Saturday, 2 December 2017

CAN SOCIAL MEDIA PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE?

I have no doubt that when Operation Grange finally comes to end, there will be a Public Inquiry, and among the questions asked will be, did the McCanns’ media campaigns pervert the course of justice and if so to what extent?  This will be followed by a huge outcry and demands that the Government do something about it - ie. Police the internet.
 
Hopefully, the logical, the reasonable, the sane and the huge Freedom of Speech lobby rally to oppose the irrational demands of the over sensitive.  As my regular readers know, I am vehemently opposed to banning anything, I still have enough belief in the goodness of human nature, to know that nasty, spiteful trolls and anti social individuals are usually defeated by peer pressure.  They are desperate for an audience, why give it to them? 
 
Ban is my least favourite word in the dictionary, a close second to gusset and gobsmacked.  In fact I would ban the word ban.  I was watching Question Time last night and the discussion turned to banning Donald Trump.  Bizarrely, I was with the lady in the sparkly jacket, let him come, giving us just enough notice to let a few eggs and tomatoes go off.  As a Marxist and a Republican, I've never been particularly fond of the Royal family.  Fascinated, but not fond.  However, I think we Brits have got something in our genetic nature whereby at the age 60 we go all gooey over Royal weddings and babies!  I hate myself for this, and will later go burn my dungerees and bovver boots (also a feminist), but I love Meghan Markle!  OK, I love Harry, Wills and Kate too, and I shed a tear when I think how proud their mum would be. 
 
Even the old Queen who I have oft called a miserable old bat over the years, gives me a teeny glow of pride.  If a face can speak a thousand words, I am pretty sure hers will have much to say to the Donald.  Or maybe just two words, one beginning with 'F' followed by 'orf'.  The Windsors have more class, more style, more charm and more diamonds than the Hillbillies in the Whitehouse could ever imagine.  Kate and Meghan are naturally stylish, Melania and Ivanka are styled by a 71 year old man fixated on beauty queens.  They dress as an accessory for his elbow, not themselves. 
 
Mieow, and while I'm at it, it pleases me immensely that Barack and Michelle Obama will be welcome guests of the bride and groom.  Everything Trump and his ghastly family ever dreamed of, riding down The Mall in a gold carriage, goes again to the man he envies the most.  Ok, maybe not literally the gold carriage (sulky smiley), but an elite club from which he will forever be excluded. 
 
But back to the original question.  The internet is still relatively new.  That is, many of us remember manual typewriters, and some, ink and a quill.  I jest, sorry.  We are not yet fully aware of the extent of it's powers.  The Madeleine story captured the zeitgeist, we were all finding new and exciting ways in which to use the wonders of the world wide web.  For the first time, a missing child could be publicised worldwide within hours of disappearing.  Someone had discovered a 'good' use of the internet, a use that was morally sound.  Searching for a missing child united us - globally. 
 
It's a bit like Winston Churchill's 'Never have so many owed so much to so few.....'.  He had used it several times before, but it never had the resonance it had when he applied it to the brave pilots who defended the British coastline.  It's like a 'perfect storm', a culmination, when all elements come together at the same time.  The birth of the internet, Spin as an acknowledged profession, a government seeking a way in which to access the public's private internet activity, etc, etc. 
 
Unfortunately for the McCann family and all their advisors, they could no more see into the future than the rest of us.  The monster that filled their coffers and elevated them to icon status, then went on to devour them.   They foolishly believed they could keep the monster on a leash.  There is an almost childlike naivety in Gerry and Kate, an old fashioned belief in the values of England in the 1960s'.  They have spent all their money on a quest to get a Court to rule them innocent, as if a Court Order would be treated with any respect on a lawless internet.  (And let me be clear here, I love the lawlessness!).  Those days when we all tipped our hats to Judges, policemen and doctors are a thing of the past.  We are no longer told what to think, we can think for ourselves.
 
The answer to the title question is of course yes.  But there is no legislative answer.  As a curious onlooker of the McCanns' campaigns, I would never make any demands for them to be banned.  That's one of the best things about Freedom of Speech, if someone says horrid things about you, you are free to challenge them and put forward your own argument.  It's a level playing field.  The best answer wins. 
 
I'm afraid I have little, OK, no sympathy for those who claim the internet destroys lives.  Of course, I have spent my entire life being the outsider, the non team player, so I'm used to people talking about me and whispering in corners.  If they're not, I feel the need to up the ante.  Can we focus on ME please, lol. 
 
I have always found high profile libel actions hilarious, they always end up exposing things the claimants don't want exposed, and they never end well.  Those who would never have given a second thought to whether you were guilty or not, now believe you are.
 
Claiming you have been affronted, is all about ego.  The way in which you perceive yourself without first reading the words of Rabbie Burns.  Nobody outside of your head gives two hoots that you were called a bitch online, in the Sun, or wherever.  Most of us think about ourselves 99% of the time, but libel claimants go the full 100%.  Because their obsession is themselves, they are very easy to manipulate with smarmy lawyers queuing up on the doorstep.  Pistols at dawn wasn't nearly so lucrative. 
 
Those perpetuating the idea that internet trolls are one of the greatest threats to society, are in fact inviting the public to demand the government take control of the greatest source of information the world has ever seen.  They are consciously or subconsciously, telling us we need 1984 authoritarian protection.  In a nutshell, they want us to fear our laptops.
 
In this big bad world, internet trolls are the least of our fears.  OK, they say nasty things, they even make threats, and write movie scripts for Saw, but the reality is, said creep is probably some bitter, socially inept loner, hiding in his/her room 500 miles away.  Ergo. Not likely to climb in your bedroom window, should you decide not to sleep in a panic room.  They have NO contact with their victims, that's the whole point. They can persecute people from afar without fear of being caught.The  chances of them wallpapering their front rooms with your picture and lurking outside your front door are miniscule, especially if they are stalking you from Kurdistan for example. 
 
Governments have every good reason to keep the population living in fear, it's a bit like the old protection racket.  They create the fear and then offer to protect us from it.  Media campaigns, whatever we think of them, should not be banned.  And as loathsome as some of the Madeleine forums are, even they should have their freedoms protected. We all have the free will to read and write whatever we want.  Even the dull and the ignorant. 
 
I am a great believer in the Law of Attraction.  If you put out negative energy, that's what you get back.  Forums like CMoMM drove all the reasonable and rational people away with their appalling manners and hostile attitude.  I doubt there are more than half a dozen remaining.  No ban was necessary, they destroyed themselves. 
 
The Madeleine campaign was probably the first active media campaign run by the family of a missing child, but it hasn't been done to the same extent since.  Not least because the printing of t-shirts and the holding of candlelight vigils now sets off alarm bells.  The Campaign helped I think by creating the idea that the public overwhelmingly supported the parents of Missing Madeleine, even if they didn't.  Those media monitors in Whitehall etc, then see the 'stats', million likes on facebook, and put the government's support behind the popular cause.  That's why it has always been integral to Gerry and Kate to convince interviewers that the public are fully behind them.  'Opinion is roughly 50/50 Kate', said the Irish host, 'no, no, she replied, it's only a tiny handful, I don't know anyone like that, do you?'. 
 
Much of this case, as newcomers will have discovered, is full of myths, smoke and mirrors.  Gerry and Kate worked hard to present themselves as the faces of a hidden, giant army of helpers and supporters.  In the early days I seriously imagined a packed sweatshop with trolls working their fingers to the bone fending off McCann critics.  I now think it is just a very prolific handful.
 
The McCanns made a huge success out of what they did.  I know success doesn't seem like the right word, but they achieved everything they set out to do.  Madeleine became the most famous missing child in the world, and they presented as two erudite professionals to whom something terrible had happened. 
 
The internet can and will, always sway public opinion, just as newspapers have in the past, but at this point in history, we now have hundreds of news sources to choose from.  The Madeleine story wasn't confined by borders.  The British media were promoting the abduction story, but the Portuguese were reporting something else. And anyone taking 10  seconds to google, quickly stumbled on the news not being reported in the UK.  Not only could the McCanns not control the news coming out of Portugal, nor could the mainstream media. 

214 comments:

  1. My opinion has changed over the years, my first thought was the poor parents, then how could Kate wash cuddle cat and how could they go jogging etc. Then they came home and the media did what it set out to do and change public opinion and I think it worked for thousands of people like me.

    Like you said the media manipulated public opinion for years and I'm guessing there are lots of people like me who only started looking at the case once the not cleared verdict was announced. In answer to your question can social media pervert the course of justice I think perhaps social media has delayed the path it was meant to take.
    S

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'Not cleared' was never an officially recognised statement and still isn't. 'Not suspects' is. You, S, have gone along with a really big misinformed crowd online who believe what they want to believe, regardless of any real logic or evidence. Social media can manipulate the gullible but then who can't.Police forces don't wait for the verdict of thousands of unqualified online policemen and women before deciding if they should arrest someone in a serious crime. This is the real world out here.

      Delete
    2. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/09/madeleine-mccanns-parents-have-not-ruled-innocent-judge-says/

      "The archiving of the case was determined by the fact that public prosecutors hadn't managed to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants.

      "There is therefore a significant, and not merely a semantic difference, between the legally admissible foundations of the archive ruling. It doesn't therefore seem acceptable that the ruling, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be equated to proof of innocence."

      Delete
    3. 'Not cleared', 'Not suspects' the media screamed at the public with their headlines to look at the case so people like me who hadn't been paying attention for years suddenly looked at this case again. I do not comment on this case on Facebook or twitter but I have formed a opinion. I have tried to look at this case from all points of view and try to understand.

      Perhaps we will find out more once OG concludes.
      S



      Delete
    4. '' It doesn't therefore seem acceptable that the ruling, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be equated to proof of innocence."

      That's an opinion, not an official statement; 'it doesn't therefore seem'

      Delete
    5. McCann V Amaral: Supreme Court verdict 31 Jan 2017

      http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Supreme_Court_31_01_2017.htm

      Delete
    6. anon 21.09

      You know that's about the libel case don't you ? The right to publish a book.Nothing to do with the investigation.

      VT

      Delete
    7. Anonymous2 December 2017 at 17:05

      @ S

      The verdict about the book thing aside, in what way has the media manipulated us to change our opinion ? When Madeleine went missing everyone felt angry and sad at the same time.How did the media go about changing that and how come the public still feel angry and sad when they think about the case ?How have the media changed the public's opinion of the parents and the sympathy for them ? I haven't seen any of that myself. The newspapers and TV news are still doing the same thing. The only media to try to influence and change opinions since 2007 has been social media.

      Delete
    8. I'll try to answer all your questions in one this is all from my own point of view. Once K+G returned home they ran a good PR campaign, they were invited onto several TV sofa's sometimes accompanied by professionals who did not question K+G so why should the general public question the story, lots of people would have bought into this myself included. I have noticed a shift in public opinion since those initial headlines about the lost court case it was these headlines that made me examine sources other than the MSM.

      You are right that social media has been very instrumental in publishing the facts that the MSM do not publish and it was Social media that was able to assist Amaral and if it wasn't for social media and Amaral winning then I would probably be still unaware of other sources relating to this case.
      S

      Delete
  2. ''Searching for a missing child united us - globally.''

    Get real for God's sake.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "The British media were promoting the abduction story"

    really....

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/mar/20/pressandpublishing.dailyexpress

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "While gleefully repeating it all the next day, the British media has been scathing about almost every aspect of the Portuguese system, from its supposedly bungling police to the vagaries of its criminal code. Some of the criticism, such as the failure to seal the crime scene promptly, seems justified. But other complaints, including the police's failure to keep Madeleine's parents and the press sufficiently informed, appear to arise from a misunderstanding of the differences between Britain's common-law system and Portugal's quite distinct civil-law tradition."

      http://www.economist.com/node/9804214

      Delete
  4. ''I have no doubt that when Operation Grange finally comes to end, there will be a Public Inquiry''

    Why do you have no doubt though ? If there was a public inquiry into every unsolved crime there would be a gridlock going back 100 years. Nobody was arrested , nobody was charged, no clues were left. It's difficult to solve crimes when that's the case.

    '' among the questions asked will be, did the McCanns’ media campaigns pervert the course of justice and if so to what extent? ''

    Or if it's determined that it didn't the question is snuffed out.How can the course of justice be perverted ? The media can manipulate opinion by influencing what and how people think, but they can't manipulate facts or detectives.Even if it manipulates how people think, it's only manipulating opinions, nothing more.It can't persuade an investigation to ignore anything or to concentrate on anything.It can only inform about the general consensus. It was seen in full effect prior to Lindy Chamberlain( 1982) being jailed. The public turned up for a hanging and the jury had read the papers.It took a long time for her to finally be released for being wrongly found guilty instead of a dingo.

    '' Ban is my least favourite word in the dictionary, a close second to gusset and gobsmacked.''

    Gusset is a fine word.

    '' That's one of the best things about Freedom of Speech, if someone says horrid things about you, you are free to challenge them and put forward your own argument. It's a level playing field. The best answer wins. ''

    So, if KM or GM were to say ''Actually, Mr Amaral, you're wrong., and unless you can actually prove that we, as you accuse, lied to you and buried our child, you should retract the allegations'' ?

    ''Of course, I have spent my entire life being the outsider, the non team player''

    Your constant anti-Trump jibes and continuing hunting of the McCanns' heads hardly makes you a lone voice in the wilderness.

    ''I have always found high profile libel actions hilarious, they always end up exposing things the claimants don't want exposed..Claiming you have been affronted, is all about ego.''

    Christopher Jeffries 2010 UK

    ''In this big bad world, internet trolls are the least of our fears. OK, they say nasty things, they even make threats''

    Nobody in the real world, and sane, fears them anyway. What were you saying on your very recent blog about muratfan ?

    ''I am a great believer in the Law of Attraction. ''

    So, if you throw abusive comments out you get them back-it's a 'karmic law' . Fair enough. If you believe it ' greatly' do you accept it or try to overrule it when it bites you on your..

    ''The Madeleine story wasn't confined by borders. The British media were promoting the abduction story,''

    The British media asked the police what had happened.

    ''Not only could the McCanns not control the news coming out of Portugal, nor could the mainstream media. ''

    What effect did it have on the investigation ?

    VT

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. VT 20:41
      ("The British media asked the police what had happened.")

      Spokespeople involved in McCann case:

      http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/SPOKESPERSONS.htm

      Delete
    2. Hi VT,that is the problem with having 24 hr News Headlines,you either fill the time slots to procure more advertising slots to produce funds for the companies providing the service,aka,Sky News,Murdoch?
      The Police are put in an unenviable position with a need to provide "News on the event"then note what they always return with,we'er not going to "Provide a running commentary"
      By all means allow the Police to "Investigate properly"then if and when they bollox the case up,they aught to feel the pain from the public?
      But on that mute point,you then look at how much they covered up in past cases,child abuse in and around London,Islington,Lambeth,Richmond,Elm Guest House,they only have their past colleagues to blame for today's restraints imposed on their past incompetence,Operation Tiberious?
      The Police have allowed the Home Office to lift the lid on Internet activity,just like George Orwell 1984 predicted,"Big Brother"you only need to watch some you tube videos,to see how certain Police constables behave,Section 5 Public order,PACE,stop and search to the prolific misuse of Road Traffic regulations,to castigate"Innocent people",it is an offence to withhold your name,date of Birth,when asked to do so by a Police Officer?
      These same person's will be monitoring the Internet activity of the General public,just expect some more"Hobnailed boots"giving the public an early morning call,wakey,wakey,we'er here?

      Delete
    3. @VT 2 December 2017 at 20:41

      You write VT, referring to British traditional media; ”It can't persuade an investigation to ignore anything or to concentrate on anything”, but you know as well as me, it’s capable of that, it can even open an investigation.

      Rebekah Brooks exerted pressure on Theresa May and on the British government as well, demanding a British investigation of the Madeleine case. Brooks did not ask May to investigate the McCanns, but to concentrate on "helping" them (it goes without saying), and why would anyone believe that the latter then asked the Met/S.Y to take a closer look at the McCanns.

      Delete
    4. Bjorn

      Brooks put pressure on Cameron's Government soon after it took over. There was a danger of the case fizzling out and being forgotten. Brooks had an agenda ( what a shock). She would make money from serialising KMs book in Murdoch's rags.So, exerting pressure, which is a polite way of legitimately blackmailing the PM, would bring more headlines, more sales of papers and more sales of books. Brooks is very emotional when it comes to making money. This was all done in private.It wasn't a media campaign as such.So there was no influencing the public or police through the avenue of MSM. Gerry McCann had told Brooks he wanted a review of the case. That sounds to me like he was (off the record) bargaining with Brooks ; you get the rights to the book if we get the review.Would someone so guilty demand the spotlight on the case again or hope for it to fizzle out like a damp firework ?

      ''Brooks did not ask May to investigate the McCanns, but to concentrate on "helping" them (it goes without saying), and why would anyone believe that the latter then asked the Met/S.Y to take a closer look at the McCanns.''

      May couldn't investigate anyone, she wasn't a member of the Met. She could only ask or order them to review things. The 'helping' which you stress, is due to the UK holding to the 'innocent until proven guilty' civil right. It doesn't mean help them by making sure there's no evidence that could convict them. Why would Brooks or May do that anyway ?

      VT

      Delete
    5. Nowhere did I say every criminal case should be followed by a public inquiry, taking the argument to the ridiculous makes you look ridiculous. The Madeleine case is unique and a case could be made that the British government perverted the course of justice.

      Prove it, is a not a good argument. Actually, it's not even an argument it's a cop out. Goncalo has presented his case to the public, truthfully and eloquently, the McCanns have not. In the court of public opinion, the better argument wins and the McCanns haven't got one.

      As for being on the side of popular opinion - lol, I'm in the happy position where popular opinion has caught up with me! Everything I have been espousing for years, that made me an outsider is now becoming popular, I call that a result :)

      I don't throw out abusive comments VT, not my style. I speak to people online as I would speak to them face to face, I don't have a separate online persona. I wouldn't dream of being abusive to anyone online just as I wouldn't dream of being abusive to anyone in the real world, most people find me quite charming. I have never had any secret desires to create an anonymous antisocial alter ego to 'say what I really think' online. I've never had a problem saying what I really think, and usually quite eloquently I might add. I don't need to hide, whisper in corners, or pretend to be somebody else.

      I find it quite bizarre that people post anonymously in order to dispense with common courtesy and good manners, as if being civil were a despised chore.

      I feel immensely privileged that people take the time to read and comment, they get the same welcome here as they would to my home. That's why they return again and again. Even you.

      You just can't get it into your head VT, that not believing a bleddy great big lie isn't abusive. Challenging injustice is not abusive, correcting false information is not abusive, telling the truth is not abusive.

      Your perpetuating the myth that I am a hater and abusive is a lie. One designed to drive people away from my blog and my books. You are trying to destroy my character and my credibility.

      Your attempts are of course laughable, none of your labels stick because I am here to defend myself. I'm a bit like Goncalo Amaral, I won't take your and the McCanns' character assassination lying down. You see I too am a finisher.

      Delete
    6. Oh, the McCanns' Sun front page appeal to David Cameron, marked the beginning of the end.

      Gerry and Kate were foolish to underestimate Rebekah Brooks, she is a major player for good reason. At the time they were negotiating with the Sun, RB was hobnobbing with Rupert Murdoch and horse riding with David Cameron. I suspect Ms. Brooks lured Gerry and Kate into the mother of all stings.

      1. She was offering DC a diplomatic solution to any fall out from the 2007 debacle. A way in which to put right a wrong.

      2. Sales of the Sun, Times etc, would go through the roof for years to come, with G&K in her pocket.

      Gerry and Kate were incredibly naïve to believe the Sun and RB would keep the British public on their side, that's not how the news industry works. They found themselves in the unfortunate position of 'Be careful what you wish for.... you just might get it'.

      The Review the McCanns wanted, was one based on the report prepared by Jim Gamble of CEOP for Labour Home Secretary Alan Johnson, not Conservative Home Secretary Theresa May. By the Autumn of 2010, Jim Gamble and Theresa May had had a very public falling out, he was no longer head of CEOP. It’s unlikely his report was still relevant.

      Delete
    7. What I struggle to understand was Kate and Gerry’s need to return to the public eye in Autumn 2010. The case was shelved, they were no longer arguidos and they still had public sympathy. They claimed the Madeleine Fund was down to it’s last £500k and they were desperate to continue the search and no-one was helping them. They had started a Petition online but what they really wanted was donations. £10 for 100 prayer cards, £25 to man phone an hour, £50 for 100 posters (which you get to pay for again when you order one), etc. It was excruciating to watch and read, and it must have taken a hell of a lot of front to go out there and do that.

      But again, why? Surely, they were not demeaning themselves in order to raise money to carry on suing Goncalo Amaral? That takes madness and folie a deux off the scale. However, it’s hard not to see it that way, because they had already frittered away millions on dodgy detectives and PR that had got them nowhere. Their last £500k was only expected to last them a few months, then the search would come to a stop. My question would be HTF do you spend £500k on searching? How many prayer were sending out? How much were they paying Dave Edgar? For Kerry Needham 500k would have been a fortune, not an end to the search for her son.

      The very wise Confucius said when you set out on a journey of revenge, dig two graves. Never have those words been more prophetic. Add greed and vanity to the mix and there you have your downfall. When you start to see 500k as a piddling amount, and claim millions for your hurt feelings, you have totally lost the plot.

      Delete
    8. LOL, we are fighting a losing battle where our privacy is concerned 22:03, but we don't have to hand it to them on a plate. The technology to spy on us cyberly (is that a word?) already exists, they just want an official stamp, laws that make certain, topics, subjects, causes, illegal and powers of arrest.

      Delete
    9. ''Nowhere did I say every criminal case should be followed by a public inquiry, taking the argument to the ridiculous makes you look ridiculous''

      And you constantly misquoting me looks even more so. Every thread i post on you tell me I'm talking nonsense or I'm ridiculous yet never demonstrate how without inventing a quote and pretending it's from me. Why do you feel you have to do that.I see that you avoided yet another simple question. I asked why you have no doubt.

      ''Prove it, is a not a good argument.''

      It's a valid challenge. Shall we scrap all defamation law and slander in order to prevent criticism of Amaral, who has the same goal in sight as you ? I don't think so.

      ''In the court of public opinion, the better argument wins and the McCanns haven't got one.''

      In a court of Law, Amaral hasn't. He won the right to publish a book.

      ''As for being on the side of popular opinion - lol, I'm in the happy position where popular opinion has caught up with me! Everything I have been espousing for years, that made me an outsider is now becoming popular, I call that a result :)''

      I call it a choir that ended up on the same platform.

      ''I don't throw out abusive comments VT, not my style''

      Well somebody's been running your blog and last 6 threads in your name being abusive.

      ''You just can't get it into your head VT, that not believing a bleddy great big lie isn't abusive. Challenging injustice is not abusive, correcting false information is not abusive, telling the truth is not abusive.''

      I agree. Using foul language and insulting people is though.As for lies, the best way to destroy lies is by proving that they're lies and the best way to prove a truth is to prove that they're truths.Making accusations and allegations that you can't prove isn't exposing anything.

      ''Your perpetuating the myth that I am a hater and abusive is a lie. One designed to drive people away from my blog and my books. You are trying to destroy my character and my credibility. ''

      See what i mean about making accusations.Do you seriously believe nobody but me sees your anger and vitriol ? it's on every page. You can't hold it back.I don't think it would drive people away from your blog at all as so many have the same habit.I believe it prevents a lot of people contributing to it though.If I'm driving people away, how do you explain the high number of visitors ? The number of contributors is low. The occasional flurry of excitable activity occurs when something happens on the other forum and everyone wants to engage in tit for tat nonsense.

      ''Your attempts are of course laughable, none of your labels stick because I am here to defend myself. I'm a bit like Goncalo Amaral, I won't take your and the McCanns' character assassination lying down''

      This is a blog, not a Bond movie.You think what i say is 'laughable'. You would though. It's part of that good character and charm you assure us you have before showing the complete opposite.You assassinate your own character brick by brick by what you say and how you talk to people who see things differently.Stop telling us about how clever and charming you are, and show us.Once we see it, you won't have to sell it any more.

      VT

      Delete
    10. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton3 December 2017 at 09:09

      '' They claimed the Madeleine Fund was down to it’s last £500k and they were desperate to continue the search and no-one was helping them. They had started a Petition online but what they really wanted was donations. £10 for 100 prayer cards, £25 to man phone an hour, £50 for 100 posters (which you get to pay for again when you order one), etc''

      ''But again, why? Surely, they were not demeaning themselves in order to raise money to carry on suing Goncalo Amaral? That takes madness and folie a deux off the scale''

      The whole of that post sheds an unnerving amount of light into how you mind spins around.Has any of it got anything to do with what happened to Madeleine ? You keep forgetting to mention her once you start to dig dig dig into the McCanns . It's clear , very clear, that justice, for you ,and for that child, takes a distant back seat to vengeance on the parents, who you have charged , tried and found guilty in the court of Ros. Your true colours.

      Delete
  5. Yep Anonymous 22:03..i hear that.

    Many out here were well aware of the filth years ago. The Aldous Huxley 1958 youtube is recommended viewing for all. Aaron Russo too with his boiling frog stuff .

    The whole question of leverage has stood for years. It's only recently that we're learning of it's power. Tim Fortescue (1972) spilled the beans on Heath ( youtube). Operation Conifer is in the background right now. we've learned of Police officers being compromised by superiors or MPs or both when child abuse is concerned. It's amazing how such a security conscious succession of Governments can 'lose' so many files.It's like the activity is a fashion among them. Savile was friends of many a police force and even closer to Thatcher and Laud. Savile, we now know, was getting away with all kinds of evil for decades . Coincidence ? Of course not.The exposure / outing of Cyril Smith and Clement Freud also tells us that lips are sealed until they're dead and buried. Like Savile, it would seem that they live by the 'take me down, i'll take us all down' philosophy.Men of great honour one and all...

    No truth of much worth appears in the mainstream. Imitations might, sometimes, but it has to be filtered several times before it's fed to us. They may well have the power, but they know their history. They fear the lynch mob.

    Police have more power and protection now than ever before. They're armed more heavily than Nazi storm troopers and have a similar mentality. They just lack the finesse and schooling.I'm not a fan ; never have been.

    The press remains an arm of the government.All media does.Propaganda, at first, literally meant 'news'. Now it's associated only as spin. The people at the very top share a table. Maxwell used to sit at it once upon a time. Murdoch is at it's head. He has to be one of the most powerful ( ergo dangerous) men of our time.His grasps exceeds the reach of the UK and US.

    Should we trust those who rule over us ? No. The MSM ? No . The Police ? No. Trust has to be earned. In the context of the whole fiasco we call the McCann case, all 3 played a blinder. And it was our eyes that were blinded. It's all been guesses in the dark and suspicion ever since. I have a handful of names I blame and point the finger of suspicion at. That's why I'm sure this case will remain where it's been for ten years. Everyone's digging to see where a child's buried or being hidden. What about the truth and the evidence and those with sealed lips ? Why isn't anyone hunting for those .

    VT

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi VT,thanks for the reply,yes we are seeing the establishment through it's Police force expand their Policing procedures and they are often proved unwarranted? Intrusions into individuals"Privacy"eg,you've got a couple of"Thousand pounds"upon your person,stop and search, now that's a lot of money for an Un-employed person to be carrying around in today's dangerous society,Sir?
      Care to explain how you came about this money or we will confiscate it until you can prove otherwise?
      Then while your in custody(Still innocent of any wrongness)they are giving your Abode the once over"Trojan Horse Policing method once we'er in we'll find something?
      A former Police Officer was in charge of the Personnel Section,which over saw promotion of Police Officers to guard the King/Queen of England, some of these Officer's became prolific in Drug smuggling,investment in Properties and the FED had invested thousands of pounds into these schemes,only to see their fellow Officers fleecing them of their savings within these fictitious frauds,the Head of Personnel then became Head of the Metropolitan Police Service,never faced any Misconduct proceedings? He even took place in a Balloon event to raise funds for the Madeleine McCann 2007-08 on Merseyside,then had oversight on Operation Grange?
      Long gone are the Days of the"Dixon of Dock Green"Policing,for most people in society,if the Police entered your property they had more powers than "Social Services" perhaps not in place in those days,they had the power to take away your children,now bare that in mind with what has happened in Yorkshire,Rochdale,Rotherham,grooming 1400 girls?
      Then in the 1960's in and around London,Lord Boothby,Ronnie,Reggie,children disappearing,such loveable people,looking after their own,fleecing local business out of money,no doubt the costs where passed onto the customer?
      That den of inequity"House of Parliament/ Lords has hidden crimes against"Humanity" for decades from the Plebs in society,if they ever find out it will be"burnt to the Ground" for the injustices bourne by the people they had effected,No doubt the mouth pieces will spout the"Fameous"I was only doing my duty,but to whome,the electorate not?

      Delete
  6. Be more specific VT. Who are those with sealed lips? Who should be hunted? Are you saying two governments are protecting sexual predators on the Algarve? Deliberately leaving the local population and holidaymakers at risk?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No names. No need.I don't think either Government are protecting sexual predators and leaving the population vulnerable in the Algarve or the UK. I was referring to the case in point ( McCanns).The picture looks far bigger than the family and tapas group and all the amateur novelist scenarios that have found their way to the internet or a couple of money-spinning books.

      VT

      Delete
  7. Ros pronounces:

    "I have no doubt that when Operation Grange finally comes to end, there will be a Public Inquiry, and among the questions asked will be, did the McCanns’ media campaigns pervert the course of justice and if so to what extent?"

    Just because various haters have shouted, stamped their feet and written demanding letters to all and sundry does not mean there will be a public inquiry.

    Much as you love love to keep commenting about the Mccanns for the rest of your life, it will come to an end sometime - the most likely end is that it will become a cold case to be reviewed in the future - it won't become a Hillsborough or a Leveson.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. unknown 16.21.But isn't that the point,it won't become an "Hillsborough"it took over 96 Families over twenty eight years of campaigning to overturn an"Injustice"affecting the tragic loss of family members at a Football Semi Final match?
      The"Real Reason for the cover Up"?
      Could it be due to the fact of No Certificate of safety for the Ground being in place when the Event took Place,leaving the"Football Association" in a Legal Quagmire,eg, If the ground had,problems from past events held within the complex,that they knew about but failed to fix any problems=Negligence,Neglect of duty,Misconduct In Public Office, No Legal cover for Insurance claims,Government?
      What people are not having explained to them is the"Necessity"of all the top Officials becoming involved in an alleged Abduction claim by the parents,Tapas 7/9 in Madeleine McCann's disappearance?
      Successive Prime Ministers, Home Secretaries,then the need for Murdoch's cohorts to offer support to Kate,Gerry,what secrets do these two doctors know about"Establishment figures" having influence to this degree to perform an"Investigation"alongside a civil defamation claim?
      Is it the"money,Civil claim"that is an overriding influence,that drove to have close cohorts from a former CEOP boss to influence, Alan Johnson,Jacqui Smith,Gordon Brown,then David Cameron,Theresa May,Amber Rudd,Operation Grange?
      Do they think that the McCann's legal Team can overturn the Supreme Court decision by Portugal at the ECHR,Civil case can Over rule a Criminal Process,(tail wagging the dog)?
      Operation Grange have no Finger nails left to scrape the bottom of any more avenues to proceed down now,bungling burglars,Woman In Purple,and all the other dead Paedophiles they have encompassed into MSM stories over the past ten Years,Clarence Mitchell(an Angel gets his wings,its a Wonderful life)he lies with as many teeth that he has in his Head,Mr Carlos Anjous,seen right through you Clarence?
      The McCann's,Tapas 7/9 have never said there has been a cover Up,but vehemently claimed that the Portugal PJ were framing them,then they had their friends from Leicestershire firmly entrenched,running rings around the Portugal investigation,helped by MI5,National security directives,to defuse FOI requests,geddit?

      Delete
    2. It's not going to be filed away as a cold case. £12m+, 6 years of Scotland Yard's time and resources, and at this time two live investigations.

      The Portuguese were adamant that they would not re-open their file unless there was new information. They must have had that new information because it was re-opened.

      Portugal have already demonstrated by shelving the case first time round, that they wouldn't pursue the case if they didn't think they could get a result.

      Around £12million of public money has been spent on the search for one child - that's why there is likely to be a public inquiry. The amount of money and the amount of time spent on this investigation suggests this is far, far more, than a missing child case. That is, there are likely to be a lot of defendants on a lot of very serious charges.

      In a nutshell. Two police forces don't work on one crime for 6 years unless they are investigating something big. It won't be haters asking questions, it will be all those who were taken in. In this small corner of the internet where the McCann case is discussed daily, we know how much we have been lied to. For millions it will be a real shock.

      Newspaper sales are at an all time low, not just because most people read their news online these days, but because of facts revealed in newspaper trials and the Leveson Inquiry, they are no longer trusted.

      The case of little Madeleine McCann, I have no doubt will speed up their demise. It will be cited for decades to come in every variety of 'ology, as a prime example of 'Fake News'. The portrayal of the Lead Detective as the villain, and the parents as the victims, demonstrated that the public, given a good sales pitch, could be convinced 2+2=5.

      The world went a little bit mad in the summer of 2007, as it did when Princess Diana died. We were all swept up in a global search and rescue mission, with the innocent face of Madeleine reaching out to us from every newspaper front page, and every human interest story. It was like a bizarro version of The Osbornes, or The Windsors, with Gerry giving us small personal details, like what they had for breakfast and how they were turning down Hollywood film offers - unless it was done in the best possible taste, obviously.

      Delete
    3. 2.

      Lots of lots of questions will be asked when this case comes to an end - and it will. The idea that the two police forces will pack up and go home when the money runs out, is absurd. In the case of the UK, the Home (or is it Foreign) Office have never turned them down. All the extensions in my opinion, show how determined they are. You don't keep extending an investigation in order to file it away as a cold case.

      Trust me, commenting on the missing Madeleine case was never a life plan! It has done me far more harm than good and I would have preferred to walk away years ago. I didn’t because my name and reputation had already been blackened online, the web was full of vile articles and websites about me. I had no option but to defend myself. The McCann camp very much wanted me to go away, they wanted to shame and disgrace me, steer people away from my books by writing bad reviews, and ignore me online.

      I despise bullies. Always have, but usually, I am on the side of the oppressed and passionate about free speech. I saw the vicious McCann trolls drive hundreds, of nice, decent people away from the chatrooms and forums. Many joined to chat about the mystery of Madeleine, but many, like myself, just wanted someone to talk to. To this day, I have to pinch myself at the wonders of the internet. I can’t get over the fact that even at 3.00am you can find someone to talk to and if you are lucky you will find someone who likes to talk abut the same things as you do.

      It broke my heart to see the way that newcomers to the forums and chat rooms were treated, some cancer suffers and some recently bereaved. The callousness was truly chilling, it’s hardly any wonder they were paranoid about hiding their identities. But there were some who survived the grilling, and took the pee as I did. It should have been a nice place to drop in and out, a sort of bar where everybody knows your name, but instead it became the sort of bar where the locals beat you up. Much like most of the forums now.

      I continue to comment on the Madeleine case because this is the only means I have in which to defend myself, and restore my reputation. Readers here can see for themselves that I am not abusive, nor are my motives sinister. Goncalo Amaral defended himself with his book, his side of the story. I defend myself with my blog. I also use my blog to challenge the injustice and the false reporting of this case. When I am on a quest for the truth, nothing irritates me more than being led off in the wrong direction. I cannot stop when I am unravelling a mystery, or until every piece of the puzzle fits perfectly. And I know I am far from alone with this, shall we call it an OCD - the need to discover that keeps mankind evolving.

      Gerry and Kate created the audience, and they kept it by appearing regularly on TV and with press releases. Of course people are interested, but it is they who create the interest, ergo the commenting will continue.

      Delete
    4. Hi Ros,I disagree with you on the Operation Grange Investigation,it has only been interested in the remit=Abduction?
      Over One billion pounds has been spent by the tax payer on collapsed court trails for the Unsolved murder of Daniel Morgan,10th March 1987?
      then look at whose Organisation has had its dirty tentacles conspiring with its corrupt power deranged editors,Brooks,Coulson,Cameron,Phone Hacking,Millions of pounds spent on Leveson,for what,sweet F/all?
      Thirty years of corrupt Politicians,failing to seek justice for Murders committed on the streets of London,so quite how they can state anything different on a missing 3 Year Old child,Re-mit abduction,nothing else can be investigated,Scotland Yard would have to seek further funding for a different thesis?

      Delete
    5. I think the idea that the remit is abduction only, is beyond silly 22:59. Investigations lead where they lead. Do you honestly believe that the officers of two separate police forces in two separate countries would conspire to protect these parents? Because that is what they would be doing if they stuck rigidly to the abduction story. TWO countries are involved 22:59, bear that in mind.

      With Hillsborough the families were crying out for an investigation. With the McCanns, they got one as soon as they asked. They also got the funding and the police manpower. Someone is dead set on solving this one. The family are not pressing Operation to go on, but someone is.

      Last, but not least, 22:59, and apologies for being brusque, but what do YOU think OG have been investigating this past 6 years?

      Delete
    6. Hi Ros,the best person to ask on Operation Grange,would be A/C Mark Rowley,you know the,he who has not bothered to interview under caution,Kate,Gerry or the tapas 7/9,DCI Redwood,not suspects of involvement in Madeleine McCann's disappearance?
      But these persons who recollected seeing Madeleine McCann alive and well 3 May 2007,apartment 5a Ocean Club on what they had supplied as factual statements to Leicestershire Police Force April 2008?
      Yet we have the latest farce,Woman In Purple,Mrs Luisa Todorav,to be ruled out as being involved,being seen outside of the apartment at 20.30pm?
      Remember DCI Redwood,revelation moment,moving time frame 21.05-22.00 Smithman,Creche Dad walking wrong way from the creche?
      DCI Andy Redwood,the"Bungling burglars"wanting DNA from the"Four Portugal suspects" and his boss DCI Hamish Campbell( planting forensic evidence,Barry George,Jill Dando,unsolved Murder)?
      I note you ommitted the Daniel Morgan costs in comparison to Madeleine McCann case,1 billion-12 million,its only the Tax payer being fleeced,Justice denied is Not Justice,nothing personal,just stating facts?

      Delete
    7. ''Someone is dead set on solving this one. The family are not pressing Operation to go on, but someone is. ''

      That someone is you and the thousands of clones of you online. It's almost 11 years now and there's nothing to suggests anyone is dead set on solving anything.

      Delete
    8. ''The Portuguese were adamant that they would not re-open their file unless there was new information. They must have had that new information because it was re-opened.''

      Adamant about what exactly ? It's a few weeks from 2018 now. What year did Portugal reopen their files because they were adamant ?

      Delete
    9. @Ros

      Never in the history of the internet has so much been written by so few to say so little.

      Delete
  8. @ Ros - define "SOCIAL MEDIA" as in the title of this blog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Facebook, twitter, websites, chain emails, forums, chatrooms. The list is extensive Unknown, and I'm not up to date on the latest ones like Instagram and Snapchat etc. All those places where everyone can read and participate.

      Delete
    2. @ Ros 23:13

      So when you say "did the McCanns’ media campaigns pervert the course of justice" you did not mean their successful media campaign in the MSM?

      You just mean the chatter on places where people "can read and participate" - in other words - where they have no control over?

      Delete
  9. @ Unknown3 December 2017 at 16:21
    Hi

    May I remind you about the Madeleine case being the most discussed crime case of the century, so far, in which there is either an unknown stranger on the loose, who has committed an awful crime against an innocent little child, or it’s her parents who’ve committed an equally serious crime.So, not likely to become a cold case, as far as I'm concerned.

    You’re right insofar that traditional media may possibly lose the interest in the case if there will be no interesting news to analyse and to pass on to their readers or listeners and any publisher can at any time decide to try to let the case fall into oblivion, by ignoring it.

    Fortunately, social media is not ruled by any overall decision makers, as are the papers, TV- and radio channels, so there the Madeleine case will continually be discussed until someone can draw a reasonable conclusion from all that has been investigated and discussed through the years.

    Nothing will ever stop that. Social media is here to stay and reminds us about that nothing of what happens in the world will never ever be forgotten. In case the McCanns would forget about how they treated Madeleine on the night she went missing, social media will always remind them about that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Björn3 December 2017 at 19:48

      May I remind you that I have not the slightest interest in any of you comments.

      Delete
    2. Björn3 December 2017 at 19:48

      ''May I remind you about the Madeleine case being the most discussed crime case of the century,''

      The century's only 17 years old.It was only 7 years old when the crime took place.Or, if you mean to say the last hundred years or so, it isn't the most discussed case.Nor is it, as we often read here, 'the crime of the century'.There have been numerous horrendous crimes in the last century. Jonbenet Ramsey was one of the more recent.Her parents were found guilty online too.The father is still being found guilty online today. The hyperbole that this case inspires is because of social networks and the mushrooming success of it.That doesn't make the crime the crime of the century, it shows the tightness of the stranglehold that twitter and Facebook have on a dangerous cloud of consciousness.

      ''So, not likely to become a cold case, as far as I'm concerned.''

      It will. Ten years of manpower and funding and not a spec of evidence to put it to bed leaves little choice.Police forces may not like doing it, but often have to in these circumstances .It will cool down online but not go cold.It will be revived occasionally in books like other famous cases.Cases that are still without a resolution.

      ''Fortunately, social media is not ruled by any overall decision makers,''

      They are.Welcome to the age of surveillamce and listening in.Play nice, you can stay.Get smart-you're out.

      ''the Madeleine case will continually be discussed until someone can draw a reasonable conclusion from all that has been investigated and discussed through the years.''

      That 'someone' will be doing little more than sharing their personal take on it based on no evidence and only a personal interpretation of how the events panned out on that night. Many will agree, many won't.If things don't change, they stay the same.

      ''. Social media is here to stay and reminds us about that nothing of what happens in the world will never ever be forgotten.''

      A lot will be too.It depends how much attention you give it.jack The Ripper was never forgotten and we don't even know him. JFKs assassination was never forgotten.Hillsborough too. And we didn't even have an internet connection then. Some things will always hold a fascination. We're programmed to untie riddles.Or at least try to.

      '' In case the McCanns would forget about how they treated Madeleine on the night she went missing, social media will always remind them about that.''

      That's what's bad about social media and the great 'public domain' right there. Where were all these people who are prepared to remind the McCanns how they 'treated' their daughter when it happened ? Did they witness something from afar or are they psychic ?Or maybe they're frustrated people, further frustrated by the figurative blindfold they've been forced to wear as they imagined they were 'close'.Frustration isn't an acceptable reason for lashing out and making wild allegations at strangers.

      VT

      Delete
    3. You applying for Mitchell's job VT?
      If so you should get it, no problem.
      -
      SixYearsInaComaMan

      Delete
    4. Hi SYIACM, always good to see you. You have inspired me to think about opening a 'new page' - if I can figure out the tech stuff - where discussion won't be restricted by the solemnity of the main topic. Where we can discuss such trifling topics as 'why do my quiches always go wrong?', 'will Theresa May spontaneously combust if you pour water on her' and 'wtf is going on in the Whitehouse'. Unfortunately, whilst I once scored genius level on English and comprehension, I scored retard on stacking plastic bricks and have a morbid fear of rubic cubes, so it may take a while.

      But back on topic. VT certainly couldn't do a worse job than Mitchell. The McCanns are less popular than they have ever been, yet again he stomps in Sergeant Major style threatening legal action against a book no-one has yet read.

      How much better the McCanns would have sounded, had he said 'the parents only concern is their daughter' and maybe apologise and acknowledge that many lives were devastated by their daughter's disappearance, not just their own.

      Delete
    5. Hi Ros!
      Your quiche lol! I would undertake some complicated recipe, take ages, tastes crap - and go down the chippy instead! As for T May, yes, don't introduce any fluids to her after midnight (oo-er!). As for the White House, I see at least a book trilogy for you, there. Be interesting to see Trump's "hands-on" approach with you - and what he'd get back in return!! OUCH!
      Whilst you are ruing avoiding practical physics and maths at school you certainly made here an enduring success. I am currently enjoying watching the cesspit implode where they could learn a thing or two about how to handle posters/members, from you and your blog.
      Talking of VT, sorry, Mitchell, he does the Mcs no favours by forever wading straight in with threats of litigation. The public are annoyed enough right now with expenditure on Op Grange let alone them forever taking people to court, as opposed to, as you say, focussing on their missing daughter.
      That's their crazy upside world, though. They seem to be oblivious to how they come across and have done since day 1.
      So many are sick and tired of the McCircus and I can only hope this malady strikes someone (with a conscience) who can bring this unseemly show to a close.
      -
      SixYearsInaComaMan

      Delete
    6. ''How much better the McCanns would have sounded, had he said 'the parents only concern is their daughter' and maybe apologise and acknowledge that many lives were devastated by their daughter's disappearance, not just their own.''

      They've said that Lord knows how many times. They've said it in appeals, in newspapers and on television. You and other poisonous little monkeys refuse to believe they mean it.If they stop saying it, you think they're twisted. Who else had their lives devastated ? Madeleine was their child, nobody else's. Anyone else devastated should deal with who caused it.There has to be a limit to what you're prepared to blame on the McCanns. You need help.

      Delete
    7. Do not mock SYIACM, I have shed many a tear over a sunken quiche. I am trying desperately to recreate the old bacon and egg pie from my school days, but thus far without success. The only thing I have established is NO cream, but I just can't get the light and fluffy texture right. It's most vexing.

      Regarding technology, I have just spent 10+ minutes watching a youtube tutorial on how to create a blog exactly like the one I have been running for nearly 7 years! Doh! I was halfway through before I realised :(

      The McCanns have no self awareness SYIACM, and they never have. Nor has their spokesman Clarence Mitchell, who really needs to see himself as others see him. All their public statements are angry, hostile and defensive, they haven't got a kind word for anyone. Their way isn't winning friends and influencing people and it hasn't for a long, long time. Ironically, they are paying Mitchell to make people not like them.

      Delete
    8. Did you just call me a poisonous little monkey? Kudos for the creativity, lol.

      Why does everything have to be about Kate and Gerry? This discussion happens to be about Sergey Malinka, an innocent victim of whatever the hell went on that night in PDL.

      He too, has had to live with all this, he too was wrongly accused, and he too cares very much what his family, friends and colleagues think of him. Why is his reputation not valued as highly as Gerry and Kate's?

      Delete
    9. Hi Ros!
      Sunken quiche? You make it sound like a sub roll came along and scuttled it! Our school bacon and egg pie you could hammer nails in with it. Or use as a stab vest...
      As for tech let's not go there. My poota's about 12 years old and I have to coax it to work every morning with a bowl of warm milk (when I haven't got any quiche lol)
      Ros, you will have been aghast right from day 1 (as I was) at the distant, heartless mechanical way the Mcs discussed their child. Be that in the 3rd person to "the situation she finds herself in". Pinky managed to exacerbate that misplaced sangfroid endearing them and himself to no one. And who ever described their new arrival as "almost perfect"? WTH?!
      Couple that with their blaming everyone but themselves for their predicament, the arrogance and the serial litigation they insured they'd be in the running for Pariahs of The Year award. I feel they won that and now own it.
      People will say, "Well, how do you know how you would act if you lost a child?" and all I can say is, nothing like those two.
      -
      SixYearsInaComaMan

      Delete
    10. ''Ros, you will have been aghast right from day 1 (as I was) at the distant, heartless mechanical way the Mcs discussed their child''

      Before you continue grovelling for Ros and polishing her halo, would you care to elaborate on that nonsense ? The serial litigation arguments are far too old and weak now by the way. You call two people who have lost their child 'pariahs'. Your disgusting ignorance aside, Ros doesn't allow hate on here. Didn't she tell you at your last script meeting ?

      Delete
    11. To: Anonymous4 December 2017 at 18:25
      Gerry: "If she had come to any harm (in the flat) why would that be our fault?"
      How's that for elaboration?
      Litigation is ongoing. Hardly a distant relic.
      As for my "disgusting ignorance", ask the dogs.
      No wait. That's arrogance.
      I'll leave you to polish your trident.
      -
      SixYearsInaComaMan

      Delete
    12. ''Gerry: "If she had come to any harm (in the flat) why would that be our fault?"
      How's that for elaboration?''

      It's as weak as usual. The question to those with common sense is asking how a parent can be blamed for something that happened when they weren't there.You're twisting it.

      Ask the dogs what exactly ? Who killed Madeleine or how she died ? Or shall I ask them if the forensic investigators had been paid off to miss everything.You were right first time with ignorance. You and Ros are the best double act since Burke and Hare.

      Delete
    13. ''Why does everything have to be about Kate and Gerry?''

      I was only replying to the paragraph in which you refer to Kate and Gerry.

      '' Why is his reputation not valued as highly as Gerry and Kate's?''

      It would be if he too had been accused of being responsible for the death of his child, lying to the police and burying that child then making money from it. As it is, he was just somebody brought in for questioning then released without charge. He got a libel settlement due to the press trying to cast suspicion on him.The end.he's rarely discussed, he's rarely accused, and he has nothing like the shadow of suspicion hanging over him than certain other characters.He didn't need to set any records straight or explain himself.It's old news and that old news was incorrect according to the libel trial anyway.He just wants to make money at a time the investigation is rumoured to be closing and he might miss the last chance.Bit tacky isn't it really.

      Delete
    14. To: Anonymous4 December 2017 at 22:43
      As a parent you are ALWAYS responsible for your children and always there for them. Except they were not (if you believe the "left kids alone" scenario).
      Me and Ros Burke and Hare? Nah. We're more Steed and Peel.
      -
      SixYearsInaComaMan

      Delete
  10. It’s Christmas time, “the McCanns" back in "the news”.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5057352/madeleine-mccann-parents-suspect-heartache-investigation-lies-blackmail/

    ‘Mr Malinka now intends to "reveal all" in an explosive book after being pushed to the "edge of despair" by a bungled police operation.

    But McCann spokesperson Clarence Mitchell warned: “Beware! If any defamatory claims are made Kate and Gerry’s lawyers will be assessing them, as they do with any book which has any potential defamation against their clients. Other than that they have no reason to respond.”

    A source close to the family added: "Sergey was made an arguido, an official suspect, as others were but after being questioned and having his home searched and computers seized police were satisfied he had no involvement whatsoever and he was released.

    “So why is he now writing a book and trying to heap more misery on Kate and Gerry especially at Christmas time? It beggars belief and causes more distress for Madeleine’s parents.”’

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Anonymous3 December 2017 at 20:47
      "It’s Christmas time, “the McCanns" back in "the news”."
      ------------------------------

      Are you saying the Mccanns told Malinka to start posting about his book (that he will never raise the money for) because Christmas is coming? Through their spokesman they have replied to the news items - they did not generate the news and the gossip on forums/twitter/facebook etc.

      Delete
    2. Christmas time.A time for celebration and spending too much money. Good timing really. That libel settlement wasn't going to last forever after all...

      I can't see anything 'explosive' he could possibly 'reveal' about the case beyond how he views his treatment by the police and the subsequent treatment by the media( which was later deemed to be libelous and worthy of a financial settlement for his pain and suffering at the hands of free speech).

      He didn't know the McCanns or their friends. He had no dealings with them. He was a friend of part -time patriot R Murat and was building him a website for his 'new business'. So, what can he reveal that's 'explosive'. Mitchell's little speech means nothing. He didn't need to comment.But this is The Sun. A quote for a few quid and business as usual.

      Last year, as we approached the tenth anniversary, we got this kind of build up about new leads and revelations from some Australian liars. It worked. Everyone tuned in and they probably made a killing selling advertising air time that night.And we learned...yep-zilch.

      The Malinka chap's gone for the trendy 'crowd funding' i see. A sort of online Dragon's Den. Low overheads, potential big return. He's obviously feeling a lot of emotional pain to be so organised.What's new, Sergey ? If it's concerning something 'explosive' about the Madeleine case, why wait this long ? Surely you haven't been withholding information..

      I'm guessing here that publishers probably looked at his book and thought there was nothing in it that delivers on the promises.Nothing new.That it was more a 'my agony' book trying to cash in.Either that or they thought 'no thanks..not another load of guesswork and allegations to land us in the media and court..no for us'.

      So, where's the audience ? Who wants to feast on this dynamite .The mob.Sergey's invented 'mob funding'. My guess is that either they'll be pretty disappointed after going through it with their magnifying glasses, or that he'll be on the receiving end of the same mob's anger who paid good money for an empty plate. We shall see.

      VT

      Delete
    3. 23:25

      'In modern English, the quotation mark has been adopted to convey irony, or a sense of scepticism on the part of the writer about a word or phrase.

      For example: The “hotel” turned out to be a mouldy tent, or, she spooned a dollop of “food” onto the prisoner’s plate.'

      http://www.oxbridgeediting.co.uk/blog/the-funny-grammar-guide-to-quotation-marks-654/

      FYI

      Delete
    4. Why are the McCanns distressed about Sergey Malinka's book? What happened in PDL was lifechanging for him too, why can't he tell his side of the story?

      Why are they troubled by what he might say? Why do they pay lawyers to check every book relating to Madeleine's disappearance with a view to suing?

      Why do they fear what he might say? Why would victims of a crime fear the story of another victim of that same crime? If they are innocent, then nothing he says will make any difference to the story they've told. I suspect the reason his story might be damaging to them is because it will expose the actions of their dodgy detectives.

      This case isn't just about Gerry and Kate, other people were dragged in and they too will want to tell their stories. Why should the McCanns have the power to stop them? Why should Goncalo Amaral and Sergey's books be seen as cynical and profiteering, but their own book Madeleine and the book by the ghastly Summers & Swan, as somehow morally sound?

      I wish Sergey every success with his book, it is the least he deserves for the nightmare he was put through. A nightmare that could have been avoided if Gerry and Kate had got a babysitter!

      Delete
    5. Rosalinda (11:56)

      I agree with you regarding Sergey Malinka’s book. I’d say, let anyone ‘involved’ in the McCann case write a book. Kate McCann set a good example with her account of the truth.

      As Clarence Mitchell undoubtedly knows, Malinka will not make any defamatory claims. Mitchell will never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

      NL

      Delete
    6. ''Why are the McCanns distressed about Sergey Malinka's book? What happened in PDL was lifechanging for him too, why can't he tell his side of the story?''

      Have either of the McCanns said that they're distressed about it ? Or are you making that up.Why would they be bothered about it. They're used to bad taste and profiteers trying to sell muck. If the Russian lies or invents things he can't prove, the police would have him before the McCanns even got the chance.

      Delete
  11. Has Malinka identified Playground Man yet?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Ghost Teeth3 December 2017 at 23:31

      Have you asked him?

      Delete
  12. "The internet is still relatively new."

    I was posting on the internet in 1999 and a couple of friends were posting before then.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Ros @ 22:46
    Sorry Ros,but I do not share your optimism that there will be justice and closure in this case.
    There is soo much info and evidence out there and the Tapas 9 have not even been asked since 2008 to come in for a wee chat.
    I hope that I am wrong

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. why do you think the current Portuguese investigators haven't requested Rogs to re interview the McCanns?



      Delete
    2. Oh, I'm sure the tapas have been asked 03:48, but they are so lawyered up, they have never complied.

      Think of it logically. You have two teams of detectives investigating the disappearance of a child, what are the chances those two teams would say to the main witness 'ah sure, don't bother yourselves, we'll be fine without you'. What are the chances of the police interpreting their silence as proof of innocence?


      It is more likely that equally stubborn and tenacious police officers have responded to the 'prove it' challenge. It is has taken more than 6 years but there are no signs of them giving up. The reason it has taken so long is because the witnesses haven't co-operated, they are having to build their case without them. It is incredible that they continued, given the brick wall they faced, but it would seem one or more people are determined to see it through to the end.

      Gerry and Kate I would imagine have made a lot of powerful enemies along the way, people who will not let them off the hook and forget about it. Among them Theresa May, whose fluffy words will come back to haunt them. David Cameron gave the go ahead for Operation Grange and it has continued under Theresa May. Remember the tories were not in power in 2007, any government interference came from New Labour.

      The Madeleine case is not unique, in the sense that there are other cases where the parents are suspected but the police lack the evidence to prove it. They too, go on for years, sometimes decades.

      Madeleine's case is different however, because the police haven't shelved it. They haven't filed it away as a cold case. It is still a live investigation both in Portugal and here in the UK.

      But, 03:48, as with everything relating to this case, I keep an open mind. Without an actual smoking gun or a confession, proving a crime is difficult, but not impossible.

      All the 'obvious' evidence we see, is mostly circumstantial, something hot shot criminal lawyers would tear to shreds in the witness box. And these particular lawyers have been on a retainer for 10 years.

      And the chances are there will numerous defendants, each guilty of separate and perhaps even, altogether different charges. If you compare the McCann case to the Trump administration,you will have lieutenants like Flynn and Manafort, coffee boys like Papadopolous (sp)and people with strange accents whispering in corridors like Kisliak (sp), before you get to the inner family. It all becomes very complex and the net spreads far and wide. Probably not all the way to Russia, but you get the gist.

      Thank you for your comment, kind wishes.

      Delete
    3. ''Oh, I'm sure the tapas have been asked 03:48''

      you mean you're guessing yet again.

      Delete
    4. @Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton4 December 2017 at 13:14

      ”What are the chances of the police interpreting their silence as proof of innocence?”

      A highly relevant and legitimate question, I’d say, though it’s of course a rhetoric one, so the answer cannot be but absolutely zero, which you answer in a different way. Yet,I've given it a thought.

      Considering Kate’s refusal to answer any of the 48 questions and also the unwillingness of the McCanns’ tapas friends to participate in a proposed reconstruction, it’s not at all astonishing that the case was shelved with the subsequent lifting of the McCanns’ arguido status, as the case then was going nowhere.

      However, I find it very odd, that the McCanns’ arguido status wasn’t reinstated, when the case was re-opened in Portugal. Equally difficult is it for me to understand why there wasn’t any requirement, neither from the PJ nor from the SY, that the earlier cancelled reconstruction should be carried out, in exactly the same way as it was intended to be. Why couldn’t it become a part of the new Portuguese-British joint-venture crime investigation?

      Were the tapas 7 asked again and did they refuse a second time? Was Kate perhaps asked as well, but refused as she did in 2007?

      A for Kate, if she was a suspect before she was questioned, then she should still be so, unless she’s secretly given her answers to the Portuguese or to the British police on a later occasion and unless the police investigators in question have found all of her answers satisfactory and for that reason have concluded that she must be innocent.

      The same goes for the cancelled reconstruction.

      From an investigative perspective Kate’s, Gerry’s and their friends’ refusal to co-operate with the police cannot possibly be ignored, as there’s always a reason as to why some suspects and other people of interest refuse to co-operate with the police, and it’s very seldom because they’re innocent.

      Delete
    5. I thought they were still arguidos

      Delete
    6. Anonymous4 December 2017 at 03:48

      ''There is soo much info and evidence out there and the Tapas 9 have not even been asked since 2008 to come in for a wee chat.I hope that I am wrong''

      Don't worry, of course you're wrong.If there was so much evidence out there, I'm sure one detective from all of them representing two countries for 11 years would have spotted it if someone online could.

      VT

      Delete
    7. Anonymous4 December 2017 at 22:12

      ''I thought they were still arguidos''

      naaaa haven't been for years

      Delete
    8. Björn4 December 2017 at 16:27

      ''Why couldn’t it become a part of the new Portuguese-British joint-venture crime investigation?''

      It could.It could be a new waste of time. It doesn't make any difference how many investigations there are or what they're called, the case is the same case and the evidence isn't anywhere to be found, we're told.

      ''As for Kate, if she was a suspect before she was questioned, then she should still be so,''

      Suspects are often released without charge if they have an alibi or there is no evidence against them. The police have a time limit to charge or release without charge.She was released without charge.What does that tell you ? It doesn't mean she can't be made a suspect or charged at a later date should adequate reasons emerge other than mere suspicion.

      ''From an investigative perspective Kate’s, Gerry’s and their friends’ refusal to co-operate with the police cannot possibly be ignored, as there’s always a reason as to why some suspects and other people of interest refuse to co-operate with the police, and it’s very seldom because they’re innocent. ''

      Can you name 5 cases that this statement is based on or have you made it up ? If there's enough evidence to arrest anyone, a reconstruction isn't even important.Is it against the law to refuse ? Do you seriously believe that the reconstruction would yield anything at all ?This is one of flimsiest straws clung to.

      VT

      Delete
    9. @VT5 December 2017 at 03:24
      Hi VT/Z
      ref your question"Do you seriously believe that the reconstruction would yield anything at all ?"

      Yes I really believe so and any serious investigative police detective would certainly agree. Jane Tanner's sighting and Gerry McCann's weak alibi for his whereabouts around the time for the alleged abduction would have been challenged.

      However, the reason as to why none of the tapas 9 at that time was interested in participating in a reconstruction is beyond my comprehension, if they're completely innocent, and it wasn't really in the spirit of "leaving no stones unturned", as Kate's and Gerry's spokesman has said so many times.

      Delete
    10. Björn5 December 2017 at 10:46

      ''Jane Tanner's sighting and Gerry McCann's weak alibi for his whereabouts around the time for the alleged abduction would have been challenged. ''

      Eye witness testimony and alibis are often challenged and often proven to be fabrications without a reconstruction if the Detectives are up to their job. There was Amaral, his successor, UK's Met and OG. There has to be, at the very least, one smart detective who cab take an alibi apart. You continue to fail, or refuse, to factor in random variables, or confounding variables, to give them a more accurate name. Opening your mind for a minute and looking with fresher eyes, forget who you or anyone suspects on the night it happened. Guilty or innocent, the McCanns and, to a lesser but just as real degree, their friends, would have been in a state of mental chaos. They were in a place they knew little about, it was late and the child was gone. Whether its self preservation or sheer panic and urgency, the mind doesn't log time in a normal way.Seconds seem like hours and there is no pattern to behaviour.The mind will register details of what you done, where you went, who you saw and spoke to. It might be possible to recall it all in chronological order, but it would be understandable( therefore, acceptable) if exact details were less than accurate.Even after the storm has calmed it's difficult.It's human to make mistakes in these circumstances.Many cases of eye witness testimony to accidents and attacks demonstrate this phenomenon if you research it.It's what legal teams pounce on if they want to discredit the testimony.It doesn't mean lies have been told, just that human error due to witnessing a trauma has taken place.It's deemed unreliable rather than dishonest.

      I meant ask you earlier, Bjorn, with reference to a comment you made...

      ''Considering Kate’s refusal to answer any of the 48 questions..'' - that chestnut...

      Could you copy 12 of the 48 questions that have relevance to A- a possible abductor /abduction scenario and B- a death of a child, and post them please.

      VT

      Delete
    11. @ VT/Z, 5 December 2017 at 16:29
      Hi
      yr question; "Could you copy 12 of the 48 questions that have relevance to A- a possible abductor /abduction scenario and B- a death of a child, and post them please"

      There's no possibility to make such a distinction VT, besides any of her answers could have led to further relevant and complementary questions, none of which we will ever know anything about, since she refused to co-operate. Then,of course, all of them should've been analysed in the "darkness" of Gerry's answers, which was a process, that never came about because the McCanns sabotaged all of it, by making it impossible for the PJ to see whether Kate and Gerry contradicted each other.

      Delete
    12. I only asked for 25% of the much -quoted '48 questions' that apparently scared KM into staying quiet.The insinuation is that she didn't want to incriminate herself.I'm not interested in the 'if's you imagine. It's no good imagining what would have been said by who had she answered any questions. I'll leave that to the amateur detectives who are creating a bad murder mystery amongst themselves . I thought you'd be able to find 12 from the 48 as you're so convinced about what happened and why. How about 5 ? Roughly 10 % . Were 10% of the questions relevant to the abduction or death scenario ?

      VT

      Delete
    13. @VT/Z 5 December 2017 at 22:11
      Hi VT/Z

      I've just seen your post
      Your question; "Were 10% of the questions relevant to the abduction or death scenario ?"

      All of the answers could in fact be relevant to a death scenario in general,to the abduction scenario or to the Madeleine-dying-due-an-accident scenario, depending on what Kate would've answered, what additional questions she'd have been asked and how all of it would've been assessed by the P J. Nothing of which we'll never know anything about.

      Delete
    14. "34 As for your professional life, in how many and which hospitals have you worked?"

      Delete
    15. 36 Have you ever done shift work in any emergency services or other services?

      37 Did you work every day?

      38 At a certain point you stopped working. Why?

      Delete
  14. Unknown 00:33

    "the chatter on places where people "can read and participate" - in other words - where they have no control over?"

    Apparently, the McCanns' media campaign in the MSM was not that succesful.

    Media culpa.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ''
      Apparently, the McCanns' media campaign in the MSM was not that succesful.'''

      bit like the thousands of online nutty haters campaign then lol

      Delete
  15. Hi Ros!
    We were always reminded not to believe everything we read in the Press. Likewise, we should apply that to social media. The big difference is that outmoded main stream media is all scripted from a handful of six Oligarch media owners. On line we have the other 99.99999999% of ordinary people where we can, if we sift, the other side of every story not afforded us by the MSM.
    What an eye-opener the Internet has been. Without here there would have been no GoFundMe for Goncalo Amaral which resulted in quite a turning point. We would not have seen the PJ files. Nor recourse to massive Mc-related archives, all at our fingertips.
    Rather than social media perverting the course of justice I would say the reverse. It has allowed so much more justice to be served. Voices that otherwise would never be heard. No wonder the Government hate the Internet. They cannot lie to us so easily any more so they don't even bother to defend their mendacity and have reverted to sheer power to try and silence us.
    Good luck with that. We're not going anywhere.
    - SixYearsInaComaMan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @- SixYearsInaComaMan4 December 2017 at 09:43
      Hi
      Your text was intended for Rosalinda, but I felt that I had to comment.

      I quote one of your sentences. ”Rather than social media perverting the course of justice I would say the reverse. It has allowed so much more justice to be served”

      I wholeheartedly agree to what you say. Social media as a cyber space place, where anyone, who so wishes, has a voice and a say on anything has become the worst enemy of society’s ruling minority, who can no more decide, at least not as before the internet, what the general public should read and say. Maybe, that was what Leonard Cohen envisioned in his lyrics ”Democracy is coming to the USA” ?



      Delete
    2. ''No wonder the Government hate the Internet. They cannot lie to us so easily any more so they don't even bother to defend their mendacity and have reverted to sheer power to try and silence us.
      Good luck with that. We're not going anywhere.''

      Yes, very rebellious that.I'm sure they're quaking. A few million have posted mountains of protests about their privacy disappearing because the Government want that.They do the same about surveillance.They do it about their human rights.How effective has any of it been ? If they want total control they'll have it online or offline.Who will stop them ? They can hear the voices as well as everyone hears each others. They just don't care about what's being said. If they did, they'd silence them. Censorship would be rife as would bans from platforms. That's the thin end of the wedge. The BB society has been ushered in decade by decade.It's picked up in tempo in the last 10 years under the guise of anti-terrorism. They're not bothered if we're not going anywhere. We're where they can monitor anyway. They can read. Once too many say too much the platforms will be pulled.They don't consider the hot topics to be as hot as those who talk about them.They have the power to stop it, they just have no inclination. They're the elite and mock us all.If we spot and broadcast their lies, they don't care as nobody can do anything about it.Who do you tell ?Who do you pass the information to ? The people doing it ? They own the game and they make the rules. A million powerless people are still powerless.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous at 19:22

      I think 'the elite' love their children, too.

      Delete
    4. Hi Björn
      The Internet presents the greatest challenge to the old anachronistic MSM. Like the digital revolution was to the hot-lead typesetting Press.
      No longer do we have the news filtered by them - we get the raw footage, the in situ observations, nothing censored. Immediately.
      Printed newspapers have suffered because of it and TV news have to rely on the Internet to keep up - even though they still insist on their biased twisting due to their agendas.
      We see all on line, not what we are served as if we were all children.
      -
      SixYearsInaComaMan

      Delete
    5. To: Anonymous4 December 2017 at 19:22
      That is the likely outcome - if we give in. But who knows? I think one day the box in the corner of the room will be the Internet and the TV no longer the default magic box it is now. I'm not giving up.
      -
      SixYearsInaComaMan

      Delete
    6. Anonymous at 19:22

      ''I think 'the elite' love their children, too.''

      Don't they just.

      Delete
    7. SixYearsInaComaMan

      ''Printed newspapers have suffered because of it and TV news have to rely on the Internet to keep up''

      I'd like to share your vision of the internet being a brave new world.Unfortunately I can't. Yes, we see raw footage of things that would never make the MSM but what does it change ? Nothing. It helps awaken the more sleepy to the reality that's kept from us by the MSM on behalf of the ruling elite, but it only angers us at best.We feel compelled to spread the word as though it will stop the reality happening the way it is.Hundreds become thousands become millions. Yet the nightmare continues even though we're awake.Our power to change things begins and ends right there. Occasionally something particularly damning concerning one or more of the elite trends fast and the alert goes up. Cue the shills to patronize us for our understandable confusion then offer an official verdict straight from the Twilight Zone. Disagree and their comrades flood with lots of hilarious 'tin foil hat' jokes and 'conspiraloon' puns. They never get old and stay hilarious indefinitely.

      The illusion of the digital age being a miracle in science and communication is just that - an illusion. It sells itself as the ultimate tool of communication as it unites people all over the planet.So we ignore how we spend so long isolated from people even nearby in order to enjoy it's benefits.Divide and conquer, mind by mind.Those minds will later converge. Job done.

      This Big Brother global environment was always gong to happen. We outnumber the oligarchy by about 6.5 billion. That disparity is more than enough reason for them to develop a paranoid obsession about what we do, what we say, where we go, what we talk about.It's Orwell's 'thought police'. With a rapidly expanding global population , wars, economies collapsing like dominoes as they rake in every penny at our expense, how would they police our thinking ? Propaganda has it's uses but has it's limits too. A far more efficient tool was needed. The wet dream of the Oligarchs was /is to be able to read our thoughts.Not the way the Alt propagandists would have you believe with con artists like Uri Geller and the mad Albert Stubblebine goat man. Something more subtle. What do we all express online? So, build a pen. Build two.Build it and they will come (to misquote someone in some film about something I can't recall).But they won't just walk blindly into it. It needed to attract,hook and keep.So, hello Facebook.Forget the Zuckerberg Hollywood -friendly fairytale. This was always in the works.Invent the internet ( which was already years old but limited to the military), then popularize the internet in the same way TV and telephones were once popularized, then sell the idea of global unity in this age of miracles. Throw mobile /cell phones into the mix and then turn them into internet machines / tracking devices and the stage is set.

      There are a few key names and areas of research worthy of a look. But. as I'm ever giving, I've dug out a blog i had in my vault. Here's the link :

      http://www.therealnewsonline.com/our-blogs/facebook-and-its-connections-to-the-cia-and-darpa

      VT

      Delete
    8. Hi VT
      Firstly, thank you for the link.
      In one respect I can agree with you about the power of the Internet, being, were it so all powerful we would never have been allowed to have it in the first place.
      One may consider it as a consolation prize for the plebs, to give them the illusion of having a voice and the ability to change things, radically.
      Ultimately we always play with a losing hand because those who dealt it play by their own rules, not ours.
      Yet the Internet does have the power to alter history - take Goncalo's GoFundMe, without which he would have not been able to destroy the Mcs libel/damages actions. Your argument is more a global one where we are, compared to the tiny few who pull the strings, impotent. The Mc case shows that whatever we do they can just bin it whenever they want. Like Op Ore, constrained to the vaults for 100 years.
      We are forever trapped in "the now" and many think that what obtains now is immutable. Yet, everything is subject to change, entropy. I am not so credulous as to believe that society will ever be fair, rid of rulers and slaves; that's the human condition, always looking (and not liking) differences, unable to live together, peacefully.
      We are being played with the Mc case. It had been mooted very early on that this all might be part of some social experiment. Sounded crazy at the time. Not so crazy now.
      -
      SixYearsInaComaMan

      Delete
    9. ''One may consider it as a consolation prize for the plebs, to give them the illusion of having a voice and the ability to change things, radically.''

      That's exactly it. Give the simpletons some bells and whistles and they'll get hooked. They were right on the money. Candy Crush was a perfect gauge to use.More adults played than children.The ice bucekt challenge charity nonsense..monkeys see, monkey do. People are becoming the memes they're addicted to. It's all a psy op of sorts. If you want to persuade a few hundred thousand into something, persuade a small amount who will go to them and start passing the parcel.If you can do it with ice buckets and candy crush, you can do it with ideas and lies. It's the 'eyes wide shut' syndrome.Question nothing.

      The internet is a very powerful beast. We have to bear in mind who built it and why . As you point out, it can be used for good or bad.With great power comes great responsibilty, as the saying goes .GoFundMe has been great for a few cases. I've seen it work.Most recently for that strange case in Suffolk ( disappearing airman).But it's been abused a few times.That's down to human nature more than technology.Then we see the darker side. Not the deep web, that's of no interest. The internet has created a mass of clickers and not thinkers.If a web page takes longer than 2 seconds to load, peple are swearing at screens.But ask them to consider something in any depth - not a chance. The trend today for the post 20s is to love trivia and celebrity and images. Television has followed the trend with trivia, celebrity and reality shows( reality shows being with fake people pretending to be something they aren't). The trend is to live vicariously rather than just live. The result was inevitable. We ended up with a celebrity fake leading the west from twitter. And who funded the dickhead ? Let's just say he didn't need a gofundme page..

      The internet can, as you say, change history.And I've read enough online to confirm that. I've seen the two wars reinvented, the alamo, jfk,the recent psyops( James Holmes etc), and the big one, 9/11. Millions read or view them. The 9/11 event was the most important psyop post war.The build up, the execution and the fall out changed the intended destination for everyone, like it or not.And still nothing is done.Which brings me back to point one.The elite. Untouchable and evil.I accept that the human condition is all about being discontented and subject to inequality.But we're moving rapidly backwards to a feudal system .In the UK, we were guided to 1942 by Cameron. He wanted revenge on the labour reforms that gave us welfare rights and NHS. Job done and the consequences excite them. It's sadistic.But nothing's done.Next stop 1890.But, we have social network platforms as compensation.Orwell was right.He gve us a blueprint not a novel.

      VT

      Delete
    10. To: VT (at 22:55)
      I agree with all of that. It's 'bread and circuses', isn't it?
      Take petitions. How often do they work, despite 100s of 1000s of signatures? Straight in the office shredder.
      The biggest demonstration (in recent times) was against Gulf War II - approx 2 million protesters - which changed nothing. Like 9/11, we knew that all was not as it appeared re WMD << and when THAT was challenged by weapons inspector Dr David Kelly, well, supposedly he took his own life... all protests quashed.
      I thought this a gem: "The trend is to live vicariously rather than just live" an example being, filming the LIVE event one is at rather than experiencing it as it happens, real-time.
      Back to Orwell and Big Brother. The Endemol TV Big Brother series started off with the Dutch (think it was Dutch) model of essentially making lab rats out of humans. Surveilled 24/7, made to grow veg and look after chickens, hand washing clothes, tasks - we would be privvy to see how the relationships/dynamics of the group unfolded. Now it's an on-rails, rigged, dumbed down, low rent vulgar piece of trash. The producers know what "we" like, seemingly.
      Another gem: "It's the 'eyes wide shut' syndrome". Yes, and I will add one from The Borg: "Resistance is futile" and, until the Internet does what TV did to Radio, this is what will be sustained.
      Easy to assume we have had some small victories via the WEB platform yet we're often oblivious to 'controlled opposition' insidiously invading YouTube, Google, Facebook and other Government monitored/sanctioned popular websites.
      You have presented a much more realistic appraisal of the Internet apropos its power afforded to the great unwashed and ineluctably where the ceiling lies.
      If there was a hint of a tilt of existential power towards we plebs they would pull the plug.
      -
      SixYearsInaComaMan

      Delete
    11. What a dark, suspicious view you have the internet and I don't for one second think Mark Zuckerburg is out to take over the world. He lives in the opposite way to Greed is Good Trump, a modest home, a normal family.

      Why can't you understand that there are genuinely good people in this world? MZ being one of them. Young passionate people bringing information to the masses, they are the movers, the shakers, the music makers.

      History is littered with iconic characters who were brave enough to change the paradigm, characters with good, philanthropic and altruistic reasons. Scientists, explorers, adventurers, writers, artists, musicians, whose main goal is to improve the lives of others.

      And every one of them has been challenged and feared, driven out by angry mobs shouting 'that's the way we've always done it'. Even Jesus Christ was nailed to a cross!

      We are living in a New Age of Enlightenment and we should be celebrating it and enjoying it for as long as we can. Sure as eggs is eggs there are Drs Evil and wannabe despots plotting how to get control of social media. Making such a big deal out of trolls and shills is one way. Any sane, logical person knows full well the sticks and stones argument applies to the internet just as much as it does to the playground.

      Your cynicism is genuinely unnerving VT, do you never accept people at face value?

      Delete

    12. Hi SYIACM, I am glad to see you are not so cynical.

      I think the means to control the internet already exists, SYIACM at least in non democractic countries. The UK and USA, I think dare not. Well not openly, look how many are taking to the streets againgst Trump. It was said once his popularity drops below 36% (same as Nixon), he was finished. So popularity does matter.

      Political protests and demonstrations are much more effective now. When the PLP turned on Jeremy Corbyn, 10,000 quickly turned up outside parliament. Then there is the 'Arab Spring', the riots in the UK - hypothetically, revolution is literally only moments away.

      We have already seen significant changes. I remember the hard time the MSM gave Michael Foot in the early 1980’s, they virtually destroyed any chance of the hard left ever getting into power. They tried again with Jeremy Corbyn, but this time they were opposed by social media. Momentum for example spread like wildfire, his message was getting through, especially to the young.

      The enlightened always want to spread the enlightenment, and thank goodness for that. If you compare the tame, non confrontational acceptance of authority and law and order, respect for teachers, doctors, professionals, etc, of the 1960’s it was a different world.

      The problem with advances in science and technology, is that it always brings out the doom mongers and sooth sayers, threatening hell and damnation. So advances are harmful, the industrial revolution for example, put thousands if not millions out of work. The same is happening with the internet, it is killing the retail business. But still the advantages are worth it, we are adapting to the 21st century, we have to continue to evolve. No-one can draw a line and say that’s it now, we will stick with life as know it. It is an argument I often have with those who oppose immigration - do they really want to spend their entire lives in one street with the same neighbours?

      Delete
    13. @ Ros 19:27

      So Mark Zuckerburg lives in a modest home? Luckily he could afford to buy the 4 surrounding house for $35M just to protect his privacy!

      "Zuckerberg lives in a Palo Alto mansion built in 1903. He bought it for $7 million. It was Mark’s first property investment. Spread over 5,617 square feet, the 2-storied home features 5 bedrooms, 5.5 bathrooms, a large kitchen, French doors, a music alcove, coffered ceilings, a saltwater pool, spacious and deep porches, and sash windows."

      Delete
    14. "The problem with advances in science and technology, is that it always brings out the doom mongers and sooth sayers"
      " But still the advantages are worth it, we are adapting to the 21st century, we have to continue to evolve."

      Can you copy and paste yet Ros?

      Delete
    15. Hi Ros!
      We will have seen so many changes from our childhood to now. Easy to become one of those "this were all fields in my day" curmudgeons! But would we really want to go back to having a pantry and no fridge? The outside toilet? Coconut matting and lino?
      Some things are best left in the past, others we wish were still with us. Experience has taught me to embrace new tech (not all of it) so as to keep up. The Internet is a revolution - perhaps, as you intimate, not just an electronic one. I do hope so.
      Good point about the UK and USA regards pulling the plug. There would be riots, and anyway, the whole infrastructure (e.g. banking) is all digital now (big bank branch closures this week).
      Whilst all these trappings evolve we have to then take a look at ourselves to see how much we have changed. If you are a Millenial and grow up with this it is your Zeitgeist. No past to personally compare it to. 'Twere ever thus. Never have we been so connected globally. Maybe my own position is too parochial. Insular. I am not a leader, so the possible sea-changes afforded by the Internet don't occur to me as they might, to someone who is.
      There is no doubt the demise of the newspapers is in large part due to the Net. About time. TPTB have swapped trying to hide their lies by blatantly lying to us - with force/power.
      So forget my (one person's) opinion. If the Net was so anodyne, ineffective then why are the Government(s) so hell bent on regulating it? They fear it, that's manifest. These dinosaurs act as a great barometer to understand just how powerful the Internet really is - or, what it will become.
      -
      SixYearsInaComaMan

      Delete
    16. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton7 December 2017 at 19:21

      ''Your cynicism is genuinely unnerving VT, do you never accept people at face value?''

      I 'm happy to be cynical rather than naive. If you didn't skim read world affairs and most of the other things you claim to have knowledge of, you too would be cynical if you grasped them. Why not demonstrate why my cynicism is misplaced rather than confine your efforts to just claiming that i'm wrong ? Is that your default setting now ? I don't look at something for five minutes or take a mental poll from twitter. I question everything and look for all possible answers and reality test them. I look at how much evidence there is to support each theory. I never take anyone at face value.I never pre-empt or treat with suspicion either. I find if you use your mouth less and your ears and eyes more, people will reveal themselves eventually anyway , and you know all you need to know. There's no need to make guesses or judgements then. I've seen you add back stories and guesses and all kinds of far -fetched narratives and subjective interpretations to words spoken by the McCanns, Mitchell, and the tapas group to name but a few.All your views, even if you use the 'i have no doubt' premise.. But you call me cynical for not taking people at face value.

      ''What a dark, suspicious view you have the internet and I don't for one second think Mark Zuckerburg is out to take over the world''

      Who said he was ? Are you doing that other default thing again where you put some words into my mouth which i didn't say, then telling me and your readers why they're wrong ? Zuckerberg had the right lottery ticket when the CIA were looking for a 'regular guy' to front the Facebook project. Would a slick suited middle aged agent have been able to make it so 'rock n roll' ? Or would people have mistrusted it all.Zuckerberg's story is the nutshell version of the American dream.And, as George Carlin would say, you have to be asleep to believe it.As far my 'dark, suspicious view', can i remind you of your own views regarding the Government wanting the case of a missing child to usher in a DNA data bank and internet surveillance ? My views are not wild guesses . Yours are( and after 10 years still to be implemented due to the McCann case).

      '' He lives in the opposite way to Greed is Good Trump, a modest home, a normal family. ''

      See, that's what not researching does for you. Take a look at the history of shareholders and Zuckerberg in particular. Trump is the embodiment of western greed and arrogance and he always was.America is the leader of the western world. It was a marriage made in Hell and that's where the boat's heading now.Trump even getting to run for the job was warning enough for 200 million voters. But it's 'tending' online to keep Trump as an only target.Heaven forbid we go against an online trend, us 'outsiders'

      MZ was, and is, an 'asset'. I find his all too rare interviews fascinating.He's rarely coherent and his staccato style of speech masks the lack of knowledge he has about all the things he should be conversant in.Give him a listen.

      ''Young passionate people bringing information to the masses''

      You should have read my post more closely.You just covered the 'bells and whistles' part perfectly.
      Silencing people for expressing their thoughts if they don't sit well with the elite is oppression and intrusion. It's evidence of the gradual erosion of human rights. It's totalitarianism plain and simple.That's far more sinister than 'sticks and stones'. Shills have a deeper remit than sticks and stones .Trolls don't count as they're not important to anyone. They just come with the social media territory and it's ability to attract any idiot with an internet connection.

      VT

      Delete
    17. The CIA chose Mark Zuckerburg to front Facebook? ROFL, rather than a slick, suited middle aged agent, because he was more rock n roll, my sides are splitting.

      I suggest you watch 'The Social Network', yes it's a popular movie, but it tells the story of how Facebook was invented. No CIA, no FBI, just a small group of computer geeks creating a social network for their college campus.

      Social networks are not about oppressing and silencing people VT, they are about giving ordinary people a voice - the opposite. It was actually the McCann's staunch supporter Jim Gamble who wanted to police Facebook and he wanted Facebook to fund that policing. Happily, MZ and the owners of the other social networks weren't having it.

      Who is oppressing and silencing people on social media VT? And how come we don't know about it? We are all enjoying the freedom to say whatever we like, in blogs, on facebook, twitter or wherever, is it that freedom you dislike VT?

      The only threats to silence people I've seen has been in the McCann case, and those threats are coming from the McCanns themselves and Jim Gamble. Not Facebook, not Google not Twitter.

      You are on the side that demands silencing and oppressing people online VT, and a side that has clearly employed shills from the very beginning. And should add, adding adjectives to the word shill doesn't make them sinister and scary, they are still inadequate misfits too afraid to reveal their identities.

      You are claiming to be oppressed while demanding the right to oppress others, do you not see the hypocrisy?

      Delete
    18. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton10 December 2017 at 11:56

      When you 'lol' or even 'rofl' in capitals, it doesn't make the object of your amusement funnier or sillier. A considered response might though. If you continue to cite movies or TV programmes as your sources of research you'll continue to look foolish. The rest of your response only confirms your lack of research in yet another area you're attempting to sound knowledgeable of. Your comments on oppression need far more thought. You could read the occasional link pasted here. Or you could stick to 'movies'.

      VT

      Delete
    19. "Facebook is cracking down on potential instances of what it calls “hate speech” by adding thousands of employees to delete offensive posts, the company announced in a blog post Tuesday.

      “Our current definition of hate speech is anything that directly attacks people based on what are known as their “protected characteristics” — race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, sex, gender, gender identity, or serious disability or disease,” said Richard Allan, Facebook vice president of public policy for Europe, the Middle East and Africa. “There is no universally accepted answer for when something crosses the line. Although a number of countries have laws against hate speech, their definitions of it vary significantly.”

      http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2017/06/27/facebook-to-delete-66k-hate-speech-posts-per-week-in-crackdown.html

      Delete
    20. Your claim that Mark Zuckerburg was chosen by the CIA to front Facebook deserves ridicule VT, And your pompous attitude towards movies and popular culture, just makes you narrow minded and trapped in the last century. Movies, documentaries and TV programmes are all learning tools VT, pouring scorn on them doesn't make you intellectually superior, it shows how little you know.

      Delete
    21. ''. Movies, documentaries and TV programmes are all learning tools VT, pouring scorn on them doesn't make you intellectually superior, it shows how little you know''

      ''your pompous attitude towards movies and popular culture, just makes you narrow minded and trapped in the last century''

      Oxford and Cambridge, look out.Your days are numbered. Harvard and Yale, close your doors.We have televisions now and Sky TV.

      Television, the propaganda - free font of all knowledge. Hollywood, the modern Oracle of Delphi.

      Tell me some time about Operation / Project Mockingbird.In the meantime, here's some as-not-seen-on-TV reading.

      https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/exclusive-documents-expose-direct-us-military-intelligence-influence-on-1-800-movies-and-tv-shows-36433107c307

      VT

      Delete
  16. Anon 2.12 @20:33

    “That's an opinion, not an official statement; 'it doesn't therefore seem'”


    http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Supreme_Court_31_01_2017.htm

    “And let [it] not be said, too, that the appellants were cleared by the order of filing the criminal proceedings.

    In fact, that dispatch was not proclaimed by virtue of the Public Ministry having gained the conviction that the appellants had not committed any crime (cf. art. 277° of the CPP).

    The filing, in this case, was decided because it was not possible for Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants (cf. the cited art. 277°-2)

    There is, therefore, a remarkable difference, and not merely a semantic one, between the legally admissible grounds of the filing order.

    Thus, it does not appear acceptable to consider that the alluded dispatch, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be treated as evidence of innocence.

    We consider, therefore, that the invocation of breach of the principle of presumption of innocence should not be upheld. That principle does not fall under the decision about the question that has to be resolved.


    Three Supreme Court Judges, having considered the facts before them, decided as they saw fit. Their decision was based on their informed opinion/s. That is what happens in a court of law. The ruling of their court is not subject to appeal. For the foreseeable future, other opinions do not matter. It is official. That’s all.

    T

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There was insufficient evidence to charge malinka , Murat and whoever else they questioned.Are we to consider the same about them ? Just because there was insufficient evidence we shouldn't assume that they're not guilty ? How do we consider the statement from the combined police forces that stated unambiguously that 'the parents are not suspects' That doesn't loook be a matter of semantics either.

      Delete
    2. Not so much words, as woofs 14:29. The dogs barked in the McCanns apartment and car, they didn't bark at anything belonging to Sergey Malinka.

      Delete
    3. Beautifully clarified T, I don't think anyone could argue with that!

      Delete
    4. ''Not so much words, as woofs 14:29. The dogs barked in the McCanns apartment and car, they didn't bark at anything belonging to Sergey Malinka.''

      They didn't bark at the forensic experts either did they.And a couple of them are even cleverer than you Ros.

      Delete
  17. VT 2.12 @23:55

    Namaskar

    “anon 21.09

    You know that's about the libel case don't you ? The right to publish a book.Nothing to do with the investigation."

    No. In a nutshell, that’s about the case for alleged damages allegedly caused by the publication of a book about the investigation.

    T

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Doesn't 'damages allegedly caused' come under libel ?

      Delete
  18. My post @12:53

    Correction.

    Penultimate paragraph: "...that has to be resolved."

    T

    ReplyDelete
  19. Oh dear it appears the cesspit will only accept McCann bashing by Malinka and the saintly Amaral and pj are out of bounds.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Which one of the cesspits are you talking about ?

      Delete
  20. Hi Ros,in regard to the"Joint Operation"UK,Portugal.
    Do you really think the Portugal PJ could ever trust 100% the UK Police after the way,they behaved at the Original Investigation,it is in Mr Goncalo Amaral's book of what certain UK police/Murat were upto? It certainly wasn't to assist the Portugal PJ,they were on the same plane back to the UK with Kate,Gerry,8/9 September 2007,after being named as arquidos,Fact?
    Then you have DC 1485 interviewing David,"Is there something pertinent that you know could help the investigation,(DP)there is but I don't think this is the right forum" DC 1485 Okay,stop recording,yet Not One Portugal Police Officer was present when David gave his statement,in a"Combind Operation" Ros?

    ReplyDelete
  21. 4.12 @15:48

    No.

    T

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. so what does 'damages allegedly caused' discuss ?

      Delete
    2. Anon 4 Dec 16.33

      We don't actually know if David Payne went on to give a further statement regarding what he was holding back on. It could be that that statement has been withheld from public view.

      Was it David Payne who had some problem with the NHS (a legal action of some sort) and Gerry McCann was his saviour (sorry, it's a long time since I've read up on this so my memory of it is a bit vague).

      Delete
    3. Mathew Oldfield I beleive

      Delete
    4. Why did the questions lead down that area. What could it have to do with the disappearance of a child on holiday abroad ? Was it suspected that another British family followed the Tapas group with vengeance in mind ? That they'd get revenge on a doctor by stealing the child of one of his friends ? Great detective work. First it's KM. with GM as an accomplice, then it's both.Then it's expanded to both plus collusion by the group of friends.Then It's all of the above with the guaranteed protection of the UK powers that be.Then it's all of them aware of Madeleine's real fate and final resting place -plus knowledge of the huge financial scam and probable money laundering.It's open and shut case I suppose...

      VT

      Delete
  22. Sergey Malinka (doisgaloes):

    “Right its just came to my attention that Mr. Bennett used my words taken out of context. Are you working for British media by any chance, because reading the thing from they Sunday news and other hack pieces and seeing you being super quick on copy/paste news I assume that it was you who wrote this articles or at least helped to write it?
    Let's make something straight - I was never a suspect, only a witness in Portugues police investigation and despite the fact they overstepped the boundaries in interrogation I have made my peace with them. I understand now that the pressure was from above and they needed to produce results.
    I posted here in faith that my words would not be taking from content and used for personal promotion as Mr. Bennet did, so my conclusion is that he just wants to feel important by taking my words, twisting them and making a name for himself.
    I don't take any sides in this story, merely want to let people know what has happened to me.
    Mr. Bennet in my point of view you already in this short days created more damages to my name then 10 years of British media.”

    https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t14757p100-sunday-mirror-3-dec-2017-innocent-man-sergey-malinka-says-madeleine-mccann-case-ruined-my-life#378299

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh my, when thieves fall out, to coin a phrase.I think he's just lost a big chunk of potential readers with that outburst.And he let Mr Bennett bait him to do it (( shakes head))

      Delete
    2. It is a shame he has allowed them to get to him, they are putting him in the wrong frame of mind to be marketing his book, which is of course intentional on their part. I hope he understands they are only representative of a very small minority, and quite insane.

      Delete
  23. Here you go, Cristobell - this recipe's a winner :

    http://edmondscooking.co.nz/recipes/pies/bacon-egg-pie/

    Best wishes xx

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many thanks 19:04, I will give it a try!

      Quiche is one of my favourite things, and I've spent a lifetime trying to perfect it without success, so fingers crossed :)

      Delete
    2. I am going to try it out for a party next week 19:04, if it goes wrong, on your head it will be! ;)

      Delete
    3. It's a seduction masterpiece - hot oven, follow the instructions exactly and use free range eggs and decent bacon, 2 Tbsp Branston pickle is good also. The simpler, the better, don't go chucking broccoli in it. Let me know how you get on, maybe do a trial run and see what your sons reckon? xx

      Delete
  24. 4.12 @21:36

    Please rephrase your question.

    Thank you.

    T

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 4.12 @15:48

      ''No.

      T''

      Can you rephrase that answer ?

      Delete
  25. It seems Malinka changes the story everytime he posts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Which is just what Bennett and his goading band of bullies want. This guy has it right
      @PercyVarco Replying to @zampos @doisgaloes
      Oh, do f off with your click bait bollocks Tony. I don't want 'robust debates' on the internet. I want justice for a three year old child. But perhaps that's just me. #mccann

      Delete
    2. emojies at dawn or just handbags at ten paces i wonder..

      so butch..i bet they even use the capslock when it 'all goes off'

      VT

      Delete
  26. Anonymous 00:17
    ("He [SM] just wants to make money at a time the investigation is rumoured to be closing and he might miss the last chance.Bit tacky isn't it really.")

    "The iris is Madeleine’s only true distinctive feature. Certainly we thought it was possible that this could potentially hurt her or her abductor might do something to her eye, but in terms of marketing, it was a good ploy.” - Gerry McCann

    Case in point.

    ReplyDelete
  27. 5.12 @00:04

    Of course: NoT

    ReplyDelete
  28. unday Mirror', 3 Dec 2017: "Innocent man", Sergey Malinka, says "Madeleine McCann case ruined my life"
    The Mirror and Sunday Express wrote about me without my consent, I am dealing with them. I don't tell you how to run a forum, why you criticize how to rum my Kickstarter campaign.

    Before launched the book I have approached all major tv channel and all wanted my interview about the book. After careful consideration, i have launched my campaign only through online means not to create too much fuss.
    Portuguese police discredited itself the long time ago, and believe you me I could easily go to the media or ministry of justice and would tell how I was treated by Amaral and his coworkers that day in an interrogation room. And if I would he would more problems that defending his book from McCanns. Plus he wouldn't look like a knight in shining armor after he beating up scared Russian boy, would he?
    I want to clear my name, but only a few people out of many actually ready to listen. I am truly sorry to see that.

    ReplyDelete
  29. The inevitable banning

    by Get'emGonçalo Today at 9:18

    Sergey seems to have backtracked a bit after complaining about "torture", now he's saying, in fairness, he was a bit harsh!

    I hope you put that in your book Sergey.

    Anyway, it would seem Sergey was banned again during the night (not by Verdi, who seems to get the blame for everything these days) and I won't be reinstating him this time because he didn't stick to his side of our 'deal'.

    He wasn't here to help us with more pieces to the jigsaw of what really happened to little Maddie. But if Maddie really was abducted, as Sergey thinks, then she's already been waiting for more than ten years with her paedophile chum anyway, who's apparently treating her like a princess, so what's another seven months?

    As you say Rogue-a-Tory, he's had at least eight years to write his book, especially when he had his compensation money to fund it, as Tennison pointed out.

    I'm sure the question of "why now?" will become apparent nearer to Christmas, as aquila pointed out.

    ReplyDelete
  30. SM posts..

    https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/spa/doisgaloes

    ReplyDelete
  31. Oh God - bennett's done a Christmas Carol for Malinka - pathetic gloating from the excuse for a man.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes its diabolical, not remotely funny and now the other cesspit thugs are putting the boot in. Why do they have to chase everyone away like that?

      Delete
    2. I have no desire whatsoever to even look at the cesspit these days, the sinister atmosphere makes it very unpleasant reading.

      It is a strange, cliquey little group, I don't think they make any outsiders welcome, what they have done to Sergey, they have done to many others before. They are paranoid and fearful, they don't trust anyone, probably not even each other. Being a member there is a life choice, beginning with 'Abandon all hope, ye who enter'.

      I'm afraid I cringed at Bennett's attempt to be creative and funny. If he were GCSE lower tier, I would have failed him. Not only is his 'poem' a piss poor parody (the home of writers who can't think for themselves), the 'humour' is based on spite towards one person. Even a Year 6 class bully wouldn't be that crass.

      Delete
  32. Anon 13:18

    What's the other cesspit called? I thought CMOMM was the only one?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Care Home or MMM.
      Run by Nurse Ratched and her lackey Fleebite.
      Dwelling place for demented old Ros haters and conspiracy loons.
      Terrified of Bennett for some reason.


      Delete
  33. In my day, we'd hang the bully from a window.They were simpler times..

    VT

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ..... or drop dollops of 'doggie' in his shoes in the changing room while he was doing P.E. (how we laughed).

      Delete
  34. Re: 'Sunday Mirror', 3 Dec 2017: "Innocent man", Sergey Malinka, says "Madeleine McCann case ruined my life"
    Post by polyenne Today at 13:41

    It’s like a revolving door........Sutton in, Sutton out..Malinka in, Malinka out.

    There’s a reason they’ve come & gone so quickly.....they have nothing meaningful to add. They just want their 5 minutes of fame on the world famous CMOMM.

    They won’t be sorely missed !!

    Polyenne is Jill Havern. Describing her own forum, known to everyone else as the cesspit, as world famous. pmsl!!!

    ReplyDelete
  35. Hi Roslinda
    a little off topic
    As you know, I still have my doubts about the SY/Met doing anything at all to investigate the McCanns and as for the PJ I've been suspicious.

    Nevertheless, I’ve just read a transcript of what the deputy director of the Judiciary Police, Pedro do Carmo said at the time around the 10th anniversary of Madeleine’s disappearance. I’ve probably heard him saying this, as I’ve listened to this interview many times, but not really understood the deeper meaning of it.

    ”In this case we are not YET in a position to say what is behind the DISAPPEARANCE. This makes it a unique case. And maybe an extremely rare case worldwide”

    He does not say ”behind the kidnapping/abduction", so in other words, at least in his mind, he hasn’t excluded the McCanns from being involved, though, as he also says, they’re not officially suspects. Moreover, his choice YET suggests of course that he’s interested in finding out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Bjorn, I just lost a long reply to you further up, doh! You are right of course about Kate not wanting to contradict Gerry, I think she has only given one statement.

      I think the others are probably all lawyered up too, they also won a large sum in damages from the Express group. I doubt any of them have co-operated. And that of course would explain why it has taken 6+ years and £12m!

      We should have realised of course, when the Tapas group didn't take part in the Crimewatch reconstruction - had they been assisting the police, there was no reason for them not to.

      I think the game of subterfuge we have been watching is falling apart. This myth that the police, both OG and PJ are looking for an abductor. One thing the Defence can't say however, is that the police didn't explore other avenues.

      We were of course led to believe the McCanns had a good relationship with the PJ and that the PJ did not suspect them - despite the fact that there was a lot going on in the background.

      As for the Arguido status, we do know if they are or if they aren't. They have certainly abided by arguido status rules this time around, in that they stopped campaigning, fundraising and speaking to the press. The arguido status gave them certain protections when answering questions - but what if they are not answering questions?

      continues

      Delete
    2. I remember being very impressed by Pedro do Carmo and I'm going to go back and watch/read it again. He looked as though there was a lot going on behind the eyes.

      Delete
    3. Björn5 December 2017 at 19:41

      ''As you know, I still have my doubts about the SY/Met doing anything at all to investigate the McCanns and as for the PJ I've been suspicious.''

      Anything but consider that your imagination is just misleading you again. it's text book denial.

      'In this case we are not YET in a position to say what is behind the DISAPPEARANCE. This makes it a unique case. And maybe an extremely rare case worldwide”

      I take it your big letters are to stress that the disappearance is to hint that he didn't say abduction for a sinister and mysterious reason. Does 'disappearance' mean death in your mind then ? Madeleine wouldn't be the first child to be abducted or even killed. Nor would it be unique because justice hasn't been served.It's unique as an online event.That's all.

      ''he hasn’t excluded the McCanns from being involved, though, as he also says, they’re not officially suspects''

      So all other suspects can't rest either can they.That sentence is you clinging on to a hope rather than reality.Unless the parents wake up one day with an urge to confess it's no good for you. Read between everyone's lines to see if you can snatch something to turn into 'evidence'. Read their faces and infer that they hide 'secrets'. All that is just a game.It's collecting unconvincing tiny snippets in the hope you end up with enough to glue together and turn into a bigger snippet. If that's all anyone has, say bye bye to the case.

      VT

      Delete
    4. Pedro do Carmo "But what I can say, just as I did back in 2011 and 2013, is that Maddie's parents are not suspects. That statement remains: the parents are not suspects. Period."

      in Expresso, May 2, 2017

      Delete
    5. Richard Bilton: “Do you rule them out of any part of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance?”

      Pedro do Carmo: “There is no fact at this point or evidence that suggests that they were involved in Madeleine McCann’s disappearance.”

      Note: disappearance

      Delete
    6. @ Anonymous6 December 2017 at 07:26
      "Note: disappearance"

      Yes - read the whole sentence.

      Delete
    7. 12:20

      Of course I read the whole sentence. It's a matter of emphasis.

      Delete
    8. Well I had a read of Joanne Morais report and watched a short video.

      He does say 'disappearance', but several times in the interview he states the McCanns are not suspects. That could be true strictly speaking, but I wouldn't take it any comfort from it, if I were Gerry and Kate. He has a look about him that says I am pulling the wool over your eyes, teasing almost.

      To be honest he didn't really say very much about anything, his not suspects sounded clear enough, but that is not the same as innocent.

      To be honest, I think the police are trying to protect the McCanns from media attention and sensational headlines, and I agree with them. Their lives would intolerable if the media began camping outside their home again.

      Within his statement, however, there was a lot of determination and pride in his offices, a firm commitment to find out what happened. That I think was the more important part.

      Delete
    9. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton7 December 2017 at 21:09

      Really Ros - that is the result of your research?
      Jeez I thought Mitchell was supposed to be the master of spin and misinformation, but you really take the biscuit for that "analysis" - honestly.

      Delete
    10. Why would I research Pedro de Campo Unknown? What has his personal life to do with the investigation of Madeleine's disappearance. I have found the research of the detectives working on this case particularly distasteful.

      I tend to take people at face value, always looking for the good. It would be impertinent of me to analyse the Chief Detective, I have morals and personal boundaries, and for me that would cross a line.

      No spin, just honesty, something that appears to be alien to you.

      Delete
    11. What on earth are you on about Ros - no-one suggested that you should research his personal life! (if you did you would get it wrong)

      "He does say 'disappearance', but several times in the interview he states the McCanns are not suspects. That could be true strictly speaking, but I wouldn't take it any comfort from it, if I were Gerry and Kate. He has a look about him that says I am pulling the wool over your eyes, teasing almost."

      Oh - he has a look about him - how observant of you.

      I will ignore your "To be honest" comments.

      "That could be true strictly speaking"

      What he said he said - if you are suggestion something else then you are saying he lies.

      You are spinning what he actually said to fit what you what to believe - i.e. doing the same as what you accuse Mitchell of.

      Delete
    12. Maybe, but I'm much better at it than Mitchell :)

      Delete
  36. Well, they're not suspects in as much as they're not arguidos but that's a situation that can change at any given time.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Anonymous 5 Dec at 15:47
    Anonymous 6 Dec at 00:08

    "Questioned if anyone of them has had problems related to their profession, given that all the men of the group are doctors, and also Fiona Payne and Kate Healy, the deponent states that for his part and from what he remembers, there has never been a situation of this kind. However, he remembers that Matthew Oldfield did experience a situation which consisted of a patient's family member accusing the team lead by Matthew of the untimely death of his patient. This family member accused the team of making a late diagnosis which resulted in the death of said patient. He has no other knowledge of any threats made against Matthew Oldfield or his medical team except for this case which was formally lodged in the hospital where his team worked. He has no knowledge of any similar situation having happened with Gerry or with Kate."

    http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN.htm#p4p934to941

    ReplyDelete
  38. Anonymous6 December 2017 at 06:44

    “Anonymous 5 Dec at 15:47
    Anonymous 6 Dec at 00:08”

    ??

    T

    ReplyDelete
  39. Anonymous 6 December 2017 at 06:44

    Please ignore my "??" post. I'm not as smart as my phone.:( Sorry.

    T

    ReplyDelete
  40. Hi Ros,I know it is not part of your web site,but condolences to Miss Christine Keelers family over her passing away,may she Rest In Peace.
    Miss Keeler was hounded by the press,along with Miss Davies for the part they had become involved in by the late Stephen Ward,now known as the"Profumo affair"early 1960's.
    Quite alarming is the fact that dodgey Dave Cameron had Lord Dennings Original inquiry not to be released to the public until 2064-100 yrs later?
    Mr Cameron is married to Lady Astor's daughter(Samantha),so we wouldn't want any unclean clothes to be aired to the public,before it was absolutely necessary would we,eh Dave?
    Relatives of the Queen may have possibly been at the Functions,where Mr Pofumo held these elegant parties and it wasn't all about touching the pool floor with your feet?
    Me Stephen Wards portraits he had hand painted were all bought up by one person after Mr Wards suicide?
    So here we have Dr Stephen Ward,associated to JFK,who had an eye for the ladies that could be supplied as guests of honour to functions.
    Miss Keeler and friends can be seen by the numerous amounts of photographs taken of the people that they had associated with during the 1960's,some of these people have very dubious relations to events that have been covered up for a very long time,child abductions,child abuse.
    I am not insinuating Miss Keeler was involved in any of these activities,but showing different classes of people did mix together,sometimes not for the good of both parties?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'Christine, who died yesterday, said: “I know the truth and it is far more shocking than what the public has been fed by the British Establishment. Sex was a game – spying was a serious business.

      “Far better that the Establishment be caught with its pants down than involved in stealing secrets. That was the thinking.”'

      http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/profumo-affair-christine-keeler-comes-1940402

      Delete
    2. Thank you for your post 16:36, and I agree with T, it was kind of you, and I add my condolences to Ms Keeler's family also. I always knew my readers were good eggs:)

      My knowledge of the Profumo affair is scant I'm afraid, but it is indeed odd that the scandal was focussed on the two girls, rather than 'spying'. I must have a read up, because the little I do know is based on the movie and the oft quoted 'well he would say that wouldn't he' by Ms Davies. It would be interesting to read their side.

      Again, thank you for posting that.

      Delete
    3. Hi Ros,Miss Davies is thought to have had connections to Mossad and i think ms Davies also passed away a few year a ago?
      Add into the fact that David Cameron has connections to the Royalty Bloodlines,along with buffoon Boris,cousin of Dave and Our Harriet(Harmen)relative,is it any wonder the"Denning Inquiry" now 2064 rather than 2014?
      Don't want the Pleb reading what Denning had wrote do We?

      Delete
    4. Hi 15:29, I heard rumours that Prince Philip was involved, hence the extra years of keeping it under wraps. But I'm not sure if I am muddling that up with the Luncheon voucher club and Cynthia Payne, he was the submissive in the pinny and mask, allegedly.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous8 December 2017 at 15:29

      I'm sure it was a coincidence that a girl whose face ( and other parts) was her fortune and who happened to use her talents for rewards later moved to (shock horror) Israel and own a couple of lucrative night clubs.But keep that quiet. The official line is that Russia have always been the baddies. Bless Israel obviously. They've built a succession of psychotic British Governments and always will. Ask Donald Trump. They have him in a big white kennel too. Woof woof Trumpy..

      VT

      Delete
  41. 6.12 @16:36

    “…condolences to Miss Christine Keelers family over her passing away,may she Rest In Peace.”

    Indeed, and my heartfelt condolences to Cristine’s family. Peace be upon her.

    It’s so kind of you, Anon, to bring that up. Thank you kindly

    T

    ReplyDelete
  42. I wish also to pass on my condolences to CK's family on her passing. However Profumo was the one that lied to Parliament & not wishing to insult CK's intelligence. Sleeping with a Minister of War (Now MOD) & a Russian Attache in the 60's at height of the cold war, not long after the Cuban Crisis does leave a lot to be desired.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She was very young, a model and showgirl and not very well educated John, I doubt she knew anything about politics or espionage, I know I didn't at that age. I think society was pretty harsh on her, we've all done crazy stuff in the past, but happily it doesn't become public!

      Delete
    2. 'Desmond Banks, who had known Keeler since her 20s, and was her solicitor, said: “She was an extraordinary woman, much misunderstood, who deserves redemption.”

      The scandal had “overshadowed” her life, in particular the behaviour she suffered at the hands of Gordon, he said.

      “Had it not been for “Lucky” Gordon, Christine and indeed, Profumo’s affair with her, would never have been known.”

      He added: “I can’t think of anyone else who has had three musicals written about her, and several plays, and is seldom out of the news, for one reason or another.

      “She was the last survivor of a story that gripped Great Britain and the world more than 50 years ago.”'

      https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/dec/05/christine-keeler-former-model-at-heart-of-profumo-affair-dies

      Delete
  43. You sound like a policeman, John100.

    “Everyone in the Profumo scandal got redemption – except Christine Keeler”

    “Essentially, she was used by men who survived, while she did not. The exception was her enabler Stephen Ward”

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/07/profumo-scandal-redemption-christine-keeler

    Peace.

    T

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Ros & T, I wouldn't say the guilty got away with it as it was exposed by the media, but I will also say CK wasn't that naive to know the that sleeping with a Minister of War & a Russian Naval Attache wasn't a good idea. However she was certainly used, probably by both sides which I'm sure the documents are hidden under lock & key.

      Delete
  44. Would those people passing comment on here - social media - actually say the same things to relatives if they attended the funeral?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Too late again Ros - you could have started a new blog for Christine Keeler - but damn you are too late now and however people try to bend it, it is not connected to the Mccanns!

    ReplyDelete
  46. 21:41
    ("it is not connected to the Mccanns")

    Who knows?

    'There's no truth, then, in the report that he tried to get Kate to be photographed in a swimsuit? "Utter bollocks." Gerry suggested it without realising the implications, he says, and was then persuaded otherwise. "A good example of facts being distorted. Completely, 180-degree wrong."'

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/clarence-mitchell-i-am-a-decent-human-being-if-i-can-help-them-i-will-1634738.html

    "Gerry suggested it without realising the implications, he says, and was then persuaded otherwise."

    You couldn't make it up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "You couldn't make it up."

      You just did.

      Delete
    2. 23:36

      "Gerry suggested it"

      Delete
    3. I don't know if there is any truth in it, but Gerry was so exuberant at the time, it wouldn't surprise me.

      I wonder where the Hollywood film idea came from? I can't believe Hollywood would be so crass as to approach a family in the middle of a major trauma to make a movie.

      Delete
    4. 8 January 2008

      https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/jan/08/film.ukcrime

      'Talks in progress to make Madeleine McCann film

      Representatives of Madeleine McCann's family have spoken to an entertainment and media company about turning the story of her disappearance into a film. Clarence Mitchell, the spokesman for Gerry and Kate McCann, said the meeting with IMG before Christmas was positive, but that no deal had yet been signed.

      Talks on a lucrative film deal were held amid concern the £1.2m fund dedicated to finding the four-year-old, who vanished in Portugal last May, is rapidly running out.

      The family have hired a Spanish private detective agency on a £50,000 monthly retainer, and a widespread advertising campaign is adding to the bill.

      "We have had a preliminary meeting with some producers and directors from IMG with a view to discussing an idea for a film. We've not agreed anything, we're not about to sign anything," Mitchell said. "We like the proposal, we thought it was fair, but there are others."

      The board of Madeleine's Fund is due to meet this week and will discuss the proposal. Mitchell said the film may have a "cinema feel", and would be key part of replenishing Madeleine's Fund.

      "If in theory a large film were to be made our lawyers would make sure our commercial interests are protected," he said. "Madeleine's Fund is just over £1m. The money is going on investigators and advertising. It's dwindling. The money is going. I would imagine we've got a few months left. It's not going to last the year unless we get more money in."

      In addition to a film deal, Mitchell said it was a book deal was possible "at some point down the line", as part of efforts to find Madeleine.

      Mitchell said he was still being inundated with offers for interviews with the McCanns, but added: "They cannot get involved in anything personally until their status [as suspects under Portuguese law] is lifted."'

      Delete
    5. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton9 December 2017 at 16:26

      ''I wonder where the Hollywood film idea came from? I can't believe Hollywood would be so crass as to approach a family in the middle of a major trauma to make a movie.''

      Hollywood is the capital of crass.

      VT

      Delete
    6. Too far Ziggy! I love Hollywood and the movies in fact my home is filled with Hollywood paraphernalia, one of the modules I studied at Uni, was Hollywood the Dream Factory, and I did a 10,000 word dissertation on Charlie Chaplin (one of my heroes).

      Not in the least surprised you consider Hollywood the capital of crass VT, the Trumps don't like Hollywood either.

      Delete
    7. Thank you for that 20:33, the idea that the parents were considering a film in December 2008 is truly incredible. It's hardly any wonder the Portuguese police and the public were so suspicious.

      Delete
    8. ''Not in the least surprised you consider Hollywood the capital of crass VT, the Trumps don't like Hollywood either.''

      Is this your new 'thing' then, using Trump as the ultimate benchmark to cast judgement on someone.Very Trevor (yawn ) Noah.

      There's nothing wrong with Hollywood paraphernalia or collecting it. There's nothing wrong with enjoying the old, or recent, movies either.But with regards to seeing it as anything educationally beneficial you can't ( or shouldn't ) be serious. I think the course you studied had a clue in it's title. History that is hidden in dark corridors is presented on a silver screen in a far more positive and beneficial light. The obvious that come to mind are The Alamo and Schindler's List. It's all very well to mytholigize our past in plays or poetry like the Irish writers. To blatantly lie is another thing.

      Propagandists follow the crowd and set up their stall.The crowd had newspapers, then radio, then movies and TV.Now it has the internet. Guess where they operate now. Even the radio, TV and movies are jumping online to catch their eye.Hollywood, as you found out, is a dream factory.It produces dreams.It fills a need. It's sad that we all need to dream really.But it explains, to a degree, why so many people don't want to wake up :)

      VT

      Delete
  47. 9.12 @20:45

    I'm most grateful for your post.

    T

    ReplyDelete
  48. 9.12 @20:33

    Thank you for your post. It was never about money, was it?

    T

    ReplyDelete
  49. VT 9.12 @20:08

    :)

    T

    ReplyDelete
  50. I believe Netflix are making a film/drama about Madeleine's disappearance. I was aware that Team McCann refused to cooperate with the production. I wonder why?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe they think 11 years of having their life turned into various genres of fiction is enough.Plus the great unwashed of the internet would send the sniffer dogs out to find out how much money they'd make from it to send to their 'laundry'. Then again, they might just be sick of propaganda ...

      VT

      Delete
    2. John100 at 13:46

      Because of McCann V Amaral Supreme Court verdict 31 January 2017 and 12-year-old twins.

      Delete
    3. Hi VT,

      Propaganda from which side? As with the Leveson Enquiry if people don't want their dirty laundry washed in public then please don't use the media to promote or highlight your career or campaigns.

      Delete
    4. Perhaps the elusive Tapas 7/9 could star in a re-enactment of 3 May 2007 in the Netflix film,as Operation Grange,DCI Andy Redwood had"Crime Watch"new revelation moment,"Smithman,Creche Dad"moving time frame,ergo,if you cannot solve the Crime,move the frames to fit a scenario? Oh, I then forgot about A/C Mark Rowely,purple Woman,wasn't the latest,thesus,Four Years after your last Throw of the Dice,eh Sir Bernard,think i'll retire now over to you Cressida,Mark,good luck in solving the disappearance of Madeleine McCann,as I have assisted the family over the past Ten Years,yours faithfully Bernard?
      PS,there has been No "Cover Up"maybe a misunderstanding of events,certainly No Crimes have been committed by people associated in this case,blah,blah?

      Delete
    5. Hi John

      Propaganda is never right from any side if the intention is to deceive. As for 'dirty laundry', it has to be genuinely dirty before anyone decides if it's to be aired anywhere. Leveson's recommendations were based on the press 'wreaking havoc in the lives of innocent people'. Innocent people don't have dirty laundry that needs to be broadcast do they. The question was one of intrusion and overstepping boundaries. Using the media to promote a career or campaign isn't overstepping any boundaries unless either are proven to be dishonest or masking a contrary agenda than the coverage promotes.

      I'n gathering, given the context of this blog and the online fashion, you're hinting at the alleged hypocrisy of GM when he protested against press intrusion and it's apparent ignoring of the Leveson recommendations.After all, Lord Bell -Bell Pottinger etc had been big movers in the McCann cause. It's acceptable to utilise a platform for help and still condemn intrusion.

      Happily, Bell Pottinger's chickens have come home to roost now anyway,as they sail into administration and the rats scramble for lifebelts. The ill-fated campaign to reinvent racism in S Africa, and the 500 million commission to make fake films of Iraqi's on behalf of America have done for them. Thatcher must be spinning in her grave.

      VT

      Delete
  51. Hi Anonymous@15:19

    I would happy agree with you but the same parents left those twins as well as Madeleine alone in an apartment, which started a chain of events that led to a discussion on this blog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But it doesn't explain where Madeleine actually went or how she got there and what became of her, which started endless gossip and guessing and ignorance of how little of it could be substantiated in the real world.

      Delete
    2. April 15, 2013

      Kate McCann:

      "We are encouraged by what the Met team has done and found. They have uncovered so much.”

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

      April 25, 2017

      Mark Rowley:

      "Right now we are committed to taking the current inquiry as far as we possibly can and we are confident that will happen. Ultimately this, and the previous work, gives all of us the very best chance of getting the answers – although we must, of course, remember that no investigation can guarantee to provide a definitive conclusion."

      Delete
  52. Mark Rowley using a lot of words to say 'we'll be closing it soon if we can think of an exit strategy that won't annoy too many people'

    VT

    ReplyDelete