Such is the nature of lively debates and discussions, the last subject has changed once again, but strangely, things are becoming clearer, as far as the 'antis' (disbelievers) are concerned.
Whilst there are hundreds, possibly thousands (I'm being kind here) of people out there who believe the parents of Madeleine McCann were involved in her disappearance, I don't in any way think it could be described as a 'Movement'. The idea of a 'Movement' is another myth that needs to stamped out. There have of course been plenty of wannabe Vigilante leaders, but they were all so obnoxious they couldn't get on with each other, let alone lead troops. Each set up their own little fiefdoms with forums and facebook pages, where they could rule absolutely. Each deserted as the fiefs discovered freedom of thought.
I am not sure if the 'pro' McCanns started the myth of an Anti-Movement, or those puffed up charlatans who believed they were leading thousands, but in any event, tis a myth. I think of it as the glorious scene in Life of Brian when all the freedom groups fought each other to the death under the palace floor. Bennett of course, is the Popular Front, the fella in the arena sitting on his own.
The reasons for disbelieving vary from a common dislike of the smug middle classes to a paedophile ring that runs through the entire British establishment (especially politicians and celebrities), down to a kindly bi-lingual local guy in PDL who tried to help. I'm being flippant of course, there are too many reasons to list. Some are simply here because they smell a rat.
The rational, and I count myself in that particular group believe the findings of the original Portuguese investigation and the book of Goncalo Amaral. I can't speak for all the 'rational', but for myself, I find the theories of armchair detectives absurd, and their meddling in this case extremely distasteful.
I think now the hysteria has been taken out of the discussion, it becomes more obvious how ludicrous most of the conspiracy theories have become. Time has not served them well.
However, one idea that seems never to go away is the claim that Operation Grange is a cover up. Why a cover up? Because someone of presidential importance was involved. Quickly flown out of PDL and a whitewash begun. The alleged involvement of this VIP is deviant sex of some sort, and I really don't want to go there.
I personally don't think Operation Grange is a cover up. That's not to say a lot of covering up hasn't been done, especially in the early days, but OG is not part of it. Whilst I would believe almost anything of politicians and despicable billionaires, I simply cannot believe that 30+ homicide officers from Scotland Yard would do anything to cover up the death of a child. That feel's pretty tough to believe on occasion, but to believe these men, women, mums, dads, uncles, aunts, would desert the victim, would just about finish off my faith in human nature. When doubts hover, I think of that donation to Goncalo Amaral's legal fund from the Met Police, and sanity returns.
Hopefully, by now, a poll has appeared in the side bar - please take a moment to vote. I am guessing most of the antis believe that Operation Grange is a cover up, but curiosity has got the better of me and it would be interesting to see what the general opinion is.