Tuesday 18 April 2017

UPDATE - 21.4.17 MCCANN LATEST FAKE NEWS - NEW NANNY

UPDATE 21.04.17

A sensible news article from Algarve Daily News:

https://www.algarvedailynews.com/cases/madeleine-mccann/8605-amaral-s-libel-win-opens-pandora-s-box-on-national-television


___________________________________________

Doh!  Not even a week can go by without the McCann, via a police insider, a family spokesman, and an anonymous former nanny from Warners, bringing us another story about Kate and Gerry's pain, the incompetence of the Portuguese police, the evil machinations of Goncalo Amaral, and the parents' less than gushing satisfaction with the progress of Scotland Yard. 

The Mirror, via Matthew Young, were contacted (out of the blue?) by one of the nannies who occasionally had care of Madeleine while the McCanns were holidaying in PDL.  This nanny, who the Mirror decided not to name, let's call her Nanny C, is still outraged at the response of the local police - the results she says, were catastrophic.  Like, Kate, Gerry and all their supporters, Nanny C, places no blame whatsoever on the Perfect Family.  There was no policeman there to tell them not to trample all over the crime scene, and they, who were searching were children (well, teenagers).  Where were the specially trained police? How about the 6 trained (adult) doctors trampling the apartment Nanny C? Maybe one or two of them could have directed you kids?   

Nanny C then claims 2 pages of her original statement have mysteriously vanished - as though the PJ have nobbled her evidence, though heaven knows why they would want to.  She claims 'whole chunks of information' were missing. Well, err, they are not missing, they are still in your head, you just have to write them down again.  And if they change the entire course of  the investigation, why have you kept quiet for 10 years?  Nanny C pretty much blames the Portuguese police for everything, as if she were trying to reinforce those original key stone cops allegations that worked so well in the beginning.   

She then throws into the mix the idea that PDL was/is a dangerous area, the nannies were given rape whistles and told not to venture outside the resort alone. 'It immerged in 2014, that 11 years earlier.....', lol, ie. 14 years earlier (?) a 10 year old British girl was sexually assaulted and there are been a spate of assaults on English girls between 2005/6.  She then has a little dig at the people of PDL, saying she didn't feel they were wanted there.

That final little spiteful dig, does, I'm afraid, sound like pure Kate.  I guess that's what happens when you write a book, the reader can pick up on your little quirks and foibles, then recognise them when they are used elsewhere.  We all remember 2007 Nanny C, and we remember how our prayers, thoughts and wishes were with the searchers, the people of PDL who spent their days and nights scouring the area for the McCann's daughter.  They cannot be blamed for not finding her, unlike the parents and their huge entourage, at least they looked. 

The Mail has added an additional twist of the knife into Goncalo Amaral's back.  'The Portuguese detective who led the search for Madeleine has promised to 'clean out' her grief-stricken parents by suing them for damaging his reputation'.  No sources for that quote, nor evidence to back it up. I actually hope GA sues the Daily Mail for making up stuff they would like him to say, but probably didn't, so their readers hate him. 


Naturally, this new nanny coming forward has led to other tabloids using the opportunity to tell us yet again of the parents' agony at the hands of the former detective. Perhaps the horror of the almighty legal debt they face will be revealed on the 10th Anniversary.  In which case, whoever gets that scoop, good luck to them.  

However, I will say this once more, with as much patience as I can muster, the McCanns were, are, and always have been, the aggressors with their legal actions against Goncalo Amaral.  They wanted to silence him and they wanted all his money.  They lost.  If they are victims, they are victims of their own greed. 





101 comments:

  1. Well said Rosa, the nanny does indeed share the same venomous spite and delusional, illogical rambling as Kate in her book "Madeleine" the way Goncalo Amaral has been treated over the years is disgusting, the editors of the mirror and the sun should hang their heads in shame, since when we're the nannies given rape whistles? That's a new one on me. I have spent long periods of time in the algarve with friends i made there when i holidayed in tavira in 06 and spent three consecutive summers​ there working in bars, the Portuguese are extremely welcoming and in my experience they genuinely like the British. If nanny c didn't like the place why on earth would she continue to stay and work, if i went to work abroad for the summer and was told to stay away from town and saw the female workers being issued rape whistles i would be quite worried lol! It's obviously a platform set up by team McCann to make them look like the poor victims of a third world menace. Great post Rosa!

    ReplyDelete
  2. ''Well said Rosa, the nanny does indeed share the same venomous spite and delusional, illogical rambling as Kate in her book "Madeleine"''

    Because she has criticised the people of Portugal , given her supposed take on things, and probably lied about rape whistles, she's full of ''venomous spite and illogical rambling as Kate'' ? Is that how hard you'll work to take any story about anything from anyone in order to try to direct the anger it provokes toward the parent of the missing child ?I don't know if that's sick or desperate. I don't know why people criticise moronic tabloid stories and then cling to them for the life blood that runs through the veins of their agenda. This Nanny C or whatever it's name is, is of the tabloid /twitter age. In the 90s there was Trisha, or Kilroy, or Vanessa for these vacuous creatures. Now we only have Kyle and the likes. Unless you're carrying your stepdads baby behind your grandchild's back, you're not getting any air. The tabloids will always buy your story though.They know the average IQ of it's audience. people will read it, shake their heads and go straight to the 'celeb goss' section.

    I haven't read it. If it's in a mainstream paper it won't have any worth.It will merely have an agenda; to try and rouse the rabble and hope it gathers pace online. Keep the story close to the forefront of the hordes' minds as May 03 approaches. Who knows if this character even exists ? I suppose they ( the rag) can say they're 'protecting' her. She wouldn't have needed protecting from the cheque she received though.Services rendered etc. Tack. Ten years holding this information in ? Why ? It's nothing..just another spotlight chasing work-dodger.Probably too stupid to realise she's a propaganda tool.Or just not arsed-a cheque's a cheque.

    Her observations are nothing new or of any value at any to followers of the case.She's been told a few snippets, read a few more and no doubt surfed the net. The result is repeated lines about crime scenes and police incompetence. Any contamination of the scene wasn't down to anything more than sheer panic and chaos.That would have already started before any police arrived anyway, even if they taped the area off as soon as they got there.Everyone was looking for someone.People only freeze or stand back if there's a body and blood and a signs of a recent nasty event.You don't freeze if your child, or anyone elses, has gone missing from a holiday apartment.

    Her opinion on how welcome she /they felt in Portugal is obviously nonsense. I'm sure that Portugal, like Spain, are more than happy for the British, and anyone else to visit their country , not least to help prop up their economy which is worse than our own.

    The Amaral /libel/money argument won't do anything at all to solve the case.Whoever gets the biggest cheques via the court or publishers. it will be a libel victory only.When i hear about it or read about it, it irritates me how so many cling to it.It reminds me that the 'justice' for Madeleine pretence has taken a back seat to spite and vengeance, no matter how hard the work is to find fresh ammunition.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Nanny C story is pure McCann propaganda Chris and one of the objectives of my blog is to challenge propaganda and disinformation. You see it as an attack on the mother of a missing child, but if that mother of a missing child is spreading malicious lies and rumours about the police and the kind people of PDL who assisted her, then I will challenge them.

      This unknown nanny has come forward after 10 years with a script that is pure Team McCann. Her views are so similar to those of Kate, they are spooky. Kate and Gerry couldn't possibly have been involved because they were so distraught on the night, says their number one fan. The police were useless and the local people were racist she adds to reinforce the McCanns victim status.

      Once again, in order to make themselves look good, Team McCann must make others look bad. It's a technique that fits nicely with their blame someone else ideology. Kate and Gerry utterly refuse to accept blame for anything. 'It wasn't us who anything wrong' said Kate.

      Their refusal to accept the blame for anything at all may make up part of a future defence, but it doesn't make them likeable. The people of PDL were heroic in their efforts to assist the parents, but instead of gratitude towards them, the McCanns add them to their list of people to blame.

      And by the way Ziggy, I don't have to work hard to find fresh ammunition, almost every week there is a fake McCann story. I feel duty bound to challenge the lies Ziggy, especially when those lies are malicious. Nanny C is using her 15 minutes of fame to accuse the police officers who were working day and night to find Madeleine of incompetence and the local people of being uncaring. All of which is blatantly untrue and an insult to all those who tried so hard to find the child.

      Delete
    2. Hi Rosalinda
      What you say should of course be said by many MSM journalists if they just had some common sense.

      It is highly regrettable that this fantasy story so uncritically has been published by the MSM. Nothing of it makes sense.

      ”The witness also claimed the Praia da Luz resort in which the McCanns were staying was considered so unsafe for nannies at the time that staff were handed rape alarms and warned against going out alone.(The Telegraph quote Daily Mirror 18 April 2017)

      If this is true, wouldn’t it then have been everybody’s moral duty to inform all of the Mark Warner’s guests about what could also happen to them. Why didn’t this anonymous nanny or anyone else do that, especially those who, like the McCanns thought it was safe to leave their children unattended all nights with all doors unlocked.

      She couldn’t possibly have known what kind of rapists there were in PDL, just that there were rapists on the loose. It could have been paedophile rapists, homosexual rapists, heterosexual rapists or other kinds? So why keep it secret from all the families with small children.

      Doesn’t this nanny regret having not warned the McCanns and others about what she and all other nannies allegedly knew about criminality and sexual abuse going on right in the middle of a vacation paradise, where they cuddled with presumptive victims of potential sexual offenders, without telling any of their parents about the dangers lurking around the corner.

      If the McCanns don’t deny all this nonsense (in the original Daily Mirror article) one must assume that they themselves are the source of it. Running out of ammunition aren’t they?



      Delete
    3. Hi Bjorn. Like many, I have waded through most of the original witness statements, and there is no mention, by anyone, of rapists on the loose or nannies having to carry whistles. And, considering most of the world's crime reporters were camped out in PDL, how come not one of them picked up on it? Ditto the odd accusation that a British girl was sexually assaulted 14 years and other British girls were assaulted between 2005/6.

      This story is so pro Kate and Gerry I have no doubt it has come from them. It seems like a desperate attempt to turn public opinion in their favour whilst blaming the Portuguese police for the catastrophe that befell their daughter.

      It's a bit like firing one broken arrow at a charging army. The tide has turned, very few, if any still believe the abduction story. This is a real bottom of the barrel story, unlikely to change opinion in favour of the parents. The chances are it will raise more suspicion. Such as, why did Nanny C wait 10 years?

      Delete
    4. Yes Rosalinda
      This nanny-fairy tale is the most ludicrous among a lot of other of the same kind. Why do not the McCanns at least comment on it. Keeping quiet makes them look even more ridiculous.

      Delete
  3. Have a day off Ziggy, you're like a broken record with all your copy and paste and how, with all the evidence in the public domain can you accept everything the McCann's have said? Do you remember Kate saying how they didn't put much emphasis on Madeleine's eye whilst they used it as the trade mark?

    ReplyDelete
  4. ''And by the way Ziggy, I don't have to work hard to find fresh ammunition, almost every week there is a fake McCann story. I feel duty bound to challenge the lies Ziggy, especially when those lies are malicious.''

    Malicious or not I wouldn't waste my time and give them the credence it hopes for. Fake News is the new trendy 'yankspeak' for lies and disinformation. It's all the same. If they're given attention and passed around that gives the green light for more of the same. If less and less people stopped catching the ball, they'd stop throwing it.It's all intended to wind up-and it's working. You, me, and a few others will spot the usual 'marks' on bullshit, like the standard ' a source close to' and 'someone who doesn't want to be identified',but the majority of the readership of those rags take it in and think 'ohhh this must be serious'.It's them in need of a shake.As for the opinion about the competency of the PJ-she isn't qualified to judge. If it hit her so hard back in 2007 she'd have spoken up if she was being so attentive to the drama.Her identity's being kept secret for a reason. Let's not forget that the whole game became smoke and mirrors from day one.There's every chance that this 'source' isn't a nanny or has ever been to PDL. Why would she / they want the secrecy ? She isn't adding anything dramatic to the investigation or risking libel.We're learning so much from our american cousins. I wonder when we'll start using crisis actors.They'll be killed in the rush if they ask for volunteers in this country...

    ''Have a day off Ziggy, you're like a broken record with all your copy and paste and how, with all the evidence in the public domain can you accept everything the McCann's have said? ''

    The PJ and SY have access to files and the 'public domain'. What are they missing ?Who said that I accept everything the McCanns said ? I didn't. I question every name involved in this case, from the parents, the T7, Murat and his 'friend', the police and politicians.I don't question the MSM-as that comes under the government /politicians category. They're under orders to hide the truth if they sniff it out.Ask Mitchell.

    ''
    Do you remember Kate saying how they didn't put much emphasis on Madeleine's eye whilst they used it as the trade mark?''

    That doesn't make them murderers by the way. I remember them saying that, yes. There was a fuss. The haters jumped all over it and twisted it as another example of them not wanting her found( if they 'knew' she was buried somewhere why say anything anyway?).They wanted it as a 'distinguishing feature'. It was a good idea in hindsight.Look at how many so-called 'sightings' followed.That trademark would be the giveaway and an excellent pointer when describing her to detectives( and save all those free holidays all over the globe). It was the police who wanted to hide it as it could provoke anyone who was holding her into removing her eye or killing her.No wonder the investigations still on the starting line.

    ReplyDelete
  5. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CAT_BAKER.htm

    “When I finished work that day, I headed for home. Some of my colleagues were going out but I was very tired and did not accompany them. I stayed in the apartment with my friend Rhiannon Fretter and we went to sleep. Two colleagues later returned to the apartment. I was confused and did not understand was happening. They eventually explained to me what had occurred around 22h30-22h35. Emma Wilding told me that Madeleine has disappeared. Leanne Wagstaff also was present.”

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

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4419516/Nanny-looked-Madeleine-McCann-breaks-silence.html

    “Ms Baker was not with the McCanns when the alarm was sounded over Madeleine's disappearance just before 10pm. However, she joined the search shortly after 11pm after completing her duties as a night babysitter.”

    After completing her duties as a night babysitter?

    Best rated comment:

    I've often thought that the McCanns should head a campaign that warns against leaving children unattended. Not once have they publicly acknowledged that they should not have left Madeleine and her siblings alone.

    It makes you wonder.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A good comment, and of course leaving children alone is dangerous, should have been the message taken from this tragedy.

      However, the McCanns have never admitted they did anything wrong. Even to this day, they do not blame themselves. They argue that Madeleine would have been safe had it not been for an abductor.

      If they admit they were wrong for leaving Madeleine and her siblings, they are admitting negligence, and I can't see them ever admitting that.

      Delete
  6. "However, I will say this once more, with as much patience as I can muster, the McCanns were, are, and always have been, the aggressors with their legal actions against Goncalo Amaral."

    He made serious but untrue accusations against them. What were they supposed to do?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ..... and your evidence that the serious accusations are untrue?

      Delete
    2. As the archiving report said 18:41, they lost the opportunity to prove their innocence by doing a reconstruction. They are the only ones who can prove their innocence, no-one else can do it for them.

      But it wasn't the priority anyway 18:41, finding Madeleine should have taken precedence over everything else - who care's about their reputation when their child is missing?

      They had plenty of choices 18:41. but they chose to gamble Madeleine's Fund on libel actions that have ultimately brought them nothing. Except of course a mountain of debt.

      Delete
    3. Hi anon 19 April 18:41
      GA reaches the same conclusion in his book as the Portuguese police detectives did, who completed the investigation in which GA was involved before he was removed from it.

      The Prosecutors in their final report states (as Rosalinda and others on this blog have pointed out), that the McCanns did not get the chance to clear themselves, because their friends refused to participate in the planned reconstruction.

      Moreover, Gerry McCann once said that he has no problem with people who hold other opinions about what happened to Madeleine than he does. GA does, so why then did he sue him in the first place?

      Delete
  7. Anonymous 19 April 2017 at 18:41

    “He made serious but untrue accusations against them. What were they supposed to do?”

    Perhaps suing for libel would’ve been the most appropriate course of action in the circumstances.

    T

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous19 April 2017 at 19:45

    ''..... and your evidence that the serious accusations are untrue?''

    Isn't the onus on the accuser to provide evidence that the allegations they make are true ? Back them up, so to speak ?

    ''They are the only ones who can prove their innocence''

    If anyone was to ask them to prove their innocence, they can just say that they're free and haven't been charged of a crime by any police force. That could be countered, of course, by said police force/s arresting them and charging them, then bringing a successful prosecution.But they seem reluctant to do that despite all of these 'facts' available to them online.I wonder what's behind that..

    ''who care's about their reputation when their child is missing? ''

    The parents if they get accused of being a party to it on top of everything else. Suing for libel or defamation doesn't amount to it being a priority, just a necessity.It doesn't matter how much you bend it or shape it. Let's be honest, if they'd have said and done nothing, the same people calling for the heads so desperately would interpret that as a guilty silence. Heads they lose, tails they don't win. it's a fair game...

    They gambled a substantial amount of money on private investigators in their efforts 'not to find Madeleine' on the advice of the Governments man, and a vast amount on a 'Lord' who guaranteed they would be front page ( advised by the same Government man). Or are we ignoring those two monumental errors of judgement( trusting liars). The mountain of debt may be a little victory in the minds of the antis, but it's still little.The fact is celebrated with spite only.


    ReplyDelete
  9. So Clarence advised them to gamble Fund money on private investigators? And are you suggesting a link between Clarence and Lord Bell? How about a link between Clarence and Sir Philip Green. Didn't he supply the McCanns with the private jets? How about Clarence and the Catholic Church - who fixed it for the parents to meet with the Pope? Who arranged for the British Embassies to treat the parents as VIPs whilst on their European Tour?

    As you trying to say that Gerry and Kate are guilty only of two monumental errors of judgement? Trusting Clarence and trusting Lord Bell? Actually, there is another monumental error of judgement, but we'll leave that for the moment.

    I can almost buy the idea that documents can be monumentally naïve, usually because we perceive their minds to be on a higher plane than the rest of us. That is, they are like academics, judges and mad scientists. They can tell you the square root of a billion, but they don't know who Beyoncé is.

    We could go into the whole Arts .v. Science debate, while the stoners and goths bend the doors of perception, the geeks see everything in black and white.

    But I don't wish to digress. Gerry and Kate are too sociable to be locked away in a world of scientific exploration and discovery. But there are not signs that they are in anyway arty. Both their attempts at creative writing lacked honesty, and, if it's all possible, made them appear more wooden and pretentious than their live interviews. Their failure to connect with the audience has been one of the major contributors to their current predicament.

    You are probably right on the spite aspect - even from myself. It's always good to see the mighty fall. They wanted to clean out the former detective who searched for their daughter. I'm delighted they failed!

    ReplyDelete
  10. @ Anonymous 19 April 2017 at 19:45

    "..... and your evidence that the serious accusations are untrue?"

    If the McCanns are innocent. then Amaral made serious and untrue accusations against them. What were they supposed to do? They behaved as you would expect innocent people to behave.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 19 April 2017 at 22:29

      “@ Anonymous 19 April 2017 at 19:45

      "..... and your evidence that the serious accusations are untrue?"

      If the McCanns are innocent. then Amaral made serious and untrue accusations against them. What were they supposed to do? They behaved as you would expect innocent people to behave.”

      You have nor answered the question.

      T

      Delete
    2. @ Anonymous 19 April 2017 at 23:14

      "You have nor answered the question."

      That's because I'm making the point that the behaviour of the McCanns is consistent with being innocent people.

      Delete
    3. ..... or rather, the behaviour of the McCanns is consistent with someone wanting the public to believe they are innocent.

      Delete
    4. Which rather eloquently illustrates why I'm on the opposite side of the argument to 'Anonymous 20 April 2017 at 17:43'

      Delete
    5. Hi Anon 19 April 22:29
      You're not quite right, because;
      The McCanns have really tried to behave as they expect innocent parents would do, but haven't been too successful in doing so, I would say. Slightly different from what you believe, isn't it?

      Delete
    6. @Björn 21 April 2017 at 08:41

      Correct. What you say is slightly different from what I believe. Nothing new there, then.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous 20 April 2017 at 10:10

      With respect.

      You still have not answered the question.

      T

      Delete
  11. "They are the only ones who can prove their innocence, no-one else can do it for them."

    Here we go again. Firstly, there's no way they can prove their innocence. Secondly, it's the job of the authorities to prove their guilt. Thirdly, there's nothing they can do to affect what's said about them on social media.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 19.4 @22:41

      "there's no way they can prove their innocence"

      https://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/sep/13/marketingandpr.crime

      "If Mr Hall or a figure like him is hired, it will mark a new phase of the couple's campaign to prove their innocence."


      Bit of a wasted effort there, don't you think?

      Delete
    2. Actually, there are many ways they can prove their innocence 11:19. For one thing, they do not act like innocent people! I don't just mean their marketing of Maddie, though opening an online shop straight away took bizarre off the scale, but their continuing lack of honesty, not just about what happened to Madeleine, but everything!

      They have never once lowered their guard, they are always putting on an act. Nothing is real or spontaneous. In every interview they stick with exactly the same script.

      Even when discussing personal details about their daughter, they show no emotion. I remember seeing an animated interview with Sara Payne, there was no whiney poor me voice, she smiled, she laughed, she spontaneously burst into tears when she mentioned her beloved daughter's name. She could not have stopped those tears if she had wanted to because she was discussing what her daughter had lost, the life she should have had.

      Gerry and Kate only discuss their loss, how it affects them, they miss her every day, their lives are not complete, their ongoing suffering. I've always given them the benefit of the doubt on this, mostly because that is an aspect of bereavement that must tear grieving parents apart as it did with dear Sara Payne.

      To keep the search going for a live Madeleine however, it is something they would have to avoid. A cynic might say you would have to be an automaton or a psychopath, to suppress that kind of emotion. Or indeed, that keeping the 'search' going is more important.

      Honesty and transparency 11:19. Their wooden TV performances are fooling no-one, and are probably the beginning of all the suspicion anyway. They have had many years and many opportunities to 'come out' 11:19. Explain the situation more fully, the background, a more realistic insight as to the ambience of that evening. As the divine Sandra F said to Gerry and Kate, you are not under judicial secrecy now. How do they explain the reaction of the cadaver dogs?

      Delete
    3. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton20 April 2017 at 22:16

      I do not agree with anything you say about the Mccanns.

      I am very surprised that you missed the opportunity to describe Kate as "fragrant" again!

      Delete
    4. Your prerogative 23:12, but thank you for reading anyway.

      Apologies for my overuse of the word 'fragrant', I have a tendency to do that when I discover the beauty of certain words. Debris was a favourite for a while (said in a US accent), as in 'clear up all the 'debris' in the kitchen or you will get a belt round the ear'. The more obscure the word, the harder it is to slip into general conversation. As a lecturer I also enjoyed telling my students off for their 'cavalier' attitudes! Cellar door is a toughie, unless you are discussing spooky movies or licenced premises, you almost never get to use it!

      Unfortunately, you have put fragrant back into my head! Doh!

      Delete
  12. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton 19 April 2017 at 19:45

    "But it wasn't the priority anyway 18:41, finding Madeleine should have taken precedence over everything else - who care's about their reputation when their child is missing?
    They had plenty of choices 18:41. but they chose to gamble Madeleine's Fund on libel actions that have ultimately brought them nothing. Except of course a mountain of debt."

    Re para 1 - it's possible for two things (and more!) to be going on at the same time.
    Re para 2 - You forget the vast damages paid by UK newspapers over false allegations. The Amaral case was understandable for the same reasons, even though it failed. That the use made of the fund hasn't resulted in finding Madeleine doesn't mean it was wasted, only that it was unsuccessful. Unless you try, you won't succeed.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Gerry and Kate are too sociable to be locked away in a world of scientific exploration and discovery. But there are not signs that they are in anyway arty. Both their attempts at creative writing lacked honesty, and, if it's all possible, made them appear more wooden and pretentious than their live interviews."

    Meow!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Disambiguation:

      Anonymous 19 April 2017 at 23:03

      “Meow!”

      Nothing to do with me. Too high a key.

      Comrade Meow (aka T)

      Delete
  14. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton19 April 2017 at 21:46

    I only mentioned two instances of Mitchell's stranglehold on the investigation and circus.They were just to make a point- there's obviuosly more. The Government-for whatever reasons- wanted a man close to the McCanns and in charge of conversations they had with anyone publicly.After all, with the economy sinking like the Titanic, Governments swapping places, leadership changing hands, covering up war crimes that had been levelled at the UK and US, it was paramount that they made sure a couple of doctors weren't charged with anything terribly un-british that would spoil our image abroad.That would be the end of everything.

    As for meetings with the pope( any pope), it's only Catholics that see that as divine.Don't get me started on The Vatican's legacy and supposed 'spirituality'.Western leaders might form a queue to kiss his ring but don't kid yourself it's for anything religious. That's a cesspit. I found it significant that the first thing Blair did when he left Downing St for the final time was fly to Vatican City and convert. I wouldn't want to see inside that snakes mind, it must be a graveyard.There's an election imminent-be ready for it's appearance to drum up more support for the Tory party. Him, Brown, and Cameron know the inner workings of the McCann case.I's bet money on it if i thought the truth would be allowed out.

    The good doctors may have bee naive. They may well specialise in medicine but that doesn't make them gifted in one area.It makes them specialists to a degree.That's all. it doesn't slide them into the Bertrand Russell bracket, the man who could write tome after tome ab0ut the history of philosophy but needed instructions left on a note from his missus on how to make himself coffee. Maybe they were guilty of doing what most of us would do when in the position of being so desperate that you'll take any help you could get.

    There's no need for an Arts or Science debate. I've met people from both sides of that.There are pretentious bores on either side as well as interesting.I doubt either of them had 'write a book at some point' on their bucket list before any of this happened.They had no aspirations about being literary giants.Just doctors. Negative critiques of their writing wouldn't hurt their professional pride as much as being charged with gross misconduct or medical negligence.

    If they hadn't connected with their audience, they wouldn't have had so much sympathy or so many donations to the fund.You don't expect witty comebacks and a smiling, relaxed demeanor from two people who have lost their child.If that's seen as negative, what kind of world is it ? The frustrated /bored ' court of public opinion' was let down badly by lying authorities who utilised the MSM and a spokesman. They decided it was some kind of cover up. The failure to have the evidence stand was added to the cocktail and we had the parents as their No 1 suspects. Even though it wasn't them orchestrating the drama from the wings.

    Amaral could have arrested them on suspicion if he was so convinced of his 'truth of the lie' and used 48 hours to nail it. How confident was he in reality ? Or-why was he stopped and shoved away by his superiors ? The McCanns didn't have the power to do that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Their writing talents are neither here nor there Ziggy, the point is, they both revealed far more about themselves than they were aware of. And I agree being charged with gross misconduct or medical negligence, would be the worst thing that could happen.

      I don't think anyone is expecting witty comebacks and a smiling, relaxed, demeanour, though we have seen that on occasion. Gerry and Kate are devoid of any emotion, or at least any emotion they are prepared to share with the world. That makes them cold and distant.

      And for heavens sake let it go with Goncalo Amaral. He hasn't worked on this case for over 9 years! And no-one is going to blame him for Madeleine's disappearance.

      Delete
    2. I stick with you Ziggy because you so often give little snippets away lol

      '.....terribly unBritish, didn't want anything to spoil our image abroad. That would be the end of everything'. Really, the Government attached that much importance to keeping up appearances? Not disagreeing btw, some people go to extraordinary lengths to do that.

      Western leaders kiss the ring of the Pope because it would piss off all their Catholic voters if they didn't. Blair converted because he cannot live with the horrors of what he has done, and what he continues to do. His face is a Dorian Gray portrait - the one they keep in the attic. He has a whole herd of camels to try and squeeze through the eye of a needle.

      Delete
  15. Björn19 April 2017 at 21:37

    '' the McCanns did not get the chance to clear themselves, because their friends refused to participate in the planned reconstruction. ''

    ''Gerry McCann once said that he has no problem with people who hold other opinions about what happened to Madeleine than he does. GA does, so why then did he sue him in the first place?''

    Mitchell was in charge of the media side of things.Or rather his employers were ( the Government - paying him with the McCann fund ).He decided on the actors, the scripts and the gag orders that followed.Not the McCanns.Are you, and the others ,seriously suggesting that the taking part in-or refusing to take part in a reconstruction for a Crimewatch scenario that it had a significant impact on the guilt or innocence of the McCanns ? Everyone is 'clear' ie, innocent until proven guilty until the final gavel falls in a court of law.There wasn't even an arrest.

    There's a big difference between members of the public coming to their own conclusions based on their own suspicions and interpretation based on tabloids and twiiter, and those of a man who was on top of the case and charged with organising the investigation.The former have limited information( even with Google doing their work). The police don't have to release every last crumb. Amaral's 'opinion'(accusations and theories he couldn't use to prop up an arrest) were always going to be taken more seriously due to his initial position on the case. He had the perfect ingredients to put a best seller together.His audience aren't 'crime buffs', they're scandal addicts and vigilantes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry Ziggy I know you are responding to Bjorn, but seriously. The government were paying Mitchell with the McCann Fund? Put a bit more tonic in it, and explain.

      And, the refusal of the Tapas Group to take part in the reconstruction had a significant impact on the perceived guilt of the McCanns! As it said in the archiving report, the McCanns lost the opportunity to prove their innocence.

      It has also delayed this case for 9+ years. The original investigation was shelved because the McCanns and their friends would not co-operate with the police.

      Refusing to assist the police goes a long way in raising levels of suspicion Ziggy - you don't seriously believe the public see this as no big deal?

      You are assigning an awful lot of blame on Clarence Ziggy? Why is that? You are also crediting him with a lot more intelligence than he has. For example, all the while he was lording it over his fellow journalists who were scratching around for a Madeleine story, he was not considering what his journey would be like on the way down.

      Delete
    2. Hi Ziggy
      Rosalinda has given you some good answers. Just want to say how important a reconstruction would have been had it been carried out. The window of opportunity for a stranger abduction was so small that it could have been established that it never could have happened. As the reconstruction was not done, the investigation was not even given the chance to rule out the abduction hypothesis, or to confirm that there was a small possibility. Reconstructions are always crucial in all crime investigations. The wife of our former Prime Minister Olof Palme refused to participate in a reconstruction regarding the murder of her husband (understandable), but that could have helped the yet unsolved murder case.

      Delete
  16. Good morning, Ziggmund

    ZiggySawdust 19 April 2017 at 20:54

    “Anonymous19 April 2017 at 19:45

    ''..... and your evidence that the serious accusations are untrue?''

    Isn't the onus on the accuser to provide evidence that the allegations they make are true ? Back them up, so to speak ?”

    I would like to draw your attention, comrade, to the post implicitly referred to by Anonymous 19 April 2017 at 19:45:

    “Anonymous 19 April 2017 at 18:41

    "However, I will say this once more, with as much patience as I can muster, the McCanns were, are, and always have been, the aggressors with their legal actions against Goncalo Amaral."

    He made serious but untrue accusations against them. What were they supposed to do?”


    ONUS PROBANDI

    Unambiguously, the first sentence of the ultimate paragraph of 18:41 post is not a quotation but an allegation made by Anonymous 19 April 2017 at 18:41. Therefore, Anonymous19 April 2017 at 19:45, guided by logic, is entitled to ask Anonymous 19 April 2017 at 18:41 to substantiate their allegation.

    Namaste.

    Comrade Meow (aka T)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can see why the Twitter idiots struggle with this blog.

      Delete
    2. @20:31

      This blog that gives you the opportunity to express your newfound enlightenment.

      Delete
    3. And me too 20:31, lol, had to look up Onus Probandi! Cheers T :)

      Delete
    4. So true 22:21, what a shame you kept yours to one line!

      Delete
  17. http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/lie-spotting-why-we-dont-believe.html?showComment=1492481315129#c5588268545115971052

    “Anonymous18 April 2017 at 03:08

    Anonymous 14 April 2017 at 19:03

    “They stopped David Payne from bathing their children.”

    Not according to Katherina Gspar’s statement.

    http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATERINA-PAYNE-INCIDENT.htm :

    “During our holidays in Majorca, it was the fathers who took care of the children baths. I had the tendency to walk close to the bathroom, if it was Dave bathing the children. I remember telling Savio to took care to be there, in case it was Dave helping to bathe the children and, in particular, my daughter E. I was very clear about this, as having heard him say that had disturbed me, and I did not trust him to give bath to E. alone.”

    Besides, how does “…it was the fathers who took care of the children [mostly girls, T] baths.” sound to you?

    T”
    --------------------

    http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/lie-spotting-why-we-dont-believe.html?showComment=1492508220850#c208215343275679329

    “Anonymous18 April 2017 at 10:37

    Chris Connell 17 April 2017 at 12:11

    Respectfully.

    “1903 i wouldn't pay attention to what Ziggy sawdust says…”

    You seem to have been doing so nevertheless.

    As for the rest of your post, it sounds ad hominem.

    With reference to Gaspars’ statements, could you kindly indicate as to where Ziggmund transgressed in the way you have implied.

    For the avoidance of doubt, I question the Gaspars’ fitness as parents, for they seem to have admitted that they had inexcusably failed in their parental duty of care.

    Many thanks.

    T”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I try not to be unkind to the Gaspars T, but I do question the sanity of the allegations. I like to think they came forward in good faith, but it was at a time of mass hysteria and tabloids were having a field day. Everyone was speculating on what had had happened to Maddie, and the err, imaginative and the conniving were creating theories that would get them to the finish line first.

      And some still cling onto those ridiculous theories, because 1) they cannot admit they were wrong and, 2) actually there is no 2, 1 covers it. Ergo they are stuck with the batshit crazy ideas about paedophiles and swingers that they picked up from the front pages of the red tops (at a time of mass hysteria)and have had to run with them ever since.

      Delete
  18. Comrade M (T)...


    ( Deus det mihi vires ! )

    Anonymous 12:65 to anonymous 56:98..Mork calling Orson, Mork calling Orson..

    That all hit me like the enigma code. I'm guessing, somewhere in there, everything got lost in the mists..

    My thoughts Re ''what were they supposed to do'' were /are that yes, exactly, there was no other choice and they were within their rights to demand that allegations should be backed up or the accuser should back down.I also stated ( or inadvertantly agreed)that the onus should always be on an accuser to support his or her allegation, not just throw it out there and suggest the accused have to prove it wrong. The burden of proof etc. It's like me accusing you of running around your house naked with a whiskey bottle in hand last night. Can you prove that you never? because if you can't, I'm right, and anyone who wants to read it in my best seller can order it on Amazon now.Sue me - I stand by my right to free expression.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Reductio ad absurdum Ziggy. (Many thanks to the adorable Sheldon from the Big Bang Theory for that one).

      We all have the freedom to accuse anyone of anything, but that doesn't mean that we do! Just as we all have the freedom to be objectionable and antisocial. Most of us are guided by the ethics and values we have learned throughout our lives. Most of us do not need laws to prevent us acting like lunatics, it comes naturally!

      Delete
  19. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Ros - 10 years is coming up soon. Pat Brown is pushing herself out there apparently on TV in Australia. Will you be doing any internet TV chat shows or having articles in the papers?

    What are you doing for the tenth anniversary?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Anonymous20 April 2017 at 20:33

      no need to gulp - Ros feels "duty bound" to challenge the lies.

      (sorry I can't comment more just now as I can't stop laughing or to put it in Ros parlance - lol)

      Delete
    2. Now there's a thought 18:25! I got a wolf whistle while out and about yesterday, which put a bit spring into my step! Ok, it was from someone I knew, and it was a woman, but I'm counting it anyway!

      I did for a while think of hosting a live debate, I remember several years ago, a forum I belonged to had quiz nights, where they could actually speak to each other.

      Unfortunately, I am not very technical, but if anyone has any ideas as to how we could hold a live debate, they would be much appreciated.

      Delete
  21. @ Anonymous20 April 2017 at 18:14

    I Have to agree with you on that. The Cliff 'kitty' Richard allegation is based on a hand written (scrawled) guest list allegedly from Elm Guest House ( nowhere near Portugal).For 40 plus years old Cliffy was held up as a secret 'gay boy'.This wasn't because of him having any male partners, but because he didn't have any female ones.That's close enough in 'the public domain' even before they set up another 'court'. It was only once Savile was exposed he was re-branded as a paedophile( based on former mentioned scrawled guest list and him posing for photographs with those nasty Kray girls and their 'insider in the house', Lord Boothby).Once it was discovered that he had a home in Portugal it was an open and shut case.Don't get me wrong, I'm no Cliff fan, I think he should have been arrested as soon as Mistletoe and Wine was released, but even that noise doesn't make him a paedophile.

    Sir Clement was 'outed' after his death, as are the rules for high ranking paedophiles. His preferences didn't include toddlers.Kids, yes;not toddlers. His role appears to have been a media mole ( his son was still married to the Murdoch mafia, and Sir Clement's invitation to the McCanns placed him in the perfect position to be considered a confidant).Another 'coincidence' in this area was Clarence Mitchell who, soon after, joined 'Freud Communications'). Mister damage limitation himself...

    Philip Martin Edmonds is the nephew of Margaret Hodge who was scandalised for her part in the refusal to investigate Jimmy Savile as well as covering up the Islington Childrens Home scandal.What a 'woman'.Her vile behaviour can't really be used to suggest her nephew is a paedophile. Far too much twisting and bending would be needed, not to mention gullibility.

    Have Cliff Richard or Philip Edmonds been arrested or charged with anything ? Or has nothing been reported about them to the police ? If the police haven't received any complaints, that doesn't mean they are above the law.It means they haven't done anything wrong doesn't it ?

    '' there's more than enough evidence in the public domain to warrant a full scale investigation but it won't happen because these people are literally above the law."

    So, statements like that do little for the so-called credibility of the 'public domain' or their court.If the same public domain think this way, they'll be as misguided in most areas. Basically, untrustworthy. They only have the support of the like-minded.
    But they're entitled to their 'free speech' apparently.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Is it just me or are all the comments by "T" unintelligible rubbish?

    Does anyone concur?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. With reference to Anonymous 20 April 2017 at 22:45

      “Is it just me or are all the comments by "T" unintelligible rubbish?

      Does anyone concur?”

      … . .. . . .. . . …. …… ….. .

      T

      Delete
    2. @T

      majQa'

      Amadeus (Falco)

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 21 April 2017 at 13:18

      Thank you, Maestro

      Sublimely harmonious. Perfect pitch!

      For us, there is only the trying. The rest is not our business. (From The Klingon Dictionary of Wisdom as translated by one T S Eliot).

      Peace.

      Yours humbly

      T

      Delete
  23. The idea that someone is a 'P' because his aunt is a bitch, is ludicrous. But it just goes to show how far some are prepared to go to concoct their vile scenarios.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Cliff Richard has my sympathy actually. Why on earth does his sexuality matter to anyone. He is obviously not a predator, and the majority of those who mix with him, do so through their own choice.

    Where the 'P' word is concerned, it incites hysterical reaction. Cliff Richard is a prime example of a suspect being found guilty in the Court of public opinion Ziggy, and one you seem to be OK with. Why insult the guy?

    The fact is, throughout history, some men, and a few women, have err, liked, much younger men and women. And not always in a sexual way - look at the lithe, sensual bodies of the ancient statues lovingly crafted by the artists. In many ancient civilisations, homosexuality was quite normal, see Alexander the Great.

    As society has evolved relationships between older men and younger men has become taboo, but the need for these relationships, from both age groups, has never gone away. They will be drawn to each other despite what the Law or society may say.

    Unfortunately, men like Cliff Richard are vulnerable to young predators looking for their 15 minutes of fame. I think those trying to trick him and those trying to demonise him, are the despicable ones here.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton 20 April 2017 at 22:55

    ''Sorry Ziggy I know you are responding to Bjorn, but seriously. The government were paying Mitchell with the McCann Fund? Put a bit more tonic in it, and explain.''

    One minute Clarence was a BBC broadcaster /journalist and part time BBC news presenter( graveyard shift).Then, following his blooper( falling asleep ob the job, literally), he's 'plucked' out of that job and into the Labour party's Media Monitoring Unit. In 2007, as much as he was enjoying his charmed life and Teflon-like fortune, he's 'plucked' from that cosy number( he later said it was untenable?) and placed in PDL as mouthpiece for the McCanns and PR controller.More recently, he's run for the seat in Brighton as a Tory MP ( like any sincere 'labour man'). He's the Governments 'go to ' man, regardless of which hat he wears.

    Apart from public donations to the McCann fund,vast amounts have been donated by successive Governments.This was the infamous 'war fund'. It was there to be dipped into to hire whoever could advance and broaden the search for Madeleine.Private investigators, PR insiders who could guarantee them headlines, and PR controllers could be employed using the fund. The McCanns weren't paying them all with their own personal savings. The lion's share was rubber stamped by the Government/s.The taxpayer had it taken from them, and the Government set up a fund with a lot of it. Take out the middle man /woman.

    ''the reconstruction had a significant impact on the perceived guilt of the McCanns''

    Perceived by who and why ? If the Police perceived their guilt, or share of it( as Amaral swears he did), they should have acted. Perceptions can be deceiving from a long distance. And the distance is long for the public. The tabloids and internet only make it seem closer. Only those who have been inside the case and involved in it were close.

    ''Refusing to assist the police goes a long way in raising levels of suspicion Ziggy - you don't seriously believe the public see this as no big deal? ''

    If they refused to assist the police, the police should have seen it as suspicious without needing a nudge from Joe Public.I'm certain the public see it as a big deal. But I've seen plenty of other 'big deals' the same public repeat and it's ridiculous. The infamous '48 questions' fueled that fire. But little is said about A- 45 of those questions weren't even remotely related to an abduction scenario as suggested by the parents, and B- the 'most expensive legal team money could buy' advised KM to say nothing. It wasn't her decision.

    ''You are assigning an awful lot of blame on Clarence Ziggy? Why is that? You are also crediting him with a lot more intelligence than he has.''

    Blame or responsibility ? And i would never accuse a politician of being intelligent. There's already too many libel suits flying around. In politics you don't need a brain cell-just the right connections ( and possibly a few secrets).

    ''he was not considering what his journey would be like on the way down.''

    I'd love to think you're right on that one, Ros. But this character has friends on both sides of the floor and even above them. He's guaranteed that any shit that comes his way will turn into roses before they land.


    ReplyDelete
  26. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4431604/Australian-TV-s-breakthrough-Maddie-McCann-case.html

    "It comes after the new Metropolitan police boss Cressida Dick said she is very interested in the ongoing investigation, adding: 'I don’t know when it will finish.'

    In an interview on LBC, she defended her investigators who are being paid by the taxpayer to work on the case almost ten years on, saying: 'They are busy, they are active, they’ve been doing a huge number of things.'"

    [...]

    "Kate and Gerry McCann have urged the documentary-makers to hand over their evidence to police 'immediately'"

    You couldn't make it up.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Dear Rosalinda

    An explanation of my reply to Anonymous 20 April 2017 at 22:45 might be in order.

    My “… . .. . . .. . . …. …… ….. .” is a quote from the reference section of The Klingon Dictionary of Wisdom. As you may be aware, the most important property of all references in that section is that their meaning reflects the reader’s state of mind, so that while the impact of the meaning upon the reader’s mind remains the same, the meaning itself varies from reader to reader.

    You ought not to be surprised therefore if you read the quote as something about our good old Frank.

    To me, the meaning of that reference is ‘Mozart. Piano Concerto No. 20 in D minor, K466’.

    Peace as always.

    :D

    :)T:)

    PS DT = Defensive Tackle (American football, not Klingon) :) Bless.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton21 April 2017 at 01:24

    ''Cliff Richard is a prime example of a suspect being found guilty in the Court of public opinion Ziggy, and one you seem to be OK with. Why insult the guy? ''

    I love music. Sorry, nothing personal to old Cliffy..

    What you say about the older / younger relationships is dangerous. It's right, but in todays world, dangerous. Those old legendary thinkers( not all, but enough) often referred to in Greek Philosophy were fond of young boys for their recreation. These great sages were held in such high esteem that the parents of such young boys deemed it an honour.And then there's those great Roman Emperors and their inner circles and families. Orgies were the norm along with incest and human sacrifice. But nobody f**d with a Caesar.It never ended well if you did..They were pretty sick creatures.

    In the modern world, lines need to be drawn. That's why there's an age of consent. Time has moved on and so has the understanding of psychology and social development. Children aren't naturally sexual. They're playful, fun, crazy, annoying, but trusting, and innocent. They can be sexualised, that's different. To sexualise a child is to bend a child's mind and nature. That's horrendous.

    Why it's dangerous to acknowledge that this kind of thing is as old as the hills today is because the numbers of abused children has gone off the scale. It's become a global sport. Worse, we're learning more and more about children have become some kind of 'trinket' for the elite - the very group who are supposed to be passing down laws and telling the rest of us what's acceptable or not. They'd love to 'normalise' the act.

    So, who do you turn to ? Geoffrey Dickens turned to Leon Brittain.That turned out to be a monumental bad, and unbearably ironic move in the wrong direction. And what of Harriet Harman ? When she was a big noise for the Council for Civil Liberties, she granted affiliate status to P I E . Lunatic. That was 40 years ago. Did she learn from it ? In recent years she's gone on record as saying pictures of children passed around by these underground rings should be considered OK as long as the child in the photograph doesn't look as though he/she was hurt or be suffering.

    The age of consent may vary from country to country ( The Vatican has raised theirs to 13 now, Jesus would be proud I'm sure), but at least that line drawn in the sand offers some protection. And we are making some progress at least in the taboo areas. It was only as recent as the 60s that homosexuality was a 'disease' deemed treatable by electrodes placed strategically in the nether area ( strangely, paedophiles were never treated to this great stride forward in psychiatric 'medicine').

    ReplyDelete
  29. Anonymous 21 April 2017 at 09:

    ''You couldn't make it up.''

    If only that was true . Unfortunately the media can-and do- make whatever they want 'up'.

    I remember a few years ago when Prince William's brood mare was expecting their first baby. Two 'hilarious' DJ's from Australia played a 'prank'( call) on the hospital. Childish but harmless if we're fair. But they were fired on the spot and the nurse who took the call and passed it through killed herself days later and her suicided notes were archived with Military Intelligence. So, obvioulsy it was a matter of 'national(yawn)security'.

    As the McCann case has had so many politicians and diplomats shaking in their shoes for 10 years and kept the public fed on a strict diet of fantasy, stupidity and misinformation, we can safely assume that the same people seem to be treating this too as a matter of national security. So, if this C7 programme is holding crucial information concerning the McCann case, they're not only witholding information concerning a major crime, but posing a threat to national security. Our diplomats can turn up like genies in other countries and block things. If the McCann case has taught us nothing else we've at least learned that much.So, where are they ?

    I'm betting we'll be treated to nothing we haven't already been treated to. The wording may be different but it will still amount to the same song. Pat Brown's there.There's a clue. Miles mean nothing to the celberity 'profiler' if the TV audience is big enough and the spotlights bright enough( ''in my book...'' etc etc). More tack. Nothing to see here....move along now...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'Brood mare'! Good heavens Ziggy what a sexist, insulting thing to say, what has that young woman ever done to you?

      After all you have said about the government interfering in the McCann case, you are now saying they should intervene and stop the Australian program from being broadcast. Who the heck do you think the McCanns are?

      All over the world programs are made about people far more important than Gerry and Kate, so what puts them above royalty and heads of state?

      Delete
  30. Björn21 April 2017 at 08:41

    ''The McCanns have really tried to behave as they expect innocent parents would''

    How do you know it's only an 'act' ? How can you tell it's an act and not just that they're innocent ?

    ''but haven't been too successful in doing so, I would say.''

    They are yet to be arrested in ten years. I'd say that's pretty successful, wouldn't you ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Ziggy
      I don't claim to have found the truth Ziggy, but I assume that the McCanns are guilty, at least of child neglect. I base my assumption on everything I've read in the P J files and else where, and especially on all the odd things the McCanns have done and said all those years. To put it mildly; It appears to me that they are just acting, at least not being themselves and I honestly believe this may be the reason as to why a lot of people suspect that they may have had something with Madeleine's disappearance to do. As for myself Ziggy, I just express my opinion as you do. I see nothing strange about that.

      Delete
    2. JEEEEEZ, you would argue black is white for eternity I think Ziggy.

      The world is full of criminals walking around free and yet to be/never will be, arrested, this does not make them innocent.

      If you think that makes someone successful Ziggy, I pity you.

      Your dedication to defending every word typed against the Mccanns on this blog says volumes about you. You are in the same league as walkercan1000 on twitter and insane on textusas blog. You appear to be more than a little obsessed Ziggy and I recommend a sabatical of at least 3 months in which time you can re-evaluate your sense of perspective.

      Delete
  31. Anonymous21 April 2017 at 19:05

    ''The world is full of criminals walking around free and yet to be/never will be, arrested, this does not make them innocent....If you think that makes someone successful Ziggy, I pity you...''

    Save your pity for those more in need of some, anon.There's thousands. Any criminal who commits a major crime and evades arrest would call that a success.Only those who end up doing porridge consider it failure.

    ''Your dedication to defending every word typed against the Mccanns on this blog says volumes about you.''

    Your dedication to skim reading and your short attention span speaks more about you than me. I've defended no more than 'innocent until proven guilty'. I haven't stated once, anywhere, that I think the McCanns are innocent or guilty. I've stated that evidence will decide it-not opinions, suspicion or gossip fomented by thousands who don't care that tangible evidence, eye witnesses accounts and judicial process is what puts people behind bars - not internet gossip .There's as much evidence for an abduction scenario as there is that incriminates the McCanns. None. Ask the PJ and SY.

    ''You appear to be more than a little obsessed Ziggy and I recommend a sabatical of at least 3 months in which time you can re-evaluate your sense of perspective.''

    I don't 'appear' any way to you. You're selectively isolating observations I make and inventing or editing others in a predictable attempt to find vent. I pity you for that. That's par for the course with the narrow minded, however . Most of your post is just thinly veiled attempts at insulting me. Kudos for thinking you're important enough. God loves a trier.And good luck spreading your wisdom and helping people with their 'perspective'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ZiggySawdust 21 April 2017 at 19:58

      “There's as much evidence for an abduction scenario as there is that incriminates the McCanns. None.”

      This is not the case, Ziggmund. Your error has already been unambiguously pointed out to you. Thrice you have been invited to have a go at debating the issue. For one reason or another. you've ignored the invitations.

      Here is a link to the last such occasion: http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/mccanns-latest-news-250317.html?showComment=1490955407503#c5131659458065352317

      Speak, comrade.

      Namaste.

      T

      Delete
    2. Ziggys quote ,,,They are yet to be arrested in ten years. I'd say that's pretty successful, wouldn't you ?

      ziggys 2nd quote....There's thousands. Any criminal who commits a major crime and evades arrest would call that a success.Only those who end up doing porridge consider it failure.

      Notice the subtle thinly disguised difference.


      ziggys next quote..... I haven't stated once, anywhere, that I think the McCanns are innocent or guilty. I've stated that evidence will decide it-not opinions, suspicion or gossip fomented by thousands who don't care that tangible evidence, eye witnesses accounts and judicial process is what puts people behind bars - not internet gossip .There's as much evidence for an abduction scenario as there is that incriminates the McCanns. None. Ask the PJ and SY.

      Hmmmmm, for someone who thinks there is no evidence of anything you spend an awful lot of time on 1 side of the fence ziggy (the mccs to be clear) and you even went as far as stating very recently that you believe the abduction story, now how can that be when in your own words there is NO evidence of abduction. I take it you believe it because k and G mcc declared it?????

      I put it to you ziggy that YOU are the one with the narrow mind, not I.

      I dont skim read your posts Ziggy, I either read them or dont, im not always in the mood to don my waist high wellies to wade through them, their arrogance and tone amuse only sometimes.

      You wonder why people poke you ziggy, see above and see T comment above also at 21.22.

      As I said before, you shall tire soon enough Ziggy because you and I both know that FUNDAMENTALY at the botoom of it all (evidence or not) only 2 people are responsible for the situation MBM found herself in, the rest is just bullshit !





      Delete
  32. Björn21 April 2017 at 18:27

    ''Hi ZiggyI don't claim to have found the truth Ziggy, but I assume that the McCanns are guilty, at least of child neglect.''

    That's a matter of opinion apparently. GM found support that they were 'within the law'. But i doubt he'll sell many tickets for that one. Leaving children alone is negligent.At night is worse, abroad is worse again. But it isn't an 'official cause of death'. Negligence may have been the only reason an abductor was able to strike.

    ''It appears to me that they are just acting,''

    It appears to others that they aren't. Who can prove their standpoint is the right one-you or them ?

    '' at least not being themselves ''

    We only see them when the cameras and lights and microphones are on. Nobody acts naturally under those circumstances. How do you know GM or KM didn't want to scream at a camera and call the alleged abductor a lot of things not fit to broadcast? How do they act away from the lights and cameras ? You don't know. None of us do. So none of us have enough genuine evidence to make a judgement.

    ''As for myself Ziggy, I just express my opinion as you do. I see nothing strange about that.''

    Who said it was strange..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It doesn't matter what the Law says, Gerry must know in his heart that what they did was neglectful. Quoting high price lawyers doesn't make him sound any better.

      Gerry and Kate have given hundreds of interviews Ziggy, so the nervousness is a weak answer. Honest people eventually relax, Oprah for example had thousands of guests on her show, many ordinary people, who didn't sit on her couch as if they awaiting flames to engulf them. As for Gerry and Kate holding in their emotions - look at how that has worked out.

      Delete
  33. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton21 April 2017 at 20:04

    '''Brood mare'! Good heavens Ziggy what a sexist, insulting thing to say, what has that young woman ever done to you?''

    I apologise for the brood mare remark. But when I think of that so-called Prince I think Of Diana and her fate. I recall her famous quote '' They brought me in only as a brood mare then i wasn't needed'' ( paraphrase)

    ''After all you have said about the government interfering in the McCann case, you are now saying they should intervene and stop the Australian program from being broadcast. Who the heck do you think the McCanns are? ''

    More importantly, Ros, who do the Government think the McCanns are. I've said plenty of times that the iron clad shield around the McCanns provided for them didn't make sense in any way. I've emphasised that far too much has been done for a mere pair of holiday makers abroad, and that their perceived importance because they're 'middle class doctors' is bullshit. They interfered too quickly and too heavily just to be protecting tourists. If the people behind the programme have genuine evidence that nails this case they had an obligation to disclose it. It's bullshit imitating Art ( see '15 minutes'-Robert De Niro). They'd still have their exclusive.They should still be able to broadcast it. But this is either a case of child abduction or murder, or both. It's not about ratings first, justice later.

    ''All over the world programs are made about people far more important than Gerry and Kate''

    Yes, I know.But only if they're about cold cases or solved ones-not cases in progress.

    ''what puts them above royalty and heads of state?''

    Exactly. Inadvertently, you've asked the same question I've been asking since i began contributing to your blog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not true, programs are made about cold cases all the time. I have also watched many real crime documentaries where the police know exactly who is responsible for the crime, but do not have enough evidence to prosecute.

      Again, I remind you of the murder of Stephen Lawrence, how many newspapers and programs have named his killers? Should they be presumed innocent until proved guilty. Should the government have interfered?

      Delete
    2. @ ZiggySawdust 21 April 2017 at 20:26

      "Inadvertently, you've asked the same question ['what puts them above royalty and heads of state?'] I've been asking since i began contributing to your blog."

      Oh, Ziggy!

      Delete
    3. I have no doubt there will be many people who were taken in by the McCanns, hook, line and sinker. That is, in the rush to assist the parents, the gullible would not, and could not, believe they were involved.

      You take way too much credit away from Gerry, Kate and their very assertive and pro-active family. Within days, Aunty Phil et al were running off T-shirts, sending viral chain e-mails, targeting large corporations and selling good quality wristbands. Not forgetting of course, the online shop for belt badges (as modelled by Kate on way to police interview)and prayer cards.

      None of the above were government initiatives Ziggy, and you forget, Clarence quit his government job to work for Gerry and Kate directly. He was the one flogging the TV interviews, the newspaper exclusives and the film and book rights.

      He was also controlling the news - stories and interviews would only be given to those who followed the rules - no criticism and no off script questions. Once you have watched enough Gerry and Kate interviews, you will realise that they say the same thing over and over, because they have had the same script for over 10 years.

      They can't vary it in any way, they can't add any more detail, they can't suddenly remember something as many of us often do. Any alterations to the story will kick off a chain of falling dominoes, because every statement is dependent on the next.

      I doubt Clarence has been inundated with 10th anniversary offers, especially if the McCanns are simply offering more of the same. It's simply not enough to compete with Trump's tweets and the lunacy that is about to break out in the UK.

      Delete
    4. Oh Ziggy! Indeed, 00:05, ;)

      Ziggy would have us believe that Gerry and Kate are naïve simpletons manipulated by the all powerful Clarence Mitchell and New Labour. Out of their tragedy, Gerry and Kate discovered they were formidable ambassadors and fund raisers with more neck than brass monkeys. What shell shocked parents for example, would think to put collection buckets all around the resort, and continue their holiday?

      Gerry and Kate have a sense of entitlement that overrides their senses of judgement and reason. They see their critics as beneath them, intellectually, socially and economically.

      As is usually said in a derogatory way, they are like those benefit claimants who know the system and everything they are entitled to.

      In the Autumn of 2010 for example when they were asking Theresa May to act on Jim Gamble's report, and desperately in need of funds, they stressed over and over that Madeleine is a British Citizen, she has the right to be searched for. (Apologies for the bad English there, tis late). They were campaigning for Madeleine's rights - and may their God forgive them for that one.

      Delete
  34. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2014/05/a-day-off-politics/comment-page-3/#comment-459035

    I know John Buck fairly well. A nice man, but the chances of him ever doing anything without a direct instruction are nil.

    ReplyDelete
  35. ''Again, I remind you of the murder of Stephen Lawrence, how many newspapers and programs have named his killers? Should they be presumed innocent until proved guilty. Should the government have interfered?''

    In an ideal world, all police officers would do the job they're paid for and nothing more, nothing less. But not all officers do. Too many are easily bought- or corrupt in other ways.

    In an ideal world, all politicians would do the job they're paid for and nothing more, nothing less. But not all politicians do . Too many are easily bought-or corrupt in other ways.

    When these two bodies get into bed together, ideals are kicked out onto the rug. That's a real comfort to us all. How many times do we hear, when officers have been caught with their proverbial hands in the till, that 'we are conducting our own internal investigation'. In other words, up yours, we stick together, as do the bosses, go and play.

    When the politicians order the police what to ignore, edit or change, it's done.They're playing for the same team. They're supposed to be serving the public and supposed to be transparent.And we're supposed to be stupid.

    When the police are conspiring to pervert or obstruct the justice they're supposed to have as their one ideal, the Government should interfere, yes. Such police aren't going to arrest themselves so someone should do something. It's in the public interest and the public have a right to know what goes on if they're paying their wages.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/oct/16/stephen-lawrence-inquiry-hunts-police-alleged-to-have-shielded-killers

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2293994/Gary-Dobson-drops-fight-appeal-conviction-Stephen-Lawrence-murder.html

    As for :

    ''real crime documentaries where the police know exactly who is responsible for the crime, but do not have enough evidence to prosecute. ''

    If they 'know exactly' there shouldn't be a problem in bringing a successful prosecution.If they 'know exactly' how do they know ? Because if something tells them 'exactly' who a perpetrator is and what they did, it should show a jury the same.

    You don't always need a body to jail a killer.Enough circumstantial evidence will do the job if it's allowed to be presented ( pertinent to the McCann case maybe ?). Think of Helen McCourt and others.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_murder_convictions_without_a_body

    ReplyDelete
  36. Oh dear - criminal profiler doesn't seem happy about the 10th anniversary effort that she has been promoting:

    PAT BROWN‏ @ProfilerPatB 4h4 hours ago

    Rahni Sadler hasn't answered my email about the libelous edited clip used in the #SundayNight #McCann promo. Considering a defamation suit.

    ReplyDelete
  37. " I have also watched many real crime documentaries where the police know exactly who is responsible for the crime, but do not have enough evidence to prosecute."

    LOL. If they don't have sufficient evidence to prosecute, let alone enough to prove, then I would suggest you replace 'know' with 'think they know'.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Oh they know alright 22:48, but the burden of proof in most countries (quite rightly) is so high, they cannot risk double jeopardy. That was, for example, the reason given for not prosecuting the parents of Jonbenet Ramsey. If the prosecution cannot prove their case, the Defendants cannot be tried for that same crime again. Ergo, they will get off.

    When the police do finally get the 'smoking gun', be it 10, or even 20 years later, they will go to trial. A suspect is never really off the hook, because someone will always be watching out for the moment they slip up - or that breakthrough in technology.

    Should this case ever come to trial Portuguese Judiciary will be up against the best lawyers money can buy. In 2008, with the prime suspects and the witnesses refusing to co-operate, the PJ had no option but to throw in the towel. And Gerry has been taunting them with 'noooo evidence' ever since.

    I think all of us who have followed this case would vehemently agree, that there is and always has been enough evidence to charge the prime suspects. However, it is mostly circumstantial. As the McCanns and their supporters have said many times, the findings are not evidence. But I would question that - there have been murder trials where dogs have indicated death and no body has been found.

    To me it seems as though the evidence against the McCanns is overwhelming - but what do I know? Is the onus on the prosecution to explain, step by step, exactly what happened that night, and indeed everything that happened to the poor child's body thereafter? How far does the burden of proof go?

    Then again, we must counter in, the 'will' to prosecute and that's where it becomes all fuzzy and political. Back to musing, I have often thought, the unveiling of the Madeleine coverup would be buried under much, much, bigger headlines. Like 9/11, a good day to bury bad news. (a blooper from the incumbent government, but I can't remember the exact quote).

    At the moment the entire world is pretty much distracted by two baby men threatening nuclear war, and out of nowhere, we suddenly have a General Election. With all this going on, not many people care very much whether Kate and Gerry 'dunnit' or not.

    May I ask 22:48, when you know something categorically, do you add the proviso 'think you know'?

    ReplyDelete
  39. " How far does the burden of proof go?"

    beyond reasonable doubt.

    ReplyDelete
  40. ''Should this case ever come to trial Portuguese Judiciary will be up against the best lawyers money can buy. In 2008, with the prime suspects and the witnesses refusing to co-operate, the PJ had no option but to throw in the towel.''

    The best lawyers money can buy can only operate within the same parameters as the cheapest. Just because they charge top dollar doesn't mean that they can invent new laws or new legal protocol. If suspects refuse to co-operate that doesn't mean they can't be arrested. Prisons everywhere are full of convicts who say they 'didn't do it'.

    ''I think all of us who have followed this case would vehemently agree, that there is and always has been enough evidence to charge the prime suspects.''

    There aren't any suspects, prime or otherwise, beyond twitter. What have the police been following ?

    ''As the McCanns and their supporters have said many times, the findings are not evidence. But I would question that - there have been murder trials where dogs have indicated death and no body has been found. ''

    The police questioned it( or a few of them did) and the scientists answered. If we're citing trials, how about the Linday Chamberlain 'dingo' case? She received a life sentence and her husband was deemed an accessory after the fact. The court of public opinion didn't have the internet then so some turned up with T shirts proclaiming 'The Dingo Is Innocent !''. So they had a good day. A sort of precursor to 'Dogs don't lie!''. It turned out the dingo wasn't innocent eventually.

    It's up to the police first to hand the prosecution enough evidence that would satisfy them that a case was worth funding. The burden of proof goes as far as it needs to go. That is, if the charge levelled can be supported by undeniable, unambiguous evidence, it's done it's job and the burden then turns into guilt and is transferred to the accused.

    The 'will' to prosecute shouldn't take precedence over the duty to prosecute. That's why we have laws.But if the will isn't there then it isn't the police that should come under scrutiny. Those who don't want the case solved honestly may well, as you say, want it buried. That won't happen though. False flags are having less impact these days.More and more of the public are waking up to the games. They can't bury this one. They should have buried the media coverage years ago, then they'd have a better chance of making it go away. They've shot themselves in the foot now. There's probably about 3 or 4 scenarios being discussed. It should be interesting now that they know a lot of people are looking further than their noses.

    As for the two baby men etc..Trump is getting far too much attention from mainstream bullshitters. It's becoming trendy to have a Trump joke or observation.If the screwball resigned tomorrow a screwball would replace him. It's been happening since '63. Trump is no more evil and witless than those who sat in the big chair.he just lacks their finesse and PR skills. No president gets the final say anyway. Kennedy tried that.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I don't know what planet you have been on Ziggy, but never in my lifetime have I seen anyone that batshit crazy as Commander in Chief of the Free World. If you believe Trump is no more evil and witless than 'those who sat in the big big chair' - then you know absolutely nothing about history! Great men made great changes, that is why I get so vexed at those who make sweeping statements!

    ReplyDelete
  42. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton 22 April 2017 at 00:14

    "I think all of us who have followed this case would vehemently agree, that there is and always has been enough evidence to charge the prime suspects."

    I'll excuse this daftness on the grounds that it was posted after midnight.

    ReplyDelete
  43. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton 22 April 2017 at 00:14

    "I think all of us who have followed this case would vehemently agree, that there is and always has been enough evidence to charge the prime suspects. However, it is mostly circumstantial. As the McCanns and their supporters have said many times, the findings are not evidence. But I would question that - there have been murder trials where dogs have indicated death and no body has been found.
    To me it seems as though the evidence against the McCanns is overwhelming - but what do I know? Is the onus on the prosecution to explain, step by step, exactly what happened that night, and indeed everything that happened to the poor child's body thereafter? How far does the burden of proof go?
    Then again, we must counter in, the 'will' to prosecute and that's where it becomes all fuzzy and political. Back to musing, I have often thought, the unveiling of the Madeleine coverup would be buried under much, much, bigger headlines. Like 9/11, a good day to bury bad news. (a blooper from the incumbent government, but I can't remember the exact quote).
    At the moment the entire world is pretty much distracted by two baby men threatening nuclear war, and out of nowhere, we suddenly have a General Election. With all this going on, not many people care very much whether Kate and Gerry 'dunnit' or not. "

    I don't know what planet you have been on Ros, but never in my lifetime have I read a comment that batshit crazy.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton22 April 2017 at 01:55

    ''I don't know what planet you have been on Ziggy, but never in my lifetime have I seen anyone that batshit crazy as Commander in Chief of the Free Worlld''

    Thankfully, a different planet to those who eat everything they're fed and go back to the TV for 'seconds'.

    Batshit crazy is waging war on countries under false pretences in the name of oil, lithium or opium or gold.It's being party to covering up contrived 'attacks' on your own mainland and sacrificing 2,000 of your own in the process. It's spending trillions on the Military looking for a ghost in a cave.it's utilising your intelligence agency to carry out assassinations home and abroad. It's excusing waterboarding civilians and soldiers as 'enhanced interrogation'.That's only part of the tip of the iceberg.

    Trump suggests 'building a wall' to keep out Muslims( terror threats etc etc). The sanctimonious throw up their arms at such racism. Obomber and Bush wanted to invade and slaughter Muslims in their own back yard and wreck the US economy( but not their own personal economies) in the process.

    Trump is loud, arrogant and none to bright.He's a Twitter president. He's shouting and talking. It's noise.He's far less dangerous than Clinton though.That lunatic has poison running through her veins .

    ''you know absolutely nothing about history! Great men made great changes, that is why I get so vexed at those who make sweeping statements!''

    Me too. I particularly dislike the sheople's chorus.I used to get vexed but now it's just a head-shake or eye-rolling reaction. Great men ? Great changes ? That would explain why a succession of such has left us on a sinking ship as the 'great' captains man their lifeboats.

    Lincoln was a great man.He saw human slavery as immoral. He saw war as immoral as well as a bankers trick. He brought an end to the former and took a bullet in the head for the latter. JFK repeated history.All those great men that surround them in history have shown exactly why Lincoln and Kennedy were great men and why they had to go.

    ''A great man is one who leaves others at a loss after he is gone''.

    ''Love of glory can only create a great hero; contempt of glory creates a great man''.

    ReplyDelete
  45. 15:39

    "Lincoln was a great man"

    Whose name did not even feature on the ballot paper in any of the southern states at the time of his election to president, a fact to which those same states took singular exception, as they did toward the Morrill Tarriff, a levy they were expected to collect on behalf of the government but whose proceeds were intended to support northern industrialists.

    The emancipation proclamation carried no legal weight in those states at which it was directed, since they had already seceded from the Union. It did NOT pertain to slave owning states that had chosen to remain in the union.

    Still, not only would a re-design of Mt. Rushmore be v. difficult and v. costly, whose visage could they put there instead? Donald Trump's?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ACGhgjLDf0

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 22 April 2017 at 17:28

      What a good post! Many thanks.

      Best.

      T

      Delete
  46. It's very interestingtesting to note that the so called 'Rape wnistles'are not mentioned by any of the Nannies in their interviews with the Portuguese Judiciary.
    They really are getting desperate now.

    ReplyDelete
  47. It is strange 18:59, especially as the McCanns, certain elements of the MSM and the loony fringe of the antis have tried to paint PDL as some sort of perverts paradise or sin city for 10 years.

    There is no mention of nannies being given rape whistles - anywhere. As you say, 18:59, there is a whiff of desperation here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rosalinda 11:20

      "There is no mention of nannies being given rape whistles"

      Bearing in mind the purpose of a dog whistle, you don't suppose....No, surely not.

      Delete
  48. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton22 April 2017 at 01:11

    ''Ziggy would have us believe that Gerry and Kate are naïve simpletons manipulated by the all powerful Clarence Mitchell and New Labour''

    Ziggy would state such if Ziggy thought it.He doesn't need words put into his mouth or his words twisted to fit. There's many a man or woman been silenced and kept still by the powers that be and they were of far higher a station than a pair of doctors.It isn't a question of being naive or simple.

    ''Gerry and Kate have a sense of entitlement that overrides their senses of judgement and reason. They see their critics as beneath them, intellectually, socially and economically. ''

    As much as i enjoy the entertainment of mind readers, I think this particular trick is in need of some evidence. YOU assume to know what THEY assume because you want to assume it.How many times are you going to sing that song about them assuming superiority 'socially, intellectually and economically' ? When did they say that or what have they said or done to make you so sure what they're thinking ? It looks like another little list of things to hold against people you don't like. This, of course, contrasts well when juxtaposed with your other assumption that Amaral, is a polished intellectual man of letters who has been fed to the dogs by them. He has a sense of entitlement too wouldn't you say ? He thinks he's entitled to accuse and defame based on suspicions that failed to impress his bosses and caused them to move him off the case. His 'senses of judgement' led to the mess of libel actions that those who hate the McCanns have become addicted to. It's rare to even see the name 'Madeleine' any more.

    ''As is usually said in a derogatory way, they are like those benefit claimants who know the system and everything they are entitled to.''

    But still think they need to employ the best legal brains to do their thinking. Comparing the McCanns, who you say assume that they are socially, intellectually and economically superior to benefit cheats is bordering on split personality territory.

    ''They were campaigning for Madeleine's rights - and may their God forgive them for that one.''

    How dare they indeed..that's evil parenting ( again)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ziggmund

      In my today’s post at about 19:31 please read “…a stream of her consciousness…”, not conciseness :)

      T

      Delete
  49. ZiggySawdust 23 April 2017 at 15:07

    “Anonymous23 April 2017 at 13:08

    ''Hoist by ones own petard comes to mind.''

    The fat lady hasn't even cleared her throat yet.Let's wait until she's sung her song.”

    No lady is ever ‘fat’, actually. (See The Klingon Dictionary of Wisdom. The commonly used English phrase is either an unfortunate mistranslation or a hoax) :)

    The wait has been over for quite a while: the lady you refer to did sing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78KtEjdAszw). Listen carefully, comrade.

    T

    PS Good parenting, great man: “Dad Who Wet His Trousers So His 6-Year-Old Didn’t Feel Embarrassed Is A True Hero” (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/dad-wet-pants-so-daughter-did-not-feel-embarrassed_uk_58f9da91e4b018a9ce5a196f?utm_hp_ref=uk-dads)

    ReplyDelete
  50. Good parenting, a great man, also from the US of A: “Dad Who Wet His Trousers So His 6-Year-Old Didn’t Feel Embarrassed Is A True Hero” http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/dad-wet-pants-so-daughter-did-not-feel-embarrassed_uk_58f9da91e4b018a9ce5a196f?utm_hp_ref=uk-dads

    T

    ReplyDelete
  51. Anonymous23 April 2017 at 19:44

    Major T

    The dad who wet himself and had photographs ready to go viral. is there nothing some people are prepared to do for fame and adoration now..jesus aitch..only in America. The comment section says it all. Welcome to the U S of A.

    My Klingon isn't up to scratch I'm afraid, major. I'm prepared to take your word on the whole 'fat is a hoax' story, however. Let's go halfway..''the handsomely abundant lady has yet to clear her throat'' k ?

    I enjoyed the Mozart ; very relaxing. I came over all Clockwork Orange, and went hunting.Maybe I should have come over all 2001 Space Odyssey in hindsight. Damn that Kubrick..

    I can't find the stream of unconsciousness post..pass me the sat nav..

    ReplyDelete