Saturday, 12 August 2017

DARK FORCES OR MISCHIEF MAKERS?

UPDATE - 16-08-2017

I'm delighted to say normal service on my blog has resumed.  There was almost a hostile takeover there for a while, dark forces were wearing me down with their anger and hostility. 

I hasten to say, I had no objections to Ziggy offering an alternate perspective, but eventually, even I could see that he had a firm agenda to break down what he would call 'myths' supposedly born of Goncalo Amaral's book and discussed constantly on social media.  He is the unwanted 'Admin' keeping my readers on his topic. 

Effectively, he was attempting to steal my blog, from under my nose, and as a bleeding heart liberal I was allowing him to.  The turning point came, when I realised that he didn't actually like it here.  He had no respect for me and no respect for my readers, it was then that I was hit by the overwhelming smell of coffee. A very fine one too, Americano, my current fav instant. 

My critics were right of course, I was being dim.  The USP of every blog, is the blogger's personality.  It is a wonderfully narcissistic reflection of your life and times, not quite a personal journal, but not too far away.  Ziggy was taking over, changing the tone and format of the discussion. Worse, he was bringing in the kind of nastiness seen only in the forums. Nitpicking and repeating every line, so he could respond with a thousand words, where one or two would do. 

Regardless, I am back to looking forward to opening my postbox, I always enjoy reading alternate views and the interesting topics that arrive with each new post.  Normal Service has been Resumed!

_______________________________________________



Gaw'd knows what's happening to it [my blog] 18:49, most of it is above my head too! Since I mentioned the Hadron Collider and Tolkien, the Boy's Own have taken over. As the mother of two sons, both the aforementioned are forbidden topics in my home!  On their part, I am not allowed to discuss Madeleine McCann or the divine gowns worn at the Oscars.   

I am not sure if the forces at work here are dark or mischievous, some may be testing how far they can go off topic before I become like every forum host who has gone before me.  Some slip through due to the sheer volume of incoming, and some are not caught by my 'spam' catcher.  Ziggy, I'm afraid, I only skim read, he has lost my attention. And ex husbands everywhere must know that feeling.  For my inattention to Ziggy's rants, I must apologise, not only is he disrespecting me, he is disrespecting my readers and other posters.  But as you will see from my reply to him today, my patience is running out.

I am a great believer in the concept that debate/ discussion will naturally find it's own level 18:49 with minimal intervention.  I like to think my blog is an level playing field, where everyone has equal opportunity to present their case.  The popular posts get more responses, or should I say more positive responses, and those with flaws have those flaws pointed out. 

Ziggy plays Devil's Advocate, or he tries out possible scenarios that will alleviate Gerry and Kate of any blame.  He is fuzzy on his knowledge of this case, hoping it will make him appear as the outsider he pretends to be. He hasn't read Goncalo Amaral's  book, but he knows every sniffer gland on the end of a spaniel's nose.  He knows those parts of the McCann abduction story that are weak, and those are the ones he keeps plugging, and of course, where his 'expertise' lies. 

He doesn't bother with Bennett, HideHo, Hall et al, because they aren't a threat, they will only ever appeal to a gullible, niche, audience.  And besides which, they have always supported the parents' case that they have been victimised because of Goncalo Amaral's book.  And whilst in very arrogant mode, the McCanns with all their high priced lawyers and prize winning authors etc, didn't destroy Bennett and Hall - I did.  One of the reasons, Kate needs me for her book, btw. 

My blog however, is a different kettle of fish.  It has intelligent readers and intelligent contributors and it can in no way be described as a 'hate site'.  That is getting through, and that is why my blog is becoming so popular.  There is no 'shame' attached to posting here, it is a reasonable discussion among reasonable people.  I don't investigate people, I don't put them on public trial, and I don't find them guilty in a kangaroo court. 

But let's return to those dark forces 18:49.  I have made lots of enemies along the way - I have no idea why, I'm really quite charming!  But it is as it is.  I have frustrated many dreams, I am the Mozart to their Antonio Salieri (though Salieri is giving them too much credit), They may have spent a zillion hours researching and finding links, but it's Cristobell Unbound who makes no claims for anything, that the followers of the Madeleine case want to read.  That's got to irk. 

Those who are genuinely seeking the truth in the McCann case, are watching as developments unfold, as is this blog.  Like the rest of the world, they have moved on from 2007.  They have little, if any, interest in the scurrilous tales that began in cheap tabloid headlines and that were picked up by porn sleuths, who thought they had stumbled across the Sodom and Gomorrah, the Good Lord warned them about.  Enter Bennett, Hall, Textusa and Hyatt. And an honourable mention for Jim Gamble.  All of whom are currently trapped in a timewarp. 

This blog has always been under attack from dark forces 18:49.  JG for example has warned me on twitter that I am not to say anything libellous about him or the US NCMEC, and JG is a ex cop, who has used counter intelligence all his working life.  I have no doubt, I am watched very closely.  They live in trepidation of the day I write a blog entitled 'J'Accuse', or maybe an article that closely examines the role in society of missing children's charities and dedicated police agencies.  An alternate title, might be, 'the way in which the Government and the 'Establishment' ensure we all live in fear'.  Then there is the involvement of MI5, MI6 and the death of Brenda Leyland.  A little paranoid I know, but one of the reasons I stay in plain sight and constantly reassure people that I am not in the least bit suicidal. 

Should I ever decide to kill myself, it would be in a sleazy nightclub in New Orleans after having sung all of Billy Holiday's greatest hits to a cheering audience who love my sparkly dress, and having taken copious amounts of drugs and alcohol, and said 'they shoot horses don't they'.  My sons however, recommend Dignitas or a holiday in Syria.  How I wish the anti feminist Good Lord had given me daughters - they would be ruling the world by now!

But I digress.  The McCann camp, I think, are very unsure.  They want to condemn me, but they can see how I can be used to their advantage.  And I should add, I am the last chance saloon, if the worst comes to the worst option, but look at what they have had so far?  If they know anything about PR, and they really should by now, Gerry should have that white board out looking at the wider agenda.  They can still make amends, and they can still provide for their children. 

But before hubris swallows me entirely, my audience may drop dramatically should I axe Ziggy, but now he is lowering the tone of my blog, that matters less and less.  My blog is precious to me.  It is a 'work of art' of some sort, lol.  I hope my 'other' works, of which there are many, will be my 'legacy' (hopefully profitable, lol), but this is a baby I dote on and nurture.

I don't take online stuff personally, which is why I have been able to read and observe the  bizarre behaviour in forums.  I have observed the Cesspit and the pro McCann counter campaign with a mixture of disgust and fascination.  Long ago, that freaky behaviour reached that point in Animal Farm, where the pigs become indistinguishable from the men.  The bloodlust, on both sides, is quite bizarre in the 21st century.  The gravity of it brought to mind my own personal awakening, when I realised that fascism and communism eventually become one.  A bit off topic I know, but an anecdote that reflects the shock of my realisation that a lot of the 'antis' were very mean people with issues of their own!

What makes them mean 18:29 - who knows?  A lasting grudge that life has treated them badly, a belief that anyone and everyone around them is to blame for current or past misfortunes and their own dissatisfaction with life.  They will always look around for someone else to blame and they will never be mature enough to understand that they are responsible for their life choices.  They alone make every decision.  Of course Neitzche  (sp) said it far more eloquently than I.   

I don't in any way want to curb the spontaneity and freedom of speech of those who post here 18:29, and in my experience, even the tiniest beginnings of rule making sets in motion the kind of dictatorial state that none of us want. 

But I am waffling, which is certain to irritate my critics - they are only here to find subversive or libellous statements, lol so the fluff must grate, not intentional of course.  All my own personal haters have tried every trick in the book to close me down or label me a headcase  or establishment plant 18:29, including  social media smear campaigns from both sides.  But in the words of Chumba Wumba, I get knocked down, I get back up again

The greatest threat to my blog is a poster who can change the dominant ideology - I think most who read here, believe the parents and Tapas group were involved.  But as yet, no-one has emerged who can sway the majority over to 'The McCanns are Innocent' - and I fear Ziggy is their best shot.  He is trying lots of theories here, but none of them are 'taking', I'm  not sure he has persuaded anyone, and heaven know, I've given him enough tries. 

I do take heed and listen to the advice of my contributors 18:29, 'ask the audience' is always the best option, but I still lean towards the goodies will always win over the baddies.  They don't need the odds altered in their favour. I have confidence in my own ability to challenge misinformation, but more so, I have confidence in my readers, who more often than not, present far more concise and articulate arguments than my own! 

189 comments:

  1. I haven't read all the comments in your last post but I do believe that it's good to have a place where all opinions can come together as long as people are not rude and respect other peoples opinions. Whatever people believe if your mind is made up it can not be changed but people with opposing views can give a different perspective and I like that.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Ros.
    Over the years some people would say "Cristobell? She writes those anonymous posts herself, y'know!"
    Well we can put that one to bed for starters, given my posts show up!
    What I have seen is that everyone gets a go. Even if their previous post(s) has/have been vitriolic or outright abuse.
    Your blog, as it stands right now, is THE place to gravitate to because of your across-the-board literary largesse, hence the resurgent/continual popularity.
    You've been around long enough to know every forum/blog/page trick in the book regards trolling/flooding/spamming etc so I don't expect you to be phased one bit.
    -
    SixYearsInaComaMan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @SixYearsInaComaMan at 08:39

      "She writes those anonymous posts herself, y'know!"
      "Well we can put that one to bed for starters, given my posts show up!"

      Indeed, my posts show up, too.

      Given the need for information as far as the McCann case is concerned, it’s beyond me why people concern themselves with such things. Someone might hold the missing piece of the puzzle after all.

      That aside, should we take it as a compliment or an insult that 'you write those anonymous posts yourself'? As a non-native 'speaker' I take it as a compliment of course. What do you think Rosalinda?

      NL

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 12 August 2017 at 20:25

      Morning and thank you. NL.

      T

      Delete
    3. One of the sillier accusations of the malcontents NL. I have always enjoyed 'hearing' the opinions of others. From the readers' comments sections in newspapers to the forums. I enjoy interactive debate and I am very fortunate that others do too. It wouldn't be much of a debate if it were only myself, lol.

      My ego is not so fragile that I need subterfuge to bolster it. Actually it is, but I turn it in on myself, I'm not good enough, I must try harder. Bizarrely, even as a libertarian and as someone once told I would 'fecking fry' come Judgment Day, I live by my own very strict moral codes. I don't lie. I don't cheat. If you cannot win fairly, it's not a win - which is why I have so much contempt for those 'feminist' Labour MPs, who pull the 'it's cos I'm a woman' card' when up against more skilled politicians.

      My blog is popular because I enjoy debate. I am not here for any highfalutin or 'morally sound reasons'(think of the children), like the Cesspit and the Myths forums, I muse.

      Any powers I have to change opinion, I try to use for good. That is I try to remove the hysteria and the rabble rousing of the fanatics who have taken the law into their own hands. Investigating strangers online for heinous crimes and then finding them guilty in kangaroo courts is sick. That's why the 'antis' are despised by the media and the public. That's why it became taboo to say your didn't believe the parents.

      There is plenty to discuss in this case NL, more so, once you remove the madness. And those following the Madeleine case, even for years, and from a Bennett/Hall perspective, are beginning to see the light Bennett's hopes of leading an angry mob carrying pitchforks and torchlights, will never come to fruition.

      My blog continues whether I have one reader or a thousand - a writer, writes always. I have no feelings of impending doom, that 10 years of 'hard work' and 'research' is about to be wiped out as nonsense in less than 30 days time ;)

      Delete
  3. Everyone is entitled to an opinion but do we have the right to deliberately deceive others.
    Ziggy among others claims there are no facts in this case only supposition and opinion, but this is not so.

    Facts are facts 10 years old or not.

    What was written in police statements then cannot be altered or changed. Time may have proved them to be lies but they are not conjecture
    They are iron nails in the McCann coffin nailing down their deceit.

    Only this week Z offers up Ian Woods of Sky News to support his case whatever that is, but Ian Woods is a proven liar on all things McCann
    Who knows why but he is.

    Z latest offering is Woods stating 3 times in a short interview the first any journalist knew of the abduction was 08.15am
    Too bad Julie Etchingham on Sky news was announcing it at 07.48am
    5 mins research is all it takes to know Woods is a liar
    Even better is his interview with Lori the liar Campbell to frame Murat.
    They reported their suspicions on Monday 7 May.NO they did not it was Sun 6 May.
    Why Woods lied is obvious but nobody ever follows this up.

    Anything like this is immediately batted away with reams of dross and inane comments but no matter how hard Ziggy and his friends try the McCann group were in contact with the British media to promote the abduction within 90 minutes of the discovery.
    This is a provable fact not silly opinion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. '“I RECEIVED the call at 7.15am from the Daily Mail foreign desk. It was a Friday morning as we approached deadline for one of the first editions of the Olive Press, then in its early fledgling stage.

      The daughter of a pair of British doctors had gone missing on the Algarve the night before. Could I get over and investigate?

      I was on the road half an hour later from Ronda, where we had our office, based out of a cowshed next to my home.

      As a stringer for Associated Newspapers in Spain, I was long used to these early morning calls that invariably led to wild goose chases around the Iberian countryside...but this journey would lead to one of the biggest news stories in history."'

      http://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2017/05/11/madeleine-mccann-olive-press-editor-talks-first-journalist-scene-10th-anniversary-disappearance/

      Delete
    2. JJ 08:53

      "the McCann group were in contact with the British media to promote the abduction within 90 minutes of the discovery."

      If it were a two horse race then they came second. The winner took half that time.

      Delete
    3. Anon 12.04

      It was not a horse race so please explain in plain English what you mean?

      Delete
    4. JJ 13:05

      IF the McCann faction actually contacted the media then they were not the first to do so. (I presume you can calculate 1/2 x 90).

      Delete
    5. @ JJ12 August 2017 at 08:53

      what relevance has a Sky news reporter and whether he lied or not got to the case?

      Delete
    6. Unknown 15:57

      "What relevance has a Sky news reporter and whether he lied or not got to the case?"

      (face-palm)!

      Over to you, JJ.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous 12 August 2017 at 12:04

      Concur.

      T

      Delete
    8. JJ 12 August 2017 at 13:05

      “It was not a horse race so please explain in plain English what you mean?”

      Might be best not to put a question mark after an imperative sentence.

      Peace.

      T

      Delete
    9. 12 Aug 12.04

      The usual guff, silly inane comments, people wishing happy drinking etc., but it does not change the fact the Mccann faction contacting the media within two hours of the 'abduction' is a matter of public record.

      So why can you not explain your innuendo of "they were not the first to do so".

      Surprise us all and reveal the allegations in your head but nowhere else it would seem.

      Delete
    10. JJ 11:01

      "The usual guff, silly inane comments..."

      Sorry "...provable fact not silly opinion."

      "why can you not explain your innuendo of "they were not the first to do so"?

      Because "the allegations are in (my) head but nowhere else."

      Since McCann-adverse web-based data share the unfortunate characteristic of either metamorphosing or disappearing completely from view, my opening to you would be tantamount to informing confederates of a different complexion, and therefore counter-productive.

      Suffice to say that the Foreign Office were in contact with the media before the GNR had even arrived at the Ocean Club.

      Which is rather hard to reconcile with their own and the NPIA's statements to the effect that no FCO staff were aware of events in PdL until a 'phone call (to the duty officer in Portugal, so it is said) at 11:58 p.m.

      Delete
  4. Anonymous11 August 2017 at 22:58
    You have summed up ziggy well there Ros he has no love for Gerry and Kate yet he is forced in some way to support the abduction theory. He may not see Bennett or the crazies a threat but he certainly sees you as one which is why I have been saying for a long time that he is attempting to make the blog unreadable. I'M not a believer in the dark forces working for and supporting the McCanns but there is a tiny part of the Internet ( possibly relatives of the McCanns or the tapas crew) who know the Internet is lost to them but are determined to bring as many down with him. Ziggy is without doubt one of them. I honest,y think Ros the time has come to censor.

    ...........................
    Nah don't censor him/her,after reading their guff they make even the rainy british summer look cheerful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 12 August 2017 at 09:08

      “…their guff…”

      Nah, nonsense, unless substantiated.

      T

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good morning and thanks again, Rosalinda.

      Bless.

      T

      Delete
  6. I have just read this latest blob (yes blob) and can only concur with your thoughts on Ziggy's rants.
    However I do hope he/she keeps posting and you respond, just to let us all know how dim you really are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I see what you did there 16:41, changed one letter and made it 'blob' - may I commend you on your wit, that kind of stuff brings the house down.

      Ahh that I do not have the technical skills to add a 'clapometer', or as you suggest, a sliding scale of my dimness, I am sure it is of great interest to more than just yourself.

      Delete
    2. An apostrophy after Ahh would have suficed and at no point did I suggest a "clapometer" or Sliding scale of your "dimness", keep up the good work, as a supposed writer you are doing not too well.

      Delete
  7. The only regular contributor to this group who speaks any sense at all is Ziggy, and that very much includes you, Rosalinda. I can only assume that you feel threatened by him, as he is such a clearer and less biased thinker.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't feel threatened by other writers 17:55, on the contrary, there are some I very much admire, and I have no hesitation in saying so.

      Ziggy, I'm afraid, is not among them. Not because of the content of his posts, as I have already said, he can sing from whatever hymn sheet he likes. I'm afraid he has lost my attention. I open my comments box with trepidation, groaning at the sheer volume of prose Ziggy expects me to read. It's a juvenile attempt to hog teacher's attention and it might have worked had he been able to keep my interest, but I'm afraid he lost me long ago. I value my time, more than his ego.

      Ziggy can, at any time open his own blog 17:55, for clearer and less biased thinkers, and in fact, given his obvious distaste for mine, I would highly recommend it. 'Ziggy Partially Unbound' - one fist waving freely ready to punch out the lights of anyone who doesn't believe him.

      Delete
  8. Anon 12 Aug 17.55

    Is that you Ziggy? You seem to have gone very quiet or are you busy writing one of your very, very long posts, a lot which could be said in 3 or 4 short paragraphs no doubt.

    There is no need for insults whoever you are 17.55. I and probably others would be interested in what Ziggy has to say but not long-winded rambles which hog the blog and can bore you to death by the time you're half way through. Having read his postings for a very long time I wouldn't say that Ziggy is a clear thinker or less biased than anyone who posts here. It seems the opposite is the case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agree 18:53, if he were a clear thinker, he would be able to get his point in across in fewer words. To be honest, I am completely clueless as to what is actual points are, which make me believe he rambles because he doesn't have any.

      I hope Ziggy ups his game, because the present situation is not going to continue. His spamming of my blog is becoming tiresome, if my heart sinks when I open my postbox, I can only imagine the effect is having on my readers.

      I hate to discourage anyone from writing or airing their views, but this is not a showcase for the ramblings of 'Ziggy'. He is showing extreme discourtesy to myself as owner of this blog, and that is something I won't tolerate in any area of my life.

      I just want to add a word of thanks here to SixYearsInAComa man, and Sergei Meerkat impersonator, you are right. I have been around long enough, I know how to handle it.

      Now I must get that pack of 'Frontline' in the post to Sergei ;)

      Delete
    2. Hi Ros! You said, "I have been around long enough, I know how to handle it."
      I should say. Not many can. Look at all the forum wars, fall outs, handbag fights, hissy fits, despotic admin battles, carnage and mayhem littering anything and everything McC across the Net for over 10 years.
      Whereas here has remained the sobering different kettle of fish it always was, too often, so-called 'debate sites' are anything but. Caveat cities!: "No pros!" "No antis!" "No speculation!" "No Smiths!" "No before 3rd May!" ad nauseam...
      To me it is the human touch we get here, being, if we DO digress, we don't get lashed, keel-hauled or worse, sentenced to do six years hard labour at CMOMM.
      Which naturally brings me back to fleas, lol, big thanks for the forthcoming flea spray!
      I'd been itching to say that all morning!
      -
      SixYearsInaComaMan

      Delete
  9. Ziggy must be a bit of a gullible idiot if he believes in the McCanns innocence. Although I think he knows very well that they are far from innocent and that's why he spends so much time on here writing rubbish. A good friend or family member is Ziggy Sprinkledust.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Rosalinda

    Could you please delete my above 13:15 post.

    Thanks so much.

    T

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous12 August 2017 at 17:55

    ''The only regular contributor to this group who speaks any sense at all is Ziggy, and that very much includes you, Rosalinda. I can only assume that you feel threatened by him, as he is such a clearer and less biased thinker.''

    I knew if i looked closely I'd find a diamond in the dark. Your comment is appreciated 17:55. Not because I want 'darkness' or 'mischief' but because I like to think I'm not the only one looking for reasonable debate and discussion.Both get lost in the mists of the imagination and paranoia. I see a lot of debate and discussing about me-hardly any about why what i say is wrong. Strong minds discuss ideas ; weak ones discuss people.When you consider that we're all strangers to each other that's quite a thought.

    Anonymous12 August 2017 at 18:53

    ''Is that you Ziggy? You seem to have gone very quiet or are you busy writing one of your very, very long posts, a lot which could be said in 3 or 4 short paragraphs no doubt''

    see..that's the kind of thing I was referring to Re lost in the mists of the imagination and paranoia.

    ''long-winded rambles which hog the blog and can bore you to death by the time you're half way through. Having read his postings for a very long time I wouldn't say that Ziggy is a clear thinker ''

    I can't bring myself to apologise for the short attention span of others.I blame the Twitter 'fast food' one liner trend for how people just don't have the time to read for a few minutes.The less you read, the less you learn.I'm an extremely clear thinker, incidentally.Despite the in depth knowledge you must think you have of me, you're wrong.You should have read what i posted fully.That way you wouldn't need to guess.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ZS 12 August 21.38

      re your last paragraph. I'm not on Twitter and never have been, and yes I have read all your very long posts, that's why I mentioned that you should cut them down to 3 or 4 short paragraphs. I do not have a short attention span but am getting bored by all your waffling when there is no need for it. You just have to be concise.

      I'm quite capable of reading for more than a few minutes, in fact I quite often read a whole book in a few hours if I'm in the mood, so please no more insults.

      Delete
  12. While I admit Mr Sawdust is a bit of a Blogger Hogger or Blog Hog for short, I find his posts interesting even if I disagree with them or parts of them (not all )
    Instead of moaning though, why not match him with some long interesting posts of your own?
    Or if they bother you that much don't read them at all.

    I've had a few beers this evening so go easy on me lol.

    Long live Mr Sawdust! (And Mr T)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you kindly for your comment, Flesh. I concur.

      Brother Ziggmund is an exceptional writer. He is clever, knowledgeable, talks sense more often than not, respectful of others. He is an unassuming and polite kind of blogger, just like myself.
      He is a character I’m most unlikely to ever forget. His presence on this blog is a compliment.

      Let’s raise our jars, Flesh, and drink to brother Ziggmund, peace be upon him!

      Peace.

      T

      Delete
    2. You're a gentleman and a scholar, comrade T. I'm glad you have the requisite comprehension skills and the calm disposition required for mature and informed debate.My glass is raised too . A toast : ''to the regiment!''

      Namaste Mr T

      Delete
  13. Gordon Bennett12 August 2017 at 23:05

    ''Instead of moaning though, why not match him with some long interesting posts of your own?''

    Beer agrees with you Mr B. Nice one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ZiggySawdust 13 August 2017 at 00:44

      “Beer agrees with you Mr B. Nice one.”

      I concur, comrade.

      And many thanks for your reply (building 7) on the previous thread. We are good.

      Bless.

      T

      Delete
  14. Ziggy has so many identities on here it's like playing scrabble by yourself. One of particular note posted for the first time in a long time a few weeks ago and then never returned again. Me thinks he mistakenly used the wrong google account. Anyway as usual sensible discussion has again broken down

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it's far more than a sensible discussion that's broken down .There's only one of me and that's enough for everyone.I don't need to play the silly games you're seeing inside your own mind. But, if you 'think' i'm different people then that will do. Evidence spoils mysteries after all.Good luck with that scrabble game, but watch your opponent closely.He sounds untrustworthy. What does 'paranoid' score by the way.Very interesting post by the way.

      Delete
    2. Anon 13 August 08.54

      "Anyway as usual sensible discussion has again broken down."

      That's been the whole remit of the McCann Team for the past 10 years - infiltrate a discussion group, mess it up with inane comments, attack and insult the other posters in the hope they will give up posting.

      Unfortunately Madeleine got forgotten about 10 years ago in the quest for wealth and non co-operation with the authorities to save one's own skin, it's not about finding out what happened to Madeleine it's about protecting those at any cost who did her harm and refuting any evidence there may be and turning it on its head, like ignoring the findings of Eddie and Keela.

      Poor, poor Madeleine, deserved much better in her very short life.

      Delete
    3. ''That's been the whole remit of the McCann Team for the past 10 years - infiltrate a discussion group, mess it up with inane comments, attack and insult the other posters in the hope they will give up posting''

      Couple of points( from the land of reality) :

      The whole concept of 'teams' and 'sides' is for the shallow.I have no time for it.I certainly don't side either way ( unless reasoning and justice is a side).You're insinuation is that i'm one who infiltrates ( melodrama anyone ?) and attacks and insults in order to make people stop posting.Do you realise how paranoid that looks ?

      I'll clear one thing up for you in simple terms.When you punch somebody back, it isn't attacking.

      As for the 'insults and inane comments'-I've read loads too. Most of them were directed at me-not from me. One or two even challenge my arguments and points. Not many though.That takes effort.

      Delete
    4. Ziggy, for someone with no opinion and not much knowledge of the case...you sure have a hell of a lot to say. But then as they say.....empty vessels make the most noise.

      Delete
    5. Wise words, Confucius...

      I have a lot of opinions, I just don't suggest any of them prove anything. One of my opinions is that ten years is a long time for nothing to happen. One opinion suggests that everyone convinced of the guilt of the McCanns should talk about why so many people ( their friends, the politicians of two countries, forensic teams, MI5 etc) would go to such lengths to conceal a crime of this nature.'Because they're doctors' is possibly the most ridiculous case made.It's an insult to the intelligence .

      Delete
  15. The relevance of a Sky News reporter lying is that Woods and Lori Campbell attempted to pervert the course of justice by implicating Robert Murat.

    Although Sky have deleted the video it is still viewable on the internet.

    In it Campbell states she first reported her suspicions on Monday 7th of May to the Leicestershire police and Ian Woods backs this up. He states he investigated thoroughly.

    NO, SHE DID NOT.

    It was Sunday 6th May.

    Why deliberately report the wrong date, the answer is because if it was Sunday 6th May it would prove that Leicestershire police were in Praia da Luz that weekend and engaged in unlawful activities and negligent in exercising their duties.

    Did Woods change the date to cover up the activities of the Leicestershire police and was he acting under orders, or is he just another idiot speaking to the gullible.

    This is a question surely for OG.

    If anybody is using Ian Woods of Sky to support a point of view find somebody with some integrity

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "On the 6th of May 2007 the PJ received a fax from the Leicestershire Constabulary (page 307) in which this police transmits that a reporter from the Sunday Mirror, Lori Campbell, had communicated that certain behaviours of the suspect compromised him, namely by giving his name without any information about himself, by having conflicting relationships with several people and being worried when a photograph of him was taken for that newspaper, which led the English Police to request that he was relieved of interpreter duties."

      That is from the PJ legal summary - so what relevance has what Ian Woods says have???

      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

      Delete
  16. @ JJ13 August 2017 at 11:59

    Ah so you link everything back to your assertion that "Leicestershire police were in Praia da Luz that weekend and engaged in unlawful activities and negligent in exercising their duties."

    You have repeated that allegation numerous times on this blog but have never shown in what way the LP were there unlawfully and negligent.

    You then say "If anybody is using Ian Woods of Sky to support a point of view find somebody with some integrity"

    It is YOU who is using Ian Woods to try to support your view.

    ReplyDelete
  17. LP arrived in PDL on 5 May

    Statement by Jim McGarvey

    "In relation to the above I would like to mention that at approximately 20.00 on the 5th May, I arrived at the McCann apartment with other family communications officers. We were asked several times during this meeting about questions that Gerald and Kate would like to have followed up and responded to by the PJ."

    ReplyDelete
  18. JJ August 2017 at 08:53

    ''Ziggy among others claims there are no facts in this case only supposition and opinion, but this is not so.''

    I claim that there isn't a single 'fact' that could incriminate anyone to the point that an arrest and charge could be made.That's a fact.Why try to shoot the messenger ?

    ''Only this week Z offers up Ian Woods of Sky News to support his case whatever that is, but Ian Woods is a proven liar on all things McCannWho knows why but he is.''

    My case ? I don't have a case. Pay attention . I requested evidence of 'millions' of news outlets that the McCanns were supposed to have called instead of the police.Apparently Sky and other News programmes and The Telegraph and other papers was the answer.I'm sure in some quarters ( well one) it makes sense to envisage parents that see their child missing would go crazy and say ''quick, call the TV and papers'' even if they were meticulously creating a faked abduction. We'll go with that likely scenario then. I simply posted a link that showed Ian Woods addressing it on TV . If it's been proven since that he was lying then I wasn't aware of it.I didn't know he got into trouble because of it.Where does he work now ?

    ''Even better is his interview with Lori the liar Campbell to frame Murat.''

    Wasn't she just passing on her observations of what she considered suspicious behaviour ?Weren't the police asking for witnesses to report anything they seen that aroused suspicion ? She informed the police of her 'instincts' too after all . I'm not defending her, I think she was careless in telling the media rather than just the police but, with so much disinformation being placed out here in the early days, you have to be careful when trying to understand which was / is deliberately misleading and which constitute genuine efforts to help.Was Martin Brunt trying to frame Kate McCann when he said he'd heard that she was going to be offered a deal and charged ( according to GM's sister)-what happened about that ?Isn't that 'perverting the course of justice' ? Nothing came of Lori Campbell's little piece and nothing came of Brunts. One 'framed' Murat and one 'framed' the mother. Or is it one rule for one etc...

    ''no matter how hard Ziggy and his friends try the McCann group were in contact with the British media to promote the abduction within 90 minutes of the discovery.This is a provable fact not silly opinion.''

    Are you imagining my 'friends' as well now ? Is that 'proveable' too ?

    ''Anything like this is immediately batted away with reams of dross and inane comments''

    ( there's that 'courtesy' again )

    Perhaps it should be batted towrads the police.They've had ten years to catch that ball.

    You're making far too much about the whole Ian Woods debacle, JJ .

    ReplyDelete
  19. Unknown 12.54

    When McGarvey arrived on 5th May and met the Mccanns did he have a Portuguese police officer with him ,if he did not he was breaking the law
    Goncalo Amaral had no knowledge of this meeting do you know any PJ officer that did?
    In the 24 hours available to them who signed off on the Leics officers risk assessments,medical evaluations and other legal requirements.
    Did the Leics Officers met with the PJ before this meeting to discuss a interview strategy as required by law.
    The Leics police did not know at that time whether the Mccanns were witnesses or suspects but were taking orders and questions that the Macs wanted answering about the enquiry
    Did the PJ agree to this ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ JJ 18:15

      You are asking a lot of questions there - presumably because you don't have the answers.

      Instead of accusing all and sundry of being liars, acting illegally and negligently, maybe you should consider this: PDL was swarming with GNR and PJ officers at the time - do you really think that LP officers crept in and did something illegal?

      Consuls/governments were involved - the press by that time were all over the place, Amaral was co-ordinating things and you think that LP did something strange.

      But - even assuming that your thoughts are correct - what are you leading to - what difference does it make?

      The first contact with UK Police was actually on 4 May.

      Delete
    2. Unknown 19.10

      I am not calling all and sundry liars I am stating the Leics police were acting illegally and that the police coordinator Amaral knew nothing of their actions.
      Read his book,email him
      Does it make a difference the British police were acting outside the law? Yes, I think it does, you do not
      That is your right.
      It is a matter of public record British police were in contact with the McCann faction on 3 may not as you state the 4th its in the PJ files as I am sure you are aware.
      Contrary to what you may believe British police do not have the jurisdiction to investigate crimes outside of the UK so what were the Leics Police doing on 5th May


      .

      .

      Delete
    3. @ JJ13 August 2017 at 21:49

      Perhaps you could tell this blog what you believes the British police were doing in Portugal on 5th May.

      I have provided quotes and links to what I have said - please provide a quote from the files that the British Police were in contact with "the Mccann faction" (whoever they are) on 3 May.

      Delete
    4. Unknown 23.13

      Your rude reply to another poster "because I have read the files"
      Why then are you asking me, you would know.
      The usual angry distraction technique to draw attention away from the unlawful activities of the Leics Police whatever it takes.

      You seriously expect people to believe the Leics police had signed section 26's when they met the Mccanns.

      Wow!

      Delete
  20. As the subject of this blog is:

    "DARK FORCES OR MISCHIEF MAKERS?"

    Let me ask a simple genuine question.

    What happened to Duarte Levy. The man who was in a relationship with Joana Morais (a prolific poster and forum/blog owner who commented constantly about the Mccanns), the man who had videos of the dog searches that no-one else had and the man that had dynamite photos (that he tried to sell to UK papers) that would convict the Mccanns?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Another mystery ?

      Was he the man who possessed these bombshells-or the man who just claimed he had them ? I think the key is in ''(a prolific poster and forum/blog owner who commented constantly about the Mccanns)''

      It sounds like he had what would prove to be Amaral's Holy Grail.

      Yet nobody searched him..strange..

      Delete
  21. Where are the two photographs of ‘Maddie’, taken inside apartment 5A?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHbZVBE7fos

    “The McCann family also released new photographs of Maddie to help jog the memories of anyone who may have seen her. They were taken just a few days ago during what should have been a relaxing family holiday. Two of them were taken inside the apartment from which she was abducted. She was wearing white pyjamas when she was last seen.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There were a lot of photos taken by the Mccanns on holiday in PDL that have not been released.

      Delete
    2. Unknown at 19:12.
      You know that because?

      Delete
    3. Why should they be released ? Let's be honest, the few pictures of that little girl that have been released have been subjected to endless sick speculations by the suspicious and naturally bad - minded who have access to an internet connection. She'd been called 'definitely' a 'Lolita', and that her neck / throat show 'definite' signs of abuse. It isn't enough that she's disappeared for some people ( too many). They're starving for more to play with. But it's seen as 'suspicious' that the parents or police haven't made more public.What would they 'prove' anyway ? Oh yeah..'dates' etc..

      Delete
    4. Unknown 13 Aug 19.12

      And you know that how? And why weren't up to date photos of Madeleine released so people would know who they were supposed to be looking for? I think I know the answer but perhaps you could enlighten us.

      Delete
    5. Unknown 19:12

      Were you given a private viewing?

      Delete
    6. ZS 13 Aug 20.08

      Oh dear Ziggy, you seem to have jumped in there very quickly like a bullet out of a gun, has a raw nerve been hit??

      I see you've jumped straight in to "the dispute all knowledge of any photos" mode -

      "Let's be honest, the few pictures of that little girl that have been released have been subjected to endless sick speculations by the suspicious and naturally bad."

      Nobody was talking about any sick Lolita style photos but it's interesting you jumped in so quickly. Who are you exactly Ziggy? Why should it upset you so much when you don't even know the McCanns, or do you?

      What was being said was that there were many photos taken by the McCanns on that holiday so why didn't they release an up to date photo of Madeleine, instead of waiting weeks for the photo by the pool to be released, supposedly taken on the Thursday. Why didn't they release that immediately instead of showing ridiculous photos that looked nothing like Madeleine as she did on 3rd May. Can you answer that please without being insulting?

      Delete
    7. ZiggySawdust at 20:08

      "Why should they be released ? Let's be honest, the few pictures of that little girl that have been released have been subjected to endless sick speculations by the suspicious and naturally bad - minded who have access to an internet connection."

      It has nothing to do with the 'Lolita' nonsense.

      "They were taken just a few days ago during what should have been a relaxing family holiday.", says Ian Woods a few days after Madeleine was 'abducted', and three years before 2 May 2010 when "a new snap of Madeleine McCann as a ‘grown up’" had been released.

      https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/may/02/madeleine-mccann-video-third-anniversary

      caption photo:

      "The new video image of Madeleine McCann showing how she might look today."

      You couldn't make it up.

      Delete
    8. Unfortunately, you could make it up- and that's the evidence. That's the infamous 'Lolita' photo ( or what became the infamous Lolita photo).Apparently the make up and the bruises(bruises?) were the sleuths evidence.

      Shoddy journalism.The 'as she might look now' line is bordering on parody.

      Delete
    9. "Anonymous13 August 2017 at 20:01

      Unknown at 19:12.
      You know that because?"
      -------------------------------

      because I have read the files.

      Delete
  22. Hey Rosalinda I haven't posted for a while but I hope you are okay. I definitely think the dark forces are working overtime at the moment and I think it's rampant anywhere and everywhere the McCanns are being scrutinized, not just here. I think there's a real push to try and stifle debate and the gloves are off - it's definitely a bit sinister and seems organised but I think you handle it well and are right to allow everyone a voice, even if some voices get a bit hectoring at times!

    When I first became interested in this case it was in response to a conversation I had had with my son, who was flabbergasted that I still thought Madeleine had been abducted. He shook his head in disbelief and told me that 'No one believes that any more, mum!' So I thought I'd better do some research and now I think he's right - just look at the comments when any national newspaper runs a McCann story - millions of pounds spent on reputation management and reputation in tatters. So dark forces might be at work trying to disrupt the conversation but the conversation moved on from an abduction story long ago - no one believes that anymore, even Ziggy must know it's a farce and the Portuguese Supreme Court have pretty much rubber stamped it as such. So any attempt to thwart that conversation is futile and smacks of desperation, the dark forces are fighting against the tide of public opinion. I think they are, as the poem goes, 'raging against the dying of the light but wise men at their end know dark is right/Because their words had forked no lightening they/Do not go gentle into that good night...' It's a swan song, hopefully. Anyhow I hope you are not too dispirited because you are doing a really good job!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ''even Ziggy must know it's a farce and the Portuguese Supreme Court have pretty much rubber stamped it as such. ''

      Yep, it's a farce. But I'm quicker on the uptake than most it seems. I called it a farce before June 2007.The Portuguese Court rubber stamped a libel case by the way-that has nothing to do with any crimes, just an argument concerning whether opinions and hypotheses can be allowed to see the book shelves.

      '' So any attempt to thwart that conversation is futile and smacks of desperation''

      Or does the truth ( as pointed out above) smack of fact.

      You should consider different areas of the farce if you want to make sweeping statements about dark forces . By that I mean possibly thinking outside the blinkers . For instance :

      Which dark forces joined in and tampered with, hid, or lied about the forensics- and why.The obvious answer is probably the parents.But, in an attempt to keep things reasonable, why would anyone in that area willingly put the forensics out of the game ?

      Another area would be why so many put Amaral on a pedestal but won't tackle the area of 'tampered forensics' or 'two governments working together to hide the truth' - the two thorns in his side. Is it because there are only two parents and they're easier targets ?

      The Establishment's actions ( and subsequent tampering with the PJ) and involvement of MI, suggests that something, or someone, really important was in jeopardy.This was a police matter don't forget. Are we really supposed to believe that all of this, all this effort and involvement, was just because two doctors might have committed a murder or had to bury their child following an accident ? Or am i trying to 'stifle' the truth ?

      It would be cynical of me to suggest anything about evidence for or against an abduction. The police say no there isn't. Nor are there any official suspects. The majority of the internet say that both of those points aren't true, and that they're lies .But, despite this, it isn't them being scrutinized or attacked. Or accused.

      Delete
    2. @ Jane 20.56

      "but the conversation moved on from an abduction story long ago - no one believes that anymore"

      You are wrong - I believe there was an abduction.

      I don't try to thwart discussion - in fact I am fascinated and encourage sensible opinion - unfortunately I have never in 10 years read any plausable explanation for how the Mccanns did whatever it is they are accused of by internet "detectives".

      Perhaps you would like to give us the benefit of your opinion.

      Delete
    3. fine post 'Unknown'23:31.

      I share your curiosity . I hope 'sensible' was spotted .

      Delete
    4. Ziggy at 22:51 wrote.
      Another area would be why so many put Amaral on a pedestal but won't tackle the area of 'tampered forensics' or 'two governments working together to hide the truth' - the two thorns in his side.

      .....................
      The two supposed governments or their agent working together no matter how hard they try can't just can't find any thing to suggest his theory is so wrong,if you think they have kindly post the info.

      fineleg.

      Delete
    5. Hi Jane, always nice to see you and thank you for your kind comments :)

      I have no doubt Ziggy is part of the McCann inner circle Jane, he/they have found a free platform to spout propaganda and misinformation. One with a large and increasing audience, and on in which they can test out theories that will rule the parents out.

      Ziggy for example, would have us believe the McCanns were gullible, naïve, qualified doctors who fell victim to dark forces themselves. He likes the idea of a conspiracy theory, but one that doesn't involve the parents. Gerry and Kate have always run on the Victim Card, and they are not going to change strategy now.

      I 'entertain' him because I like to know how the opposition think, and he is blissfully unaware of how much he gives away. That's when I can be arsed to read him that is.

      He exhibits many of the 'usual' troll traits. That is,

      1. he has an agenda to change and manipulate discussion, steer it in the direction he wants.

      2. he is rude and aggressive to intelligent posters, trying to belittle them rather than address their valid questions.

      3. He spams my blog when 1 and 2 fail.

      Unlike the rest of us Jane, he is not here because he enjoys he company. He doesn't like it here! He has made that quite plain, and he has advised my wise readers to go elsewhere because debate here is futile.

      Those are not the words and actions of a happy bunny! He is on very thin ice at the moment Jane. If his writing improves, in that he can say what he means and keep our attention, fair dues. But if he continues to behave like an obnoxious troll, I will delete him.

      Delete
    6. Unknown 13.8, 23:31

      Curious is as curious does. You encourage sensible opinion while adhering to blind faith yourself.

      Delete
    7. Unknown 13 August 2017 at 23:31

      “…I believe there was an abduction.”

      Is you belief rational? Please explain.

      “…unfortunately I have never in 10 years read any plausable (sic) explanation for how the Mccanns did whatever it is they are accused of….”

      Take for instance the distraction of building 7 on 09.11.2001.

      Applying the laws of Newtonian physics, (1) it has been demonstrated/proved beyond reasonable doubt that building 7 did not fall into its footprint due to just the force of gravity; (2) other force/s had to be involved in the fall. (3) So far there are only competing opinions/conjectures as to the nature of (2).

      Is it your view that (3) invalidates both (1) and (2)? Please explain.

      Thank you.

      T

      Delete
    8. Anonymous 14 August 2017 at 11:44

      Very nicely put indeed.

      Thank you.

      T

      Delete
    9. @ Anonymous14 August 2017 at 11:44

      not "blind faith" at all, considered opinion.

      Delete
    10. @ T 12:15

      (sic) to your punctuation.

      My view as to your points 1, 2 and 3 is that you should seek out the appropriate forums/blogs/chatrooms to discuss things that I have no interest in whatsoever.

      In answer to your question that for some reason didn't have a number, my answer is yes and my explanation is from examination and reading the files that have been released.

      I have unfortunately read many of your comments on here T and have drawn a conclusion that I do not want to converse with you any further.

      I suppose I could add "comrade" but I don't find it clever.

      Delete
  23. 19:12

    "...a lot of photos..."

    According to whom please?

    T

    ReplyDelete
  24. One thing that still niggles me after 10 years is why the Tapas friends were checking on the McCann children but the McCanns never got off their own arses to go and check on the children of their Tapas friends.

    I know one couple (supposedly)had a baby monitor but what about the other children?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Anonymous13 August 2017 at 22:23

      you get niggled easily don't you.

      Delete
    2. Anon 13 Aug 23.51

      That wasn't much of a response, just an insult. Why did you find it necessary to post an insult, does the truth worry you? I will say again, instead of "niggles" me I find it strange that the McCanns never got off their backsides to check on the other Tapas children but expected the Tapas friends, one who didn't know the McCann children at all, to check on them. I find that very strange, don't you?

      Unless of course you are one of the Tapas friends and don't have an answer to that question otherwise why would you post an insult instead of answering a simple question.

      Delete
    3. @ Anonymous14 August 2017 at 19:43

      Yes I am one of the Tapas friends and I get paid an absolute fortune for making comments on here.

      I also know that the Tapas group specifically told the Mccanns not to bother getting off their arses to go and check on their children.

      I hope that satisfies your niggle that has become something you now find strange.

      It really advances finding a solution to the case of missing Madeleine doesn't it.

      Delete
    4. Unknown 14 Aug 22.40

      "It really advances finding a solution to the case of missing Madeleine doesn't it".

      Well it does in a way if all the Tapas group are lying through their teeth about their comings and goings supposedly checking on the children, especially when one of them hardly new the McCann children but was still sent into the apartment to check on them.

      The McCanns seemed to have covered their own backsides from all angles but threw their friends into the mix even one that hardly knew their children. Is that why he said that he didn't see Madeleine when he opened the bedroom door - was he being set up as the last person supposedly to see Madeleine but didn't fall for the bait. That's of course if there was any checking going on at all if Madeleine had already disappeared before 3rd May.

      Delete
  25. Anonymous13 August 2017 at 21:44

    ''Oh dear Ziggy, you seem to have jumped in there very quickly like a bullet out of a gun, has a raw nerve been hit?''

    You'll be lucky.

    ''I see you've jumped straight in to "the dispute all knowledge of any photos" mode -''

    Really ? Where did you see that ? or did you choose to see it in order to be able to go on about it...

    ''Nobody was talking about any sick Lolita style photos but it's interesting you jumped in so quickly. Who are you exactly Ziggy?''

    Ahh, now we're there. it's another of Captain Paranoia's barmy army.How badly do you want to know ?

    ''Why should it upset you so much when you don't even know the McCanns, or do you?''

    It upsets me that so many freaks get off on studying photographs of an innocent little girl and using it to create sick scenarios.That bothers me because I'm normal.I don't know why it doesn't bother you- do you ?

    '' Why didn't they release that immediately instead of showing ridiculous photos that looked nothing like Madeleine as she did on 3rd May. Can you answer that please without being insulting?''

    I already answered that.It was my answer that inspired you to pen this.

    ReplyDelete
  26. A question for everyone:

    How many photos do you think the Mccanns took on holiday in PDL?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unknown 13.8 @23:36

      Answer: A few less than they might have done.

      Kate McCann - 'I haven't been able to use the camera since I took that last photograph'

      Why did you suppose she experienced aversion to her camera on the Thursday afternoon, with two days of the holiday still to come?

      Delete
    2. Apologies for the inadvertent 'typo'. The question should read, 'Why do you suppose...?"

      Delete
    3. I think the biggest question with regard to the photographs, is why did they confuse the issue by releasing pictures of Madeleine as a toddler? Finding the most appealing picture should not have been a priority, they had in their possession current, up to date pictures, why didn't they use them?

      Apart from that, I agree with Ziggy. I too find the idea of weirdos on the internet putting your holiday snaps under a microscope, beyond creepy. Madeleine was a normal little girl, with parents, siblings and a family who loved her. Why can't the ghouls show a little respect.

      Delete
    4. 14.8, 10:57

      "they had in their possession current, up to date pictures, why didn't they use them?"

      Open the question with 'If' and take it from there.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous14 August 2017 at 11:36

      Playhouse, tennis court, pool pictures perhaps?

      T

      Delete
    6. @ Anonymous14 August 2017 at 08:33

      "Why did you suppose she experienced aversion to her camera on the Thursday afternoon, with two days of the holiday still to come?"

      Could it be anything to do with her child going missing and she didn't feel like taking holiday snaps anymore?

      Delete
    7. Unknown 22.43
      May I suggest you do read the files there is no evidence to support Madeleine going missing on Thursday afternoon

      Could I ask are you the new disrupter in chief.
      You believe in the 'abduction'fair enough but throw a little bit of evidence in now and again.
      .

      Delete
    8. Unknown 14.8, 22:43

      "Could it be anything to do with her child going missing and she didn't feel like taking holiday snaps anymore?"

      No it couldn't. The child did not 'go missing' until 10.00 p.m. that night. Kate McCann's not clairvoyant, is she?

      Delete
    9. Don't know but the McCanns certainly couldn't have taken many of Madeleine or the twins as they were hardly ever with them

      Delete
    10. Nice to see you Ruth, agree. And another blindingly obvious clue overlooked by the porn sleuths. In order to abuse those kids, they would have had to keep them with them all the time! Kids talk, all the time, and they have no filters.

      Delete
    11. Heaven forbid JJ (new Disrupter in Chief). I find myself, yet again, saying I should have listened to you, doh! It is only now [the blinkers are off] that I can just how disruptive Ziggy had become. He was steering and manipulating discussion, we were answering him, instead of discussing what we wanted to discuss.

      I have felt a great sense of relief this past day or so, the spam has gone in the spam, and I feel newly inspired. It is so easy to forget how others can and will do all in their power to drag 'you' down. Negativity creeps up, without your even being aware and I don't think there was anyone quite so negative as Ziggy.

      Anyway, many thanks to yourself and Blacksmith for not rubbing it in :)

      Delete
  27. Hi Ros, still loving your blog and been following from the start. Old ziggy has really got you in a bind hasnt he, your dammed if you do ban him and dammed if you dont ban him, and he knows this and is playing it up no end. Like a child who has not had their first smack on the bum ziggy is going to keep on pushing this blog to its limits. There are only so many times you can wave your hand over his bum Ros without landing that first blow, otherwise he thinks you are just there to fan his tushy ! How about a 3 strikes and out policy for ALL? No boundries, no walls and no censorship sounds lovely, but in reality you tend to end up with anarchy and destruction, which is not what most of your readers want, im sure, for your blog. You said that Ziggy has lost your attention and he lost mine looooong ago when i realised there are certain questions he will not answer, a few others have realised the same i believe. We all have filters and scroll buttons so its no biggie to me if you continue to let him post, but in my opinion he does slightly spoil the overall flow of the blog.

    A phrase im sure you must have heard of Ros....Spare the rod .... ruin the child.

    AFAN

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It always warms the cockles of my heart when I see you have posted AFAN. You do indeed understand my predicament.

      I'm not sure I have the time, patience or record keeping skills to run a 3 strikes policy AFAN, I'm too impulsive for that. At the moment Ziggy is on very thin ice. I'm no longer going to publish his two parters and if he spams me, he will go in my spam box.

      I was never really a smacker AFAN, don't get me wrong, the will was there, but the little buggers were too quick! Happily, I have a stern, angry voice that scares the bejesus out of everyone, kids, adults, naughty dogs. It was especially effective on my beloved little mutt, who had a tendency to start fights with Rottweillers. A quick 'don't you dare' and he would return with his tail between his legs.

      I think this particular 'child' is already ruined AFAN. He is no youngster, yet he continues to use temper, belligerence, and I'm sure, threats of violence to get his own way. That is the tools of the angry adolescent who doesn't understand the world around him.

      Ziggy desperately needs creative or professional, writing lessons, he is guilty of all the basic knowledge needed to keep a reader's attention. The therapy he needs is incalculable. This is the 5 year old who's parents never said no. The 5 year old given whatever he wanted without any consideration for others.

      He believes he is omnipotent - he is right, we are wrong. Unlike mere mortals, he has no room for doubt. The parents are innocent. End of. Except it's not end of, he insists we must believe too and becomes very angry when we don't. Out comes the spoilt child again, in destructive mode. He is the one who smashes the sand castle and takes his ball home.

      Happily I am also still basking in SixYearsInaComaMan's 'Use the Force' message, it had a bit of a Luke Skywalker feel to it. I feel I will know when he crosses the line, when I need to use 'the Force' lol.

      Delete
    2. To AFAN
      Anonymous14 August 2017 at 02:13
      -
      Agreed. My own observations:
      .
      Ziggy said: "I see a lot of debate and discussing about me - hardly any about why what i say is wrong."
      .
      Solipsism alert! There's plenty of challenges to your assertions, most of which you avoid answering.
      -
      Ziggy said: "I'm an extremely clear thinker.."
      .
      Yet quite incapable of translating those thoughts to text. Conversely, your aloof smugness shines through readily.
      -
      Ziggy said: "What does 'paranoid' score by the way?"
      .
      Not as many as 'rodomontade'.
      - -
      SixYearsInaComaMan

      Delete
    3. Stop SYIACM.....my sides split when I looked up Rodomontade, a fine laugh to start the day...Thank you sir !!

      AFAN

      Delete
    4. Thank you Ros, much appreciated ! As you say and I agree, the blog has found its own "level", things will never be perfect, but I believe it has found a good level and there are some very interesting posters here. Me, well im more of a reader than a writer, and there is so much to this case to fascinate us all that I have been hooked from very early on. Even my dear old departed mother-in-law thought there was something very fishy about the Mccanns from day 1, and she wasnt wrong about much (at least thats what she told me :-) )

      Just as a footnote and with the greatest respect, I think we all now understand your feelings re bennet,hall,et al, some of us even share them with you im sure, but personally I like to see them mentioned a little less, if not at all. I dont think your blog needs their names to thrive!!!

      All the best

      AFAN

      Delete
  28. Rachael Oldfield:

    "I remember having, sort of being on the phone a little bit to the BBC I think that morning [4 May 2007], erm and then sort of various phone calls, I talked to John CORNER who's a friend of Gerry and Kate's, erm cos the BBC wanted a picture of Madeleine, erm and he had some photos that he was going to be able to send them, erm and then and I think maybe about ten-ish, well we would have taken Grace to crèche I think for about nine half nine I think did we that day, I think we took her, erm then I think about ten, half ten Gerry, Kate, Matt and Jane and maybe Dave as well, erm went to Portimão to the Police Station to start doing interviews'.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Thanks for that snippet 07:39. How do you speak to the BBC 'a little bit'? She is clumsily trying to minimise the BBC phone call, why? That she followed it up with a phone call to Jon Corner for a photograph of Madeleine, shows it's importance.

    Anything after midnight is 4th May, and indeed morning. But the most striking part of that statement for me, is the casual way in which Rachael handed her baby into the crèche in the immediate aftermath of a 'child abduction'. How could any parent let their children out of their sight in such circumstances? They claimed there was a predator on the loose, yet they handed their kids to strangers! Wtf?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes Ros it would have been much better to have taken the children with them to the Police Station in Portimão.

      Delete
    2. @ Ros 11:48

      OC and PDL were crawling with Police on 4 May - do you think the predator was hanging about the crèche to strike again?

      Delete
    3. Anon 13.46

      That's not the point, which you know. If Madeleine had been "abducted" by a creche worker and that worker was still involved with the other children, playing with them, handling them whilst doing who knows what to Madeleine perhaps in a nearby apartment, would that feel normal to you just dropping your kiddies off at the creche and thinking "oh well, they're off my hands, I've got a few hours spare now", without the slightest thought of where Madeleine may be and what was happening to her whilst your kiddies may well be being looked after by the abductor him/herself. Whether the area was crawling by police is neither here nor there.

      Delete
    4. Unknown at 13:32

      Rachael Oldfield's interview began at 7.20pm (19:20).

      Delete
    5. Actually I would have taken the kids to the police station with me, because I wouldn't have trusted anyone, and that includes the friends they were with.

      As 14:25 above said, Madeleine could have been held captive in another apartment, anyone working or holidaying at the resort could have been involved.

      In the cold light of day it may have made more sense to put the children in the care of resort nannies, but at the time it would have gone against every parental instinct.

      This point, small though it may seem, was one of the major points that took me past the point of reasonable doubt. Not only did the parents and their friends not go out and search the night before, they carried on with their usual routine by putting the kids in the crèche. That's not normal.

      But they did trust each other, and there were enough of them to arrange childcare for while they were giving their statements. The unthinkable had happened, who could you possibly trust?

      As new of Madeleine's 'abduction' broke, every parent worldwide held their little ones close to them, but not the parents, and not their friends.

      For me, anyone who put their child in the resort crèche the following morning, knew there was no abductor.



      Delete
    6. Ros 14 Aug 18.46

      Another thing I found totally laughable and incredulous was that after Madeleine had been "abducted" Kate McCann was annoyed that she had to collect her own children, YES HER OWN CHILDREN (the twins) from the creche herself because there was nobody else around to collect them whilst she was being interviewed or some such nonsense thinking she was now a media star and had more important things to do than COLLECTING HER OWN CHILDREN FROM THE CRECHE. I would have said to the media people, go and have some coffee or sit here and wait for 20 minutes whilst I get my twins as I can't expect others to do my parenting for me, but oh no, not Kate McCann she was too important now and parenting was at the bottom of her "things to do" list.

      Totally, absolutely f*cking unbelievable!!!!





      Delete
    7. @ Ros 18:46

      "In the cold light of day it may have made more sense to put the children in the care of resort nannies"

      Yes they were all in the "cold light of day" weren't they! On holiday, a child goes missing - going to the Police Station yet you want them to think in "the cold light of day".

      You were doing quite well for a while Ros - not passing your personal hatred of the Mccanns and anyone connected to them - but now you have reverted to your "I know better and I wouldn't have done that" mode to knock what they did.

      Let's go on:

      "This point, small though it may seem, was one of the major points that took me past the point of reasonable doubt. Not only did the parents and their friends not go out and search the night before, they carried on with their usual routine by putting the kids in the crèche. That's not normal."

      It's not normal because you have lied.

      Delete
    8. Ros says:

      "In the cold light of day it may have made more sense to put the children in the care of resort nannies, but at the time it would have gone against every parental instinct."

      Which nannies would they be Ros, as you have spent the last 10 years researching the case I am sure you can come up with the names of the daytime nannies without any problem.

      Delete
    9. @Anonymous at 21:09

      Shinead, as you know, who said "that Madeleine McCann's parents may have used the free service at dinner time, or may have also requested the presence of a baby sitter (paid service), and does not know the reason for why they did not do this."

      Well, it's never too late to do the right thing, isn't it.

      Delete
    10. @Anonymous14 August 2017 at 22:39

      But it wasn't dinner time - it was during the day whilst they were at the Police Station.

      Was there a nanny service during the day?

      Delete
    11. @Unknown 14 August at 22:55

      Regarding dinner time, as you know, Shinead was talking about their "relaxing family holiday (IW)".

      On May 4th, there was a 'nanny service' during the day, i.e. Fiona Payne, Russell O'Brien, Rachael Oldfield and Dianne Webster who had not been brought to the police station for their interviews until early evening.

      As you know, on May 4th, in the evening Emma put the twins into their cots.

      Delete
    12. I'm a little confused 20:31, as to how you interpret my views on the parents and their friends decision to put their kids into the crèche the next day, as personal hatred of the McCanns.

      You would prefer that I go along with the subterfuge and pretend it was a perfectly normal thing to do?

      I am not one of the sycophants who surround Gerry and Kate 20:31, I won't say things that go against my conscience in order to make them feel better.

      Truth is not hate 20:31. Think of all those mothers of missing children, we have seen on the news over the years. Then imagine any one of them handing their remaining kids to babysitters the next day?

      The McCanns and their friends were remarkably well organised 'in the cold light of day', as would be expected of doctors and professionals. Whilst others were searching for Madeleine, they were contacting the UK and making plans.

      What they didn't take into account was basic emotion. The fact that those watching, were asking themselves, what they would do, and how they would react and most would have been out there searching for the child until they dropped.

      Putting the kids into the crèche the following morning was logical, on the surface it made sense, but not in the middle of a crisis.

      I remember at the time of 9/11 watching one tower go down, then the next, then the Pentagon. I had to tear myself away from the TV to collect my son from school, and as I drove I wondered what on earth would happen whilst my eyes were averted from the screen. Was it the end of the world? I picked up a bottle of Chablis on the way home, if it was, I wanted it to end with a fine tipple.

      What has that to do with the night of 3rd May and the days that followed? Gerry rightly described Madeleine's disappearance as a disaster. They were staying in a holiday resort from which a child (their child) had been stolen and a predator was on the loose. Indeed, Gerry was overheard telling someone on the phone about paedophile gangs.

      On the morning of 4th May, they were slap bang in the middle of a danger zone - no-one knew or could foresee what would happen next. How safe was that little line of toddlers being led to the beach by young girls the parents hardly knew? What was to say the child snatcher wasn't a 'serial' child snatcher, and Madeleine was the start of a spree?

      Delete
    13. I could never understand how they could all put their children back in the creche either. Another strange thing was Gerry's phone call to his sister, Trish at 11.40 telling her that Madeleine had been abducted, possibly by a paedophile. Very odd. And how could Gerry possibly sleep that night?

      Delete
  30. 14.8, 11:48

    "She is clumsily trying to minimise the BBC phone call, why?"

    Because it was the BBC's 'phone call?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That seems likely - the media would have been in contact with TM, imo, asking what the hell was going on?

      Delete
    2. The phone calls to the BBC were instigated by Rachael Oldfield on Thursday 3 May to get the news of M's abduction on BBC news.
      Before lunch time on Fri 4 May there were at least 10 calls between Oldfield and the BBC.
      Rachael was ringing the BBC and the BBC were ringing back.
      (PJ files)

      Delete
  31. Dear Rosalinda

    One of my yesterday’s posts (timed about 7am) has not found its way to the blog. Could you be so kind as to have a look in your spam box? Nothing important, mind you.

    Many thanks.

    Bless.

    T

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Anonymous14 August 2017 at 13:31

      Let me guess, was it:

      "concur

      T"

      Delete
  32. Anonymous14 August 2017 at 08:40

    ''The two supposed governments or their agent working together no matter how hard they try can't just can't find any thing to suggest his theory is so wrong,if you think they have kindly post the info.
    fineleg.''

    Hello 'fineleg' (?)

    I had nothing to do with their decision( really, I wasn't there).My belief is the same as Amaral's inasmuch that the Governments weren't needed in a police investigation. Nobody from the PJ asked them to drop everything and fly out .It's my belief that the UK side of it had a vested interest in it rather than Portugal's. With regard to Amaral's theory( I'm making a wild guess here) I'm guessing you're referring to the theory of the parents lying / hiding the body etc rather than the 'in a coffin' or 'fridge' or 'well' etc. It was down to Amaral to prove that- he was the detective. He was removed unfairly and too soon. The general consensus of the internet is that it must have been because he 'was getting to close'. His theory remained for the rest of the Pj though-they should have chased it on his behalf. That they didn't would suggest that their bosses had told them not to. Why they would say that is not known publicly. But that shouldn't be difficult to solve. We have blogs.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Anonymous14 August 2017 at 11:37 ( InAComaMan)

    ''Solipsism alert! There's plenty of challenges to your assertions, most of which you avoid answering.''

    Dismount your virtual white horse and go find some examples.

    ''Yet quite incapable of translating those thoughts to text. Conversely, your aloof smugness shines through readily...''

    About me - again. You may be impressing yourself and a 'select' gullible audience. That's about it. I hope our hostess has spotted your game.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "by Tony Bennett Today at 17:44
    @ dartinghero
    Thank you very much.
    Yes I do have some books left.
    I am selling them for £5 each, including postage etc. that's £7.50."
    --------------------------------------

    oh look at bennett making money from other people's misfortune.

    I have no opinion one way or another about the Lubbock case - but I know bennett would not be involved if Barrymore was not gay.

    ReplyDelete
  35. "by sharonl Today at 20:21
    Does anyone know when the Hat in the tennis photo was in fashion? It has been suggested that the shorts are 1970s but I would think that if that were correct, the hat would be more of a giveaway.

    Is it a 70s hat?"
    ------------------------
    crucial research going on in the cesspit - and they wonder why it is called the cesspit?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. they've found a 'cross' of some sort 'branded' on Madeleine's arm ( although that's become debatable as another online 'expert' think's it's a 'spooky' kind of face). And people wonder why the McCanns and police have limited the pictures that they put online. I rest my case.

      Delete
    2. ZS 15.8, 17:01

      "I rest my case."

      13.8, 18:13

      “My case ? I don't have a case”

      Delete
    3. @ZiggySawdust at 17:01

      "they've found a 'cross' of some sort 'branded' on Madeleine's arm ( although that's become debatable as another online 'expert' think's it's a 'spooky' kind of face)."

      Why are you constantly referring to weird forum posts? No sane person would believe such garbage. Apart from you and 'Unknown' no one pays attention.

      "And people wonder why the McCanns and police have limited the pictures that they put online."

      Do you really think that is the reason why 'the McCanns and police' have limited the release of pictures of Madeleine during that holiday in Praia da Luz in 2007? That would be miraculous farsightedness.

      Delete
  36. You've all been barking up the wrong tree(s).
    Steve Gibson has solved it:-
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnUzWyvV0sA

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's ' Delboy ' Trotter..

      ''why are they not seeing what I'm seeing...''

      They're not hallucinating.

      Maybe because they don't partake of the magic mushroom..but nice to know (finally) who Jack The Ripper was. I was convinced it was Charles Dickens working with Houdini.

      Who needs detectives when we have youtube. Still, on the bright side, the streets are safer as long as these headcases live online.

      mangetout Rodney, mangetout..

      Delete
  37. Ros just to join the debate about the debate about the McCanns and their friends leaving the children in the crèche the next day AND subsequent days. I agree with you that it goes against all parental instincts to do this unless they knew there was no abductor. I also think that the absence of any police protection of the Crèche confirms that nobody at the time believed there had been an abduction. Why were the parents if it was not possible for them to bring the children to the police station not demanding that the police put a guard on the crèche. I know I would have. The police must have been aware right from the start that the abduction was fairy story otherwise they would have put protection on the crèche. I mean how bad would it have been if after 1 child was abducted the police allowed another one to be abducted in the same resort. The whole McCanns running of all over Europe and leaving the twins with sitter is just not something the parents of an abducted child does. Good post 19:56 can you imagine the arrogance of someone who would put in writing their annoyance of having to stop a press conference to collect their own children after the disappearance of one of their other children. John Blacksmith sums up their emotional states when he recalls what Kate McCann wrote about her dealings with Control risk group. They were giving fresh statements, planning the setting up of their fighting fund, risk assessing and providing concliusions on their actions as being within well within responsible parenting boundaries and developing future strategies all while presumably weeping and wailing and nashing of teeth over their missing child. So much so that it she SUDDENLY REALISED that she had made no arrangements to have her other 2 children picked up. As any busy Mum that regardless of what they have on their plate at anytime that the arrangements for their children are never far from their thoughts. Can you imagine how they would be from a mum whose child had just been abducted

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've always thought those who put their kids in the creche the next day knew there was no abductor. And why was the creche even open? There was allegedly a child predator on the loose.

      As for picking the twins up - every mother I have ever known and worked with, becomes twitchy in the lead up to child collection time, even when there is not an abductor around.

      Delete
    2. I think the McCanns' attitude towards the creche is very telling. In her book, KM recounts how MW told the McCanns that other parents had complained about the media circus outside the creche and MW in response asked the McCanns to stop using the creche. KM's reaction to this reveals a really callous attitude not only towards her own children but all the other children who were being taken and collected from the creche and subjected to a media frenzy, IMO. I think they came to an arrangement so that the twins could continue to be dropped off at the creche at a later time but what KM unwittingly reveals in the book is that that not only were they happy to take their children to the creche, even though an alleged abductor was still at large but they were also happy to subject their children to a media circus, something other parents had considered unacceptable for their children to have to endure.

      I can understand why MW would want to continue to carry on and try to reassure parents that everything was under control but I cannot understand how any parent who had lost a child and believed that child had been abducted from a holiday resort would continue to remain on site using the facilities - it's beyond mawkish IMO and seems very counter intuitive. I do think (and there is evidence in the accounts of this presented by family friends) that they did not explain the change of circumstances to the twins and this is why they continued to use the creche because they wanted them to think nothing had changed and they were still on holiday, at one point in his blog GM explains that the twins believed Madeleine was back home in Rothley. Why would they allow the twins to think that? Wouldn't you try to explain in as gentle but truthful a way as possible, that Madeleine had disappeared? I know this would be difficult but allowing them to believe she was back home strikes me as the wrong approach. What's more, I can't understand how they came to believe Madeleine was back home without some adult planting this idea or at least allowing it to persist and find it really sad that they thought they would be reunited with their sister once they returned home. The story of them looking for Madeleine when they returned home is heart breaking.

      I've gone on a bit but I agree - putting the twins in the creche the next day is not something I would expect traumatised parents to do if they thought there was an abductor still on the loose. Alternatively, grieving parents looking for a bit of head space, well that's more understandable and a different matter altogether...

      Delete
  38. Unknown 14 August 2017 at 22:32

    Kettle (in Jamaican Patwah): “The I says it ‘cause I is black?”

    Respectfully.

    “(sic) to your punctuation.”

    (sic) = 5
    Concur = 6
    (sic) to your punctuation = 22

    Get t rid of the unnecessary entities (lex parsimoniae = cut the crap).

    I take it the poverty of my punctuation did not inhibit your understanding of my 2 (two) unnumbered questions you left unanswered.

    “My view as to your points 1, 2 and 3 is that you should seek out the appropriate forums/blogs/chatrooms to discuss things that I have no interest in whatsoever.”

    I take note of your apparent lack of interest in Logic.

    “In answer to your question that for some reason didn't have a number, my answer is yes and my explanation is from examination and reading the files that have been released.”

    You “explanation” is (logically) fallacious: ”…reading the files that have been released” is not an answer. Suppose T read and examined Plato, Aristotle, Locke, Hume, Shannon, Kolmogorov Turing and the Files. And? T would win the argument?

    “I have unfortunately read many of your comments on here T…”

    Bad luck indeed…. Perhaps you might consider not reading my post not addressed to your goof self.

    “…and have drawn a conclusion that I do not want to converse with you any further.”

    I understand. You may not be the only poster on this blog thinking that way.

    You, Pot (my comments in brackets):

    “That is from the PJ legal summary - so what relevance has (sic) what Ian Woods says have (sic)???” (Fail).

    “There were (sic) a lot of photos taken by the Mccanns (sic) on holiday in PDL that have not been released.” (Fail).

    “because (sic) I have read the files.” (Fail).

    “not (sic) "blind faith" at all, considered opinion.” (Fail).

    “I have unfortunately read (sic) [“…unfortunately read…”?] many of your comments on here (sic)[,] T (sic) [,] and have drawn a conclusion that I do not want to converse with you any further.” (Fail).

    “you (sic) get niggled easily don't you.” (Fail).

    “Yes (sic) [,] I am…” (Fail).

    “It really advances finding a solution to the case of missing Madeleine (sic) [,] doesn't it. (Fail).

    “Yes (sic) [,] Ros…” (Fail).

    “Yes (sic) [,] they were all in the "cold light of day" (sic) [,] weren't they!” (Fail).

    Enough?


    “I suppose I could add "comrade" but I don't find it clever.”

    Neither do I (find it clever).

    Enjoy flying over cesspits, Calliphora Vomitoria.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7akw_RyADzA at 3:52
    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

    “I think I beat a dead horse here: It feels like it’s too long to keep doing this. But you can see how it goes, and if you are new at it, it can be kind of tedious , but it’s pretty rewarding as you go through and figure these out. You can just feel like ‘I figured these out by myself, and then it’s a good feeling.”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imj7FniRzyY at 29:09

    And, to purify the air: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85IkZ0SvEyw

    Peace. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7akw_RyADzA at 3:52

    Kettle (AKA T etc.)

    PS It may be helpful to google sic, logic, logical fallacy, descriptive v prescriptive (punctuation, spelling), and prosody. And listen to the bass notes.:)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I didn't notice any errors T, but then some might say my English is appalling. I blame the headcase who thought the best way to teach grammar and punctuation by rapping the knuckles with a ruler.

      As I type, I hope the readers can hear the very haughty voice in my head, I'm a stickler for speaking 'proper', but it sometimes go off into Kenneth Williams at his 'Ooh, err, I say' campest.

      But back to your critic, he/she cannot answer your questions, nor compete with your understanding of linguistics. Don't speak to me anymore is the cyber equivalent of throwing in the towel! ;)

      Delete
  39. "I have no doubt Ziggy is part of the McCann inner circle Jane, he/they have found a free platform to spout propaganda and misinformation. One with a large and increasing audience, and on in which they can test out theories that will rule the parents out.
    I 'entertain' him because I like to know how the opposition think, and he is blissfully unaware of how much he gives away. That's when I can be arsed to read him that is.
    He exhibits many of the 'usual' troll traits.
    Those are not the words and actions of a happy bunny! He is on very thin ice at the moment Jane. If his writing improves, in that he can say what he means and keep our attention, fair dues. But if he continues to behave like an obnoxious troll, I will delete him."

    Ha ha. Ros threatens to wield the big stick against a vociferous opponent. Not for the first time! Of course she won't do anything because without Ziggy's contributions this McCann-obsessed blog will wither.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Matters not one way or the other 15:28, I prefer quality to quantity.

      As I have said many times 15:8, I consider my time to be precious, and I actually get quite irked with those trying to waste it. Ziggy is a timewaster (at best), if he had anything substantive to say, he had plenty of opportunity to say it.

      I don't have a problem with anyone arguing the McCann case - I am always open to persuasion. But I don't have to put up with insults and belligerence.

      Ziggy has a spiteful tone to his posts that is more suited to the forums, I don't want it here.

      Delete
    2. To 15:28 who said:
      "Ros threatens to wield the big stick against a vociferous opponent. Not for the first time! Of course she won't do anything because without Ziggy's contributions this McCann-obsessed blog will wither."
      -
      Hardly! When I see the Ziggy "wall of text" I scroll past to the modest posters who are NOT up their own fundament. If I wanted lessons in self-aggrandisement I'd go watch a Hideho vid.
      -
      SixYearsInaComaMan

      Delete
    3. 15:28

      You won't be missed.

      Delete
    4. Bless you SixYearsInaComaMan, I called on 'The Force' and spammed him. He was sucking all the joy and pride I take in running by blog by using the kind of vernacular more suited to the spiteful Myths forums and the cesspit.

      Ps. I am mightily impressed with the Superman (meerkat?) costume, hope it doesn't it doesn't add to the itching problem ;)

      Delete
    5. Hi Ros (at 22:39)
      We come here to get away from the self-appointed forum demigods, be they of 'myth', 'cesspit' or the asinine twitter school yard McHash tag.
      Here was the first and now the last bastion of sanctuary from Mc-related anarchy; more 'Come Dine With Me' than 'Hell's Kitchen' yet there's always something on the menu for everyone's taste.
      Lastly, re itching, lol, all is well: your Sergei 'super-cozzy' is a Frontline treated, allergen-free, Lycra-Kevlar weave, resistant to wine spills, sub-bridge denizens and spiders from Mars...
      -
      SixYearsInaComaMan

      Delete
    6. Anonymous 17 August 2017 at 05:30

      Watch out for PTFE-coated fleas when you come round, the long-lost fourth Magi Сергей

      T:)

      Delete
    7. Re Anonymous17 August 2017 at 16:32
      LOL!!
      Hey, T. I suppose it's too late to warn you about teetering roof tiles?
      ;-)
      Человек Шесть лет в коме
      SixYearsInaComaMan

      Delete
    8. Anonymous 17 August 2017 at 18:02

      Magi

      One and only one off:

      Шесть Лет в Коме человек,
      Шесть лет - коме, человеку – век!


      T (которому названья доселе не нашла ещё людская речь)
      _ _ _ _ _ _ _

      Six Years in a Coma man,
      The coma gets six years, the man – a century!

      T (for whom the human tongue has yet not found a name)

      PS In the circumstances, you get an ‘A*', Google gets a ‘C’.
      Master Klingon – language problems solved!

      Delete
    9. Anonymous 17 August 2017 at 18:02

      Oh yeh, the tiles… Too late I am afraid, my dear : all in pieces, the poor buggers. Fell on my Sunday best tin hat. :( A sad day for me, a wet night for you. It’s all right for the crepuscular… and the nocturnal… Never mind the ties...

      T

      Delete
    10. Anonymous 17 August 2017 at 22:04

      “Never mind the ties...”

      Read “…tiles….”

      T

      Delete
  40. A couple of typos in my 13:50 post. Not worth correcting.

    T

    ReplyDelete
  41. Rachael Oldfield:

    "I remember having, sort of being on the phone a little bit to the BBC I think that morning [4 May 2007], erm and then sort of various phone calls, I talked to John CORNER who's a friend of Gerry and Kate's, erm cos the BBC wanted a picture of Madeleine, erm and he had some photos that he was going to be able to send them, erm and then and I think maybe about ten-ish, well we would have taken Grace to crèche I think for about nine half nine I think did we that day, I think we took her, erm then I think about ten, half ten Gerry, Kate, Matt and Jane and maybe Dave as well, erm went to Portimão to the Police Station to start doing interviews'.

    ------

    This minimization is interesting. The question of making contact with the press is highly sensitive. I suspect the press got wind that something had gone badly wrong that week and wanted to find out what. Should they run with the story or what? I suspect for the first few days the McCanns and their friends were not quite sure which way the wind would blow. Dr Amaral sends an urgent fax to Jez Wilkins after Jez' return to the UK. After this Jez changes his witness statement. A coincidence? I think not. The TM witness statements are all over the place too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Totally agree that the first few days must have been a nightmare - I have no doubt they were urgently raising money for a legal defence. They didn't need a Search Fund, within 24/48 hours the entire globe knew that Madeleine was missing. Both the Portuguese and the British police were working day and night to find her. Since then Kate has said in her book that they were thinking of fleeing Portugal, they were expecting to be arrested.

      I didn't know Jez changed his statement after a fax from Dr. Amaral. And I agree the witness statements are all over the place - the reason the PJ needed a reconstruction, a reconstruction the McCanns and their friends wouldn't go back to PDL for.

      All the statements are odd. Especially, the short statements of the Leicester police, saying the behaviour of the parents was perfectly normal. In what reality, one wonders? In the Portuguese camp, alarm bells were going off everywhere!

      However, I feel if the McCanns had received any tangible help from the incumbent government, this case would not still be pursuing them. A clean up probably could have been arranged, even with the finding of a body. Evidence, DNA etc, could have been tampered with, as is alleged with the blood samples and cadaver odour uncovered by the dogs. Had the body been handed over, that would have been 'end of'.

      I'm not making excuses for those government officials who did interfere, and they know who they are, but the Vanity Fair article suggests they were on their own from at least early July. And of course, WikiLeaks confirms this, the British Consul were expressing suspicions and the British police were 'building a case'.

      Delete
    2. The only police agency actively pursuing the abduction theory, were CEOP. The others appeared to drop out. In his book, Goncalo Amaral said that when the McCanns returned to the UK, the British contingent also packed up and left. And of course, by the time the PJ shelved the case, the British appeared to have no involvement at all. Why didn't the British police stay? Madeleine was still missing.

      There are arguments for and against the British involvement. Personally, I think there was, at the very beginning. A missing cherubic child is a popular bandwagon, everyone wants to help the traumatized parents.

      I have always thought it was one of those 'Thick of It' moments, where a decision was taken by a minion in Downing Street and there was no turning back.

      The McCanns priority on the night Madeleine disappeared was to get the abduction story in the papers and on the news. With breaking news, it is always the first story that sticks, the one that makes you remember where you were and who you were with when you first heard it. And they achieved it. We all woke up to 'Madeleine had been abducted'.

      Media however, should not have been the first priority of the parents. They should still have been in 'hope' phase and searching the local vicinity. The same applies to the phone calls home. Why waste time phoning relatives hundreds of miles away? And with such terrible news?

      Madeleine had been missing for less than an hour. Jane Tanner saw a suspicious man walking away with a child in pyjamas. And the key word there was walking. There was every chance Madeleine would soon be found, most kids are, and most people hold off with news of a disastrous nature until they are absolutely sure.

      In the immediate aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance, the most useful thing they could do, was look for her. Telling relatives and newspapers were things that could wait.

      That's why I think the list of defendants could run to dozens, and probably why Operation Grange has taken so long. Many could face serious charges of perverting the course of justice, a lot of time and money has been spent on the investigation, both by the British and the Portuguese.

      A cover up, in order to be successful, should involve as few people as possible, and should be as succinct as possible. Thus far, Operation Grange would have to falsify 6 years of investigations and records, so enormous would the task be, that they might as well have done the job for real.

      But I have wandered, Gerry and Kate I think, have enjoyed very few times where they have been out of the woods. In 2008 and 2009, they were at their most confident. Their 'Expresso' interview shows their relief at their Arguido status being dropped and the case being shelved. This is the real Gerry and Kate, masks down.

      But once again, their behaviour is well out of the normal range. The Portuguese police were no longer going to be looking for their daughter, why didn't they fight their ground and demand the case be kept open? A right they have always had incidentally, all the PJ needed was new evidence, in the form of a reconstruction.

      Delete
    3. Hello another anonymous, 17.55

      Here we go again; I'm getting a little bored with the role of reality principle here and shrieks of resentment it brings.

      You state as a fact that Goncalo sent a fax to Jeremy Wilkins and then you proceed to build a large sandcastle on that fact.

      Would you like to reconsider your claim about the fax?

      Delete
    4. john blacksmith 18 August 2017 at 18:13

      You are right, john, there is some confusion @15:55

      Anonymous 16 August 2017 at 17:55: “Dr Amaral sends an urgent fax to (sic) Jez Wilkins after Jez' return to the UK.”

      02-Processo Vol 2...Pages 510-512 Letter from Dr. Amaral regarding possible questions for Jeremy Wilkins 2007.05.07

      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS.htm

      I’m not 17:55.

      T

      Delete
    5. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/02_VOLUME_IIa_Page_510.jpg

      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/02_VOLUME_IIa_Page_511.jpg

      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/02_VOLUME_IIa_Page_512.jpg

      Delete
    6. Hello. Thanks for quoting the correct reference.

      Delete
    7. WHO HAS BUILT A LARGE SUNDCASTLE?

      Anonymous 16 August 2017 at 17:55: “Dr Amaral sends an urgent fax to (sic) [for] Jez Wilkins after Jez' return to the UK. After this Jez changes his witness statement. A coincidence? I think not. The TM witness statements are all over the place too.”

      john blacksmith18 August 2017 at 18:13: “You state as a fact that Goncalo sent a fax to Jeremy Wilkins and then you proceed to build a large sandcastle on that fact.”
      _ _ _ _ _

      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS.htm

      119 to 120 External diligence carried out re: Jeremy Wilkins
      01-Processo page 119 (pdf01_121)
      REPORT OF FOREIGN CARE
      Date: 2007/05 /04 Location: Praia da Luz - Lagos;
      Entity determining the diligence:
      Employee who performed it: Manuel P., Inspector

      “Following various informal conversations related to the area of research, we were contacted by a British citizen named Jeremy Michael Wilkins… He told us that yesterday, between 8.30 and 9pm, while he was in the "TAPAS" restaurant, …”


      May, 7th 2007 Jeremy Wilkins deposition

      “On Thursday, 3rd May 2007… Our son was awake and unable to sleep. I decided to take him for a walk in his pram. I left about 8:15 to 8:30 pm. I was pushing the pram around the complex and went to the toilet near the bar. I could not see inside the restaurant. As I got the baby to sleep, I was on my way back to the apartment. I came out at the top road.

      I met him [GM} near the stairs of a ground floor. There was a gate leading up to some stairs. I was pretty certain that he had left the apartment. We spoke for a few minutes. He said you're on walking duty. I said I was staying in and pros and cons and what to do with the children.

      He said that as he was staying two weeks XXXXX he was staying one night' (unreadable)
      I don't remember anyone else walking around with a child. The conversation lasted for about three (3) to five (5) minutes.

      He was acting completely normal from what I know of him so far. I then walked back to the apartment. I had dinner, watched a DVD and went to bed at about 11 pm.”

      T

      Delete
    8. What else does the Wilkins email of Monday 7th May 17.02 state.

      That the PJ request the presence of a British criminal analyst and if CEOP wish to send an officer to assist, they would be welcome.

      But they were already there as the NPIA briefing document confirms.

      This confirms the British police were acting unlawfully in an underhanded manner. They did not have permission to be there on Saturday/Sunday, 5/6th May.

      This gung ho attitude of the British police acting in complete disregard and distain of another country's laws is the cover up, always has been.
      Who instructed Leics police officers to meet the Mccanns without the presence of the PJ on Saturday evening.As the NPIA point out it would be illegal to do so but they did it anyway.

      Delete
    9. JJ 11:04

      http://library.college.police.uk/docs/npia/Strategic-debrief-operation-task-2009.pdf

      Page14:

      "As no request had been received from the Portuguese police the force contacted the FCO and through them offered the services of the FLOs and the incident room to the Portuguese authorities. This led to an e-mail from the Portuguese police on Friday 4 May for the deployment of officers to support the family in Portugal. This was quickly followed by Section 26 Police Act approval by the Secretary of State and the officers were deployed the following day, which was the Saturday of a bank holiday weekend."

      The tail wagging the dog.

      A military style operation with a Gold Command Structure in place, fully costed and authorized by the close of play on Friday 4 May.

      And all for a little girl missing from her bed overseas, beyond the jurisdiction of any UK police force.

      Delete
    10. @ 16:40

      Thanks for that information - so the Police were not acting illegally or without permission and they had Section 26 approval.

      Glad that is sorted out.

      Delete
    11. @ 16:40

      "A military style operation with a Gold Command Structure in place, fully costed and authorized by the close of play on Friday 4 May."

      Why did you not refer to the 2 paragraphs prior to what you quoted.

      "The command team" (that is in Leics Constabularly) "decided that the most effective response to these likely demands was to deploy FLO resources to the family in Portugal, and to establish an iccident room in Leicester in anticipation of requests for information and assistance from the Portuguese Police. It was felt that these were proportionate measures which would enable the force to take a proactive stance to the unfoulding situation and which could be quickly scaled down if Madeleine was found safe and well"

      So not exactly a military style operation - just a Leics Police response to the situation.

      Delete
    12. "just a Leics Police response to the situation."

      But of course. 'likely demands'...'in anticipation'...'proactive stance'...

      http://policeauthority.org/metropolitan/downloads/committees/cgc/060922-16-appendix01.pdf

      "Application for the Home Secretary's authorisation is not a bureaucratic formality and his consent should not be regarded as a foregone conclusion."

      "...forces should not initiate, or respond directly to, requests for assistance from overseas agencies."

      Now go back and re-read that paragraph from p14 of the NPIA debrief: 'NO request received' - 'OFFERING the services of FLOs and an incident room'

      Just Leicester Police acting contrary to previous Home Office instruction.

      Delete
  42. Ros 21.45

    "Madeleine had been missing for less than an hour. Jane Tanner saw a suspicious man walking away with a child in pyjamas. And the key word there was walking. There was every chance Madeleine would soon be found, most kids are, and most people hold off with news of a disastrous nature until they are absolutely sure.

    In the immediate aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance, the most useful thing they could do, was look for her. Telling relatives and newspapers were things that could wait."

    One thing I have never understood since 3rd May 2007 is why Kate McCann didn't go out physically looking for Madeleine and calling her name, after all she was her Mother and Madeleine would have responded to her voice if she was dumped and lost somewhere in the vicinity of the apartment. I would imagine Madeleine would be terrified to respond to complete strangers calling her name but would respond quickly to Kate's voice. That is something that has always stayed in my mind that KM never went out that night to call her child's name with all the other people who were out looking for her. I think that says a lot really.

    It also says a lot that K & G McCann let the case be closed in Portugal, they were off the hook much to their relief, sod Madeleine, they were looking after themselves, they didn't need to think about Madeleine if they knew there was nothing that could be done for her. They were looking after their own backsides, that's all that mattered to them. They had to look squeaky clean in the eyes of their benefactors, the world's press, their employers, their friends, their family, their neighbours. Madeleine had gone and nothing could be done for her, so they just wanted to carry on with their lives, oh, and for the twins. £millions were pouring into their "Fund", what more did they need.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Hi Ros,

    Im guessing after your update that Ziggy will no longer be featuring on YOUR blog. Personally, I think you hit the nail on the head with your update post and I agree whole heartedly with what you say.

    You have kept the site fresh and I always enjoy checking in to see the latest blog and comments, what I did not enjoy either was ziggys tone and his dodging of specific questions on numerous occasions.

    I certainly would never accuse you of being "dim" Ros, and I dont think anyone in all fairness could say you did not give him a fair chance. I think it has just been a battle for you between your own principles of freedom of speech and a right to reply which you obviously hold very high and the inevitable downturn that ziggy was trying to lead you and this blog in to.

    Some fool wrote above ..."Ha ha. Ros threatens to wield the big stick against a vociferous opponent. Not for the first time! Of course she won't do anything because without Ziggy's contributions this McCann-obsessed blog will wither".

    What RUBBISH, people come here to read what YOU have to say Ros, not someone under the "name" ziggy. Dont forget that, and if you should then may i refer you to the two words at the very top of every webpage....CHRISTOBELL UNBOUND.

    Still

    AFAN

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Live and learn AFAN. It took a while for me to see, but effectively Ziggy was censoring my blog. By dominating the discussion and being rude to posters who did not agree with him, he was changing the dynamic of my blog. And as you rightly point out, it is MY blog not his. If he were in my home insulting me and my other guests, I would ask him to leave and not come back.

      There is no excuse for rudeness and anti social behaviour and I am sorry that I gave him a platform for so long. As you say, it was a crisis of conscious - I am loathe to deprive anyone of a voice, but he was using that voice to silence others, here on my own blog! Doh!

      Anyway, many thanks for staying with me AFAN, much appreciated! :)

      Delete
    2. "effectively Ziggy was censoring my blog"

      No, that's exactly what you've done, Ros. Wither away.

      Delete
    3. Anon 11.43

      Why does it hurt so much, unless of course you are actively involved with the McCanns and hate to see one of their shills being stopped from disrupting yet another blog and never got as far as getting it closed down.

      Oh well, never mind, they will seek other ways to get their "abduction" message through although it seems to be a futile act.

      What happens if and when SY close down their investigation - the PJ one is still ongoing, don't forget those words from the Portuguese Court "the McCanns haven't been cleared".

      I'm sure it'll be a long time before this blog withers away.

      Delete
    4. Many thanks for pointing that out 21:23, this blog is far from withering, lol. Most who follow the McCann case have moved on from the investigation and research stages, and now want their news bang up to date. Discussing the butler in the pantry with the carving knife, is seen as he futile endeavour it is.

      This case went 'political' a long, long time ago, but the internet sleuths are still focussing on the minutiae. They cannot see anything outside of their very narrow view. They cannot see that the case has grown and evolved, leaving their own pet theories out to dry and irrelevant.

      The truth is out there, as Mulder said to Skully (or was it the other way around?), and those who read and participate here are hanging out for it. Cheap make do scenarios just won't cut it, only the real deal will do.

      I don't know what the real deal will be, I'm learning just as my readers and those who contribute to the discussion. We need that last piece of the puzzle just as the McCanns do. And we don't want to cheat by forcing the piece in or cutting off the edges. Only the right piece will do, and we are patient enough to wait for it.

      No withering here. In fact it is a delight to open my mailbox and see a wide variety of views and opinions that challenge me and make me think. Alternate views that I think were being stifled by the dominance of one poster. It's good to be back to normal service.

      I value each and every one of my readers, and I would carry on writing even if only one remained. I'm the tearful clown who needs he applause. I don't like to take anyone for granted, Knowing how discerning I am with my own reading, and how precious I am with my time, I feel immensely privileged that people take time out of their day to read me. That's why I found the rudeness of Ziggy so offensive. My readers and contributors are my guests - how dare he treat them like that! I felt myself having a de ja vu of every control freak I have ever met!

      Ziggy, like Tigerloaf (or whatever his name was), has very limited appeal. While the insults and personal abuse may have sounded all macho and alpha male in his head, they sounded abomindable out loud.

      Anyway, don't get me started on Ziggy's issues, lol. I think now he has been stopped from pouring weed killer over all the buds, this blog will thrive!

      Delete
  44. Kate McCann (“combing through the files”):

    “Many of the witness statements looked extremely vague and brief, crying out for what seemed blindingly obvious and essential questions to be asked and answered. Those made by the Ocean Club staff in particular were very sketchy, even allowing for the fact that almost 130 employees were interviewed in the space of just a few days. We have discovered since that there were staff who were not interviewed at all.”

    This is written by the mother of an ‘abducted’ child, who put her other children in the crèche the next day and refused to answer questions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good point 07:55. There is also a certain irony in Gerry and Kate blaming the Portuguese police, whilst refusing to co-operate and answer questions!

      Delete
  45. Anonymous 17 August 2017 at 09:29

    Another in-front- by-a-neck neck has found itself in the noose’s righteous embrace…

    “Hooray!”

    How delightful of you! A master stroke indeed! Roman à clef in a word!

    A word of caution, from comrade Twain perhaps? “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.”

    Donc, pour l'instant, je vais admirer de loin, je verrai ce que je vois et rêve ce que je rêve.

    A sister without a mister, having been cut off from my Frédéric, I'm available for a waltz if you are game…

    Amantine Lucile Aurore Dupin (AKA T etc.)

    PS “…’Come Dine With Me’…” I’m not “…resistant to wine…” If you know what I mean…

    ReplyDelete
  46. Most people assume others with a common interest are like minded, All being a singular person looking for the answer to a conspiracy within the cover up.
    It. As GM stated, confusion is good. Your Ziggy could be several people, all massaging the thread, subtlety encouraging with obfuscating and false trails and at times even directly contravening. Goodbye Ziggy.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Well I'm sure the narcissist Ziggy will still post on hear incognito , its posts were a bit like those free papers they shove through your door loads to read , but its all crap .or one of those parasitic wasps that infects its host . take your pick Incidentally. Ziggy I'm still a Press Photographer going to have a great weekend at V .No doubt you will be all dressed up and nowhere to go , and the beauty is you will be reading this with no right to reply , ha !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm getting the impression that Ziggy will not be missed!

      For myself it is a huge weight off, I was starting to dread opening my blog because of the huge daily onslaught. Whilst I, or indeed anyone on here could easily demolish his points in a paragraph, he was continually dragging the argument down to personal abuse.

      As a writer and commentator on the Madeleine case, I have developed the hind of the rhino, but he was wearing me down. Changing my mood, and the mood of this blog. In the real world, I avoid 'Ziggys' like the plague. I have zero tolerance for whining and zero tolerance for negative people. I know how corrosive they can be to the soul.

      I should have pulled the plug on him long ago, but I hoped that peer pressure would improve his manners and his need to hog! Unfortunately the narcissist Ziggy, like all narcissists, has no self awareness and no empathy. He's the greedy kid at the party gobbling all the cake and leaving none for anyone else. His sense of entitlement is off the scale.

      Ziggy I think may have written short posts to congratulate himself on his long posts, lol, but the 2 and 3 parters, were all him. But I agree 13:50, Ziggy may have been slightly more sophisticated than the pro trolls of old, but his agenda was just the same.

      Enjoy 'V', my photographer friend, and do everything young 'uns (and old 'uns) are supposed to do at these fun events! Party like it's 1999!

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 17 August 2017 at 20:00

      Good morning

      I’m so glad to see you again.

      Could you be so kind as to tell me of your experiences in Portugal in May 2007. I’m particularly interested in the technical details such as the cameras, lenses, lighting used, the format/s the pictures would be stored in within the cameras, the camera settings, how the photos for transmission to the client would be selected, any editing you and others would do, the method/s of transmission, the copyright etc.

      I’m not and have never been a press photographer.

      I would be most grateful for you reply.

      Regards.

      T

      Delete
  48. "I could see that he had a firm agenda to break down what he would call 'myths' supposedly born of Goncalo Amaral's book and discussed constantly on social media"

    Outrageous, we can't have that - shut him down, Ros!

    "Your Ziggy could be several people, all massaging the thread, subtlety encouraging with obfuscating and false trails and at times even directly contravening."

    He's part of a conspiracy - shut him down, Ros!

    "I'm sure the narcissist Ziggy will still post on hear incognito"

    He'd be easy to spot - shut him down, Ros!

    "people come here to read what YOU have to say Ros, not someone under the "name" ziggy"

    LOL, we can't have opinions that differ from Ros's - shut him down, Ros.

    So, just another anti-McCann blog, eh Ros?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. if you can't beat em ban em lol

      Delete
  49. No, not another anti McCann blog, do you see the name Madeleine or McCann in the title? This is Cristobell Unbound, and I muse. Exactly what it says on the tin.

    I shut Ziggy down because he was boring 23:17, driving away not only my readers, but myself. I gave him ample opportunity, and quite a few writing tips! However, he saw me as a pushover and thought he could steal my blog from under me. Not quite as tin foil hat as it may sound, many of the large facebook groups were stolen from their founders.

    This isn't an 'anti' or 'pro' anything 23:17 - please do look up 'muse'. I hate labels. I think we are all far too unique to be clumped together in groups. I've never in my life met anyone (of note)that has agreed with me 100% - and to be honest, I would find it beyond creepy.

    The main love of my love, was minor aristocracy, and a fully fledged tory with UKIP tendencies. Bizarrely, we complimented each other, I brought him giggles and mischief, and he brought me a crash course in history, politics, art, opera, culture and so much more. I felt like a child at his feet, he knew the answer to everything, listening to him, was one of the joys of my life. Sadly, he is no longer with us, and probably one of the reasons why I've never looked for anyone to match him, other than from afar.

    Anyway, I have gone all maudlin, and with no good reason. I got a beaming smile from a very handsome young man today, and from then on, I was walking on sunshine. To be fair, I couldn't say for sure whether he was smiling or laughing, I was trying out some new make up and the eyebrows may have been a bit ott.

    I jest of course, it was the kind of smile that makes your heart light up and your toes tingle, and I advocate much, much more it! I then found the courage to ask a new mum if I could take a peek in her shiny new pram. She and little baby were cooing and chattering to each other, oblivious to everyone around. It was a charming moment, and the baby was just as beautiful as I knew she would be, smiling and squiggling to her equally beautiful mum's playful, reassuring sounds. I had to compliment 'mum', because I knew she would remember it, just as I remember the kind comments of older women when I was a new mum.

    Anyway, no idea how I got there, lol, started the day feeling pretty darn good about the world, amazing how uplifting a smile from a stranger can be, and enjoying every moment, just before Trump takes us into the 3rd (?) and probably, final, apocalypse. I'm currently feeling very unbound and liberated, and thoroughly enjoying the reclaimed diversity of my mailbox. Ziggy was stealing attention away from all the other posters - he was, as SYIACM pointed out, a blog hogger.

    As a former lecturer, I am fully au fait with all the tricks students pull to monopolise teacher's time, it is usually something that can be dealt with quickly and tactfully - most students have a sense of fairness that you can appeal to. The narcissistic Ziggy however, had no self awareness, nor empathy. In hogging the comments section, he was taking time and attention away from other posters with very valid points.

    Ziggy doesn't think of others. His inner 5 year old brat is always at the forefront. His last few posts to me, were basically, sit down and shut up, I'm running the show now. He forgets, I am from the generation who read 'The Female Eunoch' and 'Women Who Love Too Much'. Whilst some, not many, men, still have the power to impress me with their ability to take control, I have an innate dislike of control freaks.

    continues.......

    ReplyDelete
  50. Ziggy could not suppress his inner control freak, even though he was freely given a platform and a large audience. He will come to regret it because the McCanns have all but run out of social media outlets to defend their case.

    Recklessness, is number 3 or is it 4, in the narcissism tick list. Ziggy believed my blog was now dependent on him, and he could get away with anything. It was there fore the taking. See the 'watch my blog wither' prophecies from himself, or the very few cheering him on.

    I can't say Ziggy has ever been a battle I feared - that, I have yet to come across. And the challenge is always out there. For me, there is no pleasure in squishing eejits, it makes me feel like a bully. As my dear old dad used to say to me, 'don't destroy someone just because you can'. Those words are never very far from my thoughts (and they spoil a lot of fun), but they keep me in check. Besides which, I have no respect for players who have to have bring out their big guns at the off.

    Anyway, it is nearly 4 in the morning, and I'm going check out Dean Martin's Little Ole Wine Drinker Me. Probably something monumental by the King, Elvis too, who's delicious sexy voice reminds me of all the reasons I used to adore men! lol

    Way too much information! Lol. I'm running a bit wild with the freedom of having my blog back, and if I'm honest, hoping to drive crazy those who heartily dislike my stream of consciousness writing. One must wonder where it went wrong, with the zero personalities of the forum owners and facebook hosts? Big old Mieow there, lol.

    Anyway, I really shouldn't post in the middle of the night, or when I have drunk wine, hic, but with writing it is very much seize the day. Tomorrow I will hate myself and nothing will be good enough.

    I don't shut down opinions that do not agree with my own 23:17, the opposite in fact, I welcome them. If I were a millionaire, I would offer a huge financial reward to anyone who could convince me the parents were not involved. I preferred the world pre 2007, when I lived in ignorant bliss. Can anyone take us all back to that time?

    ReplyDelete
  51. "The entertainer Michael Barrymore is to get "more than nominal damages" after claiming his wrongful arrest by police destroyed his career."

    Someone that we all know will be very annoyed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'In a statement issued after the hearing, Essex Police said: "Today's judgement must not overshadow the questions which are still unanswered for Mr Lubbock's family and friends.

      "Sixteen years on they still need to know what happened to Stuart on that night, how he was injured, and who is responsible for his death.

      "A small number of people know the answers to those questions and over the years loyalties change and somebody may want to help us at this time."'

      http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-40972546

      Delete
  52. Not the Queen of Sheba18 August 2017 at 11:16

    For once, I don't blame him.

    ReplyDelete
  53. "That evening [Wednesday, 2 May], myself and my partner attended the 'Tapas' restaurant which is part of the hotel complex at the swimming pool. We sat down to eat at 7:30 pm. After about forty five (45) minutes Jerry [Gerry] appeared as did one of his friends. I believe it was Russell. They sat at the next table. We naturally engaged in conversation about everyday things. We spoke about childcare. That night my family were using the creche's facility. We found out that the group of families were occupying ground floor flats near the swimming pool and they were leaving the children by themselves in order for them to go to the restaurant in the evenings. They would then go regularly to check the children who would be asleep.

    I found out that Jerry was a cardiologist in a Hospital. At this time his wife was putting the children to bed. We received a call from the creche informing that our son was awake. My partner left first and I followed shortly afterwards. The amount of time I spent with Jerry was about fifteen (15) to twenty (20) minutes we remained in the restaurant. By the time we left, Jerry was with about seven other people. I picked up my daughter from the creche and then returned to the apartment."

    http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS.htm

    So, Gerry arrived at 8:15 pm while Kate was putting the children to bed?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Anonymous19 August 2017 at 18:22
      "So, Gerry arrived at 8:15 pm while Kate was putting the children to bed?"
      ----------------------------
      On Wed 2nd May.

      Delete
    2. @21:37

      Yes, I know. See square brackets post 18:22.

      Delete
    3. @ 21:56

      Yes - but what significance is there in Wilkins spelling the name incorrectly as "Jerry"? He spells it Jerry in the handwritten statement, so surely just an innocent error?

      Delete
    4. @23:49

      I meant the square brackets around 'Wednesday, 2 May'. I know it was "On Wed 2nd May", in response to your comment 19 August at 21.37.

      "Jerry" instead of "Gerry" is irrelevant, just for clarity.

      Delete
    5. Anon 20 Aug 10.49

      It was supposed to be the Wednesday night that Madeleine and Sean/Amelie were allegedly crying and Madeleine said to Kate "why didn't you come when Me and (whoever) were crying", and Kate later stated that "could it have been when they were being bathed", so if Kate didn't leave the apartment until 8.15 p.m. that night (Gerry had already gone to the Tapas bar) when in fact was there any time for anyone else to bath the kids, unless K & G haven't revealed who else was in the apartment at that time. If Kate was in the apartment until 8.15 p.m. surely she would have known who was bathing the kids and who was crying if the kids had already been put to bed when she left to go the Tapas bar.

      "Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive".

      Delete
  54. I think a lot of us would like to go back pre 2007 Ross lol before McCanns took over all our reading material. I honestly think we won't still be in the same position come 2018 something has gotta give. Glad to se you have kicked ziggysawdust into touch. i could see that anybody who strayed towards anything which suggested McCann guilt was insulted and ridiculed

    ReplyDelete
  55. Anonymous18 August 2017 at 07:03
    Anonymous 17 August 2017 at 20:00

    Good morning

    I’m so glad to see you again.

    Could you be so kind as to tell me of your experiences in Portugal in May 2007. I’m particularly interested in the technical details such as the cameras, lenses, lighting used, the format/s the pictures would be stored in within the cameras, the camera settings, how the photos for transmission to the client would be selected, any editing you and others would do, the method/s of transmission, the copyright etc.

    I’m not and have never been a press photographer.

    I would be most grateful for you reply.

    Regards.

    T
    I was. in Malta. first on another shoot. unrelated , the first sighting was reported there up to that point I thought it was legit , only when I posed some Police officer up. , I wanted him to hold the from page of the Sunday Mirror , he said you need to look closer to home ,

    In PDL I was doing cover shifts working closely with reporters , I have never driven abroad so would only take on the job if I was driven , most of the time I was just hanging round the Police Hq. waiting for press conferences etc , I know most of the UK snappers that were out there at the time ,

    as for gear I think I was using D1s or D2hs. Nikon cameras , JPEG, transmission via FTP on dedicated FTP links initially we used a program called Z TERM transmission speed uk were wait for it 9600 kb a second it took about 3 mins to send a 500 k file , later that doubled to 28000 kb as for lighting its press work so its tight and bright , speed is the key , As you can tell I can't write for a toffee , I learned on the job just shooting gigs for free for a local paper , they made allowances for my dreadful spelling , as for gear. two bodies 70-200 and a 28-70 both 2.8. flash on the short lens for fill in , the arty guys may go wider , and get clever , but i just needed to get the pix over asap ,

    You send a selection of pictures over about 10 to 20 you select the best yourself , then the pix desk prints out the best and sends them over to the subs etc , I never got involved with that side of it .

    sorry. about the rambling I'm at a gig its wet
    one other thing everyone is a press photographer these days , everyone has the means to snap and send in an instant , most events someone will have captured the action , the only recent exception was the MEN arena bombing , very little was shot at the scene , and when you saw the bags etc scattered by the railway platform you could understand why , people ran for there lives , the normal documenting the drama went out of the window

    ReplyDelete