthews drama this week, did they not think it strange, that there was no sign of CEOP, Government Spokesmen, Amber Alert or Missing People?

      Delete
    2. "had the parents been working class and from a Council estate, this case would have been solved as quickly as that of Shannon Matthews."

      ROFL!

      "And for anyone who watched the Shannon Matthews drama this week, did they not think it strange, that there was no sign of CEOP, Government Spokesmen, Amber Alert or Missing People?"

      I think you're obsessive, blinkered and daft.

      Chez

      Delete
    3. @ Ros 01.09

      "And for anyone who watched the Shannon Matthews drama this week, did they not think it strange, that there was no sign of CEOP, Government Spokesmen, Amber Alert or Missing People?"

      Well for someone who professes to be an expert in almost everything - did you not notice that it was a drama documentary based on facts with some scenes created for the purposes of dramatisation.

      It was not a documentary detailing every aspect of the case - I am really surprised that you did not mention that the dog search of the Matthews house and the results were not included.

      Delete
    4. " I cannot bear to see people treated unfairly, and no-one has been treated more unfairly than Goncalo Amaral."

      His prison sentence got suspended!

      Delete
  71. @ john 100

    John10015 February 2017 at 22:49

    Hi Ziggy@22:17

    ''Trust me Ziggy I don't want to know you.''

    correct

    ReplyDelete
  72. http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/588652/madeleine-mcccann-parents-legal-action-television-show-missing-daughter

    Interesting picture of Smithsman!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting picture of Gerry I'd say.
      Daily Star published 16th February by Jerry Lawton  

      ”The couple’s spokesman said”: (I suppose it’s still CM?) “Any potentially defamatory material found online will be reviewed and assessed by Kate and Gerry’s lawyers.” We all know so well, having learnt about the ”death dossier”, the attempt to destroy GA, and the ”successful” threats, that made Brenda Leyland commit suicide, but why not search for Madeleine instead of PRETENDING to do so?

      Delete
  73. 'The couple are considering two pooled interviews in Britain, one for print through the country’s national agency Press Association and one for broadcasters.

    Both are being organised through Scotland Yard, Mitchell explained. He said: “There will be no fee.”'

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2876843/kate-gerry-mccann-cashing-in-anniversary-maddies-disappearance

    ...being organised through Scotland Yard!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for that 09:57, I've just had a read.

      Unbelievable! I wonder if someone has had a word in Clarence's ear? Maybe something along the lines of 'do you have any idea of just how tacky you and your clients are?'. Anyway, more later.

      Delete
    2. @ Ros 12.57

      To use one of your own astute observations - "well you would say that wouldn't you."

      Why the need to wonder and make up something you have no idea about?

      Delete
    3. @09:57

      No fee eh?

      "The couple’s spokesman Clarence Mitchell shut down claims the couple are accepting huge fees for 10th anniversary media interviews."

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

      Clarence Mitchell giving his keynote speech at last year’s COMMSCON in Sydney, Australia.

      From 5:16

      “I’m already getting bids from some US networks for interviews with the McCanns for the 10th anniversary next year.”


      Delete
    4. @15:51

      Perhaps Scotland Yard is the highest bidder.

      I think the McCanns prefer ‘an abductor’ to fees. In the absence of a viable candidate M’s body remains undiscovered.

      Delete
    5. To Anonymous 09:57
      Clarence speech at COMMSCON, if correctly quoted, shows that their spokesman did not then expect that Madeleine would be found before the 10th anniversary of her disappearance. In a similar way as Gerry did not expect that Madeleine would reappear before the 100 days anniversary, which he revealed just a few days after Madeleine had gone missing talking about launching a campaign, which would be sooner than 100 days after her disappearance, as he then said.

      Nothing of it is so much different from Kate's explanation as to why she started to keep a diary just a few days after the tragedy. "So that Sean and Emelie would have an account of the truth". I've never heard Kate, Gerry or Clarence add "if Madeleine would not be found before that time of course"
      No one around the McCanns, let alone the McCann couple, do expect that Madeleine will be found before the now discussed 10th anniversary, and, I'm sad to say, that none of them expect to ever find Madeleine. It's just a farce.

      Delete
  74. http://portugalresident.com/mccann-spokesman-admits-parents-%E2%80%9Csufficiently-realistic%E2%80%9D-to-admit-maddie-%E2%80%9Cprobably-dead%E2%80%9D

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Anonymous16 February 2017 at 13:11

      Ah another article from Natasha Donn who is fed misinformation from hate forums such as bennett's cesspit and then publishes it as news. Probaly via murky macleod

      Delete
    2. @15:06

      For someone who pretends to have the right information, your "probably" doesn't sound very convincing.

      Delete
  75. Yes, The Sun is really an interesting paper to read.
    This, by Ellie Flynn and Tracey Kandohla 16th February 2017
    ”The only time Kate ever received any payment connected to Maddie’s disappearance in May 2007 - £1 million before tax – was from her own book simply entitled “Madeleine” and published in 2011”. Yes, Kate, we all understand, after all, just one million. Then of course, there have been a few more millions donated to their fund, which they could spend on whatever they wished.
    CM, referring to the approaching 10th anniversary of Madeleine’s disappearance, tells the The Sun Online, that "they (the McCanns) want to make it clear, that they are not making any money out of Madeleine’s disappearance". Very nice of Clarence to say so, but why does he need to emphasize that, considering how altruistic and idealistic Kate and Gerry have always been.

    ReplyDelete
  76. @bjorn 17:17

    The Sun is a gutter rag. It's written for people who thrive on celebrity, gossip, scandal and lies.All tabloids are the same, but The Sun is the 'daddy' of them all.Any 'newspaper' with roots traceable to News Corps is a waste of paper.The endless citing of them as sources for anything is pointless . The fact that it's circulation is in the millions says far more about the dumbed down public than it does about it's finger-on-the-pulse reporting. The papers all went online when they realised an even bigger audience was waiting for garbage there.

    It doesn't matter which reporter from which rag reports what about the financial dealings of Team McCann. It really doesn't. If they gave it all to charity, or if they gave it all to their bank to pay for their house, neither equates to murder or manslaughter. I thought I'd introduce that as an important factor into the general discussion as we're supposed to be 'concerned' about Madeleine's fate and not digging and scraping like dogs for a bone in the hope of finding anything we can to use as ammunition for the total character assassination of the parents.Spiteful.Pointless.

    ReplyDelete
  77. @bjorn 17:17


    "they (the McCanns) want to make it clear, that they are not making any money out of Madeleine’s disappearance". Very nice of Clarence to say so, but why does he need to emphasize that''

    Possibly in the hope that it might stop some of the ludicrous theorising and desperate digging about by the village of the damned. He might have thought they'd like a day off.

    ReplyDelete
  78. bennett in pure hater land again and showing his true colours:

    " by Tony Bennett Today at 22:27 Perhaps it would be helpful to list why so many on this forum have brought up the subject of child sexual abuse in connection with the reported disappearance of Madeleine McCann. I'll be brief in each case as there is so much more information about all the points below on the forum:"

    I am not going to repeat his lies and libel but it is here for all to see:
    http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t13568-back-to-basics#356881

    ReplyDelete