Tuesday, 20 February 2018

Matthew Falder - tip of the iceberg, or one off?

The crimes of Matthew Falder make pretty grim reading, and my heart goes out to his victims.  Mostly, because they lacked the confidence and self esteem to tell him to F. off.  The words of my 'mad as a box of frogs' mother, words that have served me well throughout my life.  Some people only understand those two words, she told me, much to my chagrin, as having the gift of the gab, I was certain I could talk them round.  But she was right.  If you  are watching mum, yeh, you win, lol. 
 
Before the complaints flood in, I know this is not a subject for joviality, but now that I have your attention, if I had my way, I would have assertiveness on the school curriculum, because we have generation after generation of working class kids being indoctrinated to obey without question.  The levels of confidence between public school kids and state school kids is profound.  Public school kids are educated to be leaders. State school kids are educated to be led. 
 
Forgive my little rant there, but I am using my blog to send a message to anyone vulnerable out there that, they don't have to put up with abuse or blackmail. So many people just need a nudge, a few kind words, or intensive counselling, in order to value and appreciate themselves enough to say no.  That sadly, is a symptom of our selfish, uncaring society. We are loathe to give praise or take a few moments of our time to make anyone else feel good about themselves.  It's as if we have a limited amount of sweetness and light, so we must ration it. 
 
But let's get back to Matthew Falder.  I'm not nearly as excited as those spamming my inbox.  Is he typical of the 750,000?  I'd say not.  For one thing, he was an academic and a computer whizz kid, so that's got to rule out at least half of them.  He was not atypical of a predator, he didn't exhibit any of the traits criminal profilers would expect, which is why he was able to operate undetected for so long.  Kudos to the police by the way, for tracking him down, it was a difficult job, but they got the creep.
 
It is easy to stir up fear and hysteria when a monster is uncovered, but we have to remind ourselves that he is a freak of nature and not typical of everyone around us.  Unfortunately, governments and those with agendas, use the aftermath of an horrendous crime to introduce draconian laws that affect the freedom of all of us and would have been useless to detect the latest maniac before he committed his crimes anyway.  
 
Realistically, what are the chances that the Paedophile Hunters or Jim Gamble's Citizens Army would have tracked him down?  Answer.  None, and they didn't.  He was caught by the police with the full resources of the Law (international) behind them. 
 
Just to be clear I have never said that random crimes don't happen.  They do, and they make front pages, but they are so few, most of us can name the tragic victims.  The arrest of Falder doesn't mean there are still 749,999 to go.  There are no precedents for monsters of his calibre, just as there are no precedents for the Wests and Fritzle.  Heinous crimes don't run to a formula, each is unique. That's why putting three quarters of a million into a category is ridiculous.  If there were a scale, some would be at the bottom, most would be in the middle, but only one in millions would fly off the scale as Falder has.  Which throws up another anomaly. The police are clearly willing and able to pursue these monsters, so why are headlines like these so rare? 
 
Turning to the 'Art' argument.  The case of Matthew Falder demolishes the previous debate, because Falder pretended to be an Artist. Well that's it then, shut every art gallery and library, until every artist and writer has been vetted.  And just for good measure, perhaps all art students should be given a CRB check before being allowed to pick up a paintbrush. The images were clearly distinguishable as illegal.  Well, deh, he was the creator of them, the director, producer and blackmailer.  He wasn't purchasing the work of others he was doing it himself, albeit vicariously through the internet. 
 
Those screaming for censorship grab onto any ship that passes, the more heinous and the more salacious the crime the more outrage they can stir up.  And they always attack the arts, as they see it as the root of all evil.  Every generation of concerned citizens will claim 'this time it's different'. 'these crimes are more horrendous than anything that has gone before'.  But it isn't.  Those trying to connect Falder's monstrous crimes to the art debate, are clutching at the flimsiest of straws.  Falder was highly educated and manipulative.  The cyber Hannibal Lector, he knew exactly how to prey on people's weaknesses.  He posed as an artist, because it is the logical thing to do if you want people to undress and pose. And being an academic, it is more classy than photographer or amateur movie maker.
 
This case has nothing to do with the Arts, or the freedom of everyone to use the internet, but it will undoubtedly kick off calls for clampdowns on our freedoms and more funding for paedophile hunters.  I practice the philosophy of 'cold light of day'.  That is, I try never to react in the heat of the moment, or reach conclusions while feeling highly emotive, those are the times that we are at our most irrational.  Sadly, some use the shock and horror to rush in new legislation, usually those with a finger in the pie.  Unfortunately, so many have cried 'Wolf' so often, we are being completely misled as to the real dangers. 
 
For safety's sake, please all parents, lavish your children with praise and attention, they might not want to talk to you, but they will listen if you say nice things about them.  The best gift you can give your child is confidence.  It's like a suit of armour that will protect them for life. Don't scold them for what they have done wrong, praise them for what they do right.  'Any child who is loved enough will not grow up to a be a criminal' (unknown).  To that I would add, 'any child who is loved enough will not grow up to be a victim'.  Mummy tigers teach their cubs to know when to run, hide or fight back, we should teach our 'cubs' the same from the very start.  Self confidence is their best form of protection. Even in our civilised society, predators target the weakest and most vulnerable.  We can never rid the world of predators, but we can ensure that those we love are equipped with all the self esteem, knowledge and skills they need to fend them off.   
 
And toughening them up, shouldn't just apply to our kids, it should apply to our friends, our neighbours, the stranger who just sat next to us on a park bench and spilled our their life story.  Falden didn't just target kids, he targeted those who were vulnerable.  And many of us are vulnerable at many times of our lives, that's why kind words mean so much.


 
Finally, I accept there is a dark web, lol, I put the urban legend thing in as a wind up, I felt you lot were running out of material for your proverbial kicking. I also wanted to draw out how many were familiar with it and, err why? Tbh, I'm getting a bit bored with this subject, and might move onto something less controversial, like drugs or the #MeToo campaign. 

184 comments:

  1. "That's why putting three quarters of a million into a category is ridiculous. If there were a scale, some would be at the bottom, most would be in the middle, but only one in millions would fly off the scale as Falder has."

    The only person doing that is you. The number was an estimate of the number of ''active paedophiles'' in the UK - you were the one who has been trying to equate that with 'monsters' running about snatching children off the street etc.

    Unless you can actually dispute the figure with evidence of your own, I suggest you leave it to the experts, ie not you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The word 'active' puts them in the same category as the monsters, not me. And the figure comes from an expert, Jim Gamble. Why are you now trying to backtrack on that figure and play it down?

      Delete
    2. No it doesn't.

      I haven't 'backtracked' on that figure - do you just write the first thing that enters your head?

      In fact, have you any idea what you are talking about? Most paedophiles are not snatching kids off the street, like you seem to imagine. What was it you said - anyone who abuses a child must be hiding them away somewhere so they don't talk? You are completely clueless.

      Delete
  2. "The levels of confidence between public school kids and state school kids is profound. Public school kids are educated to be leaders. State school kids are educated to be led"

    You clearly didn't watch the documentary on the endemic levels of CSA in public schools in the UK.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Again, abuse comes in many forms. I was discussing confidence levels, for which there is a polemic difference between public and state schools.

      Delete
    2. You were talking out of your bottom, as per usual.
      Your theory holds no water - their 'confidence' does nothing to prevent the abuse, which is endemic

      Delete
    3. Really 16:55 - have you ever tried to get a confident kid to do something they don't want to do? If they won't do the dishes or take the rubbish out, they won't be performing for a freak online. I remember having to go see my son's RI teacher when he was 13. He had refused to study RI because it was a lot of rubbish. There was nothing his teacher or I could do about it.

      Delete
  3. "He was not atypical of a predator, he didn't exhibit any of the traits criminal profilers would expect, which is why he was able to operate undetected for so long."

    I think you mean he WAS atypical, although you would be wrong. He was able to escape detection because he used encryption and other methods to 'fly under the radar'

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Turning to the 'Art' argument. The case of Matthew Falder demolishes the previous debate, because Falder pretended to be an Artist. Well that's it then, shut every art gallery and library, until every artist and writer has been vetted"

    Has anyone, other than yourself, suggested such a pointless course of action?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 14:16. Those crying our for censorship very rarely have an understanding of what censorship means. I feel duty bound to point out the slippery slopes ahead.

      Delete
    2. Those crying out for censorship have a full understanding of what it is. If you did too you wouldn't talk so much nonsense about it. After your last three blogs you aren't entitled to preach about censorship.

      Delete
    3. I'm entitled to preach anything I want 16:29, and there's nothing you do about it. I am not publishing abuse, because I am not having my blog dragged down into the gutter by you trolls.

      Delete
  5. "This case has nothing to do with the Arts, or the freedom of everyone to use the internet, but it will undoubtedly kick off calls for clampdowns on our freedoms and more funding for paedophile hunters."

    What utter rubbish

    ReplyDelete
  6. " Unfortunately, so many have cried 'Wolf' so often, we are being completely misled as to the real dangers. "

    That comment is a complete non sequitur. Who in this instance 'cried wolf'?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 14:19. No idea what you mean other than an opportunity to use your favourite latin phrase again. Yeh, we saw it the first 2 or 3 times too. You are clearly a linguistic genius

      Delete
  7. " 'Any child who is loved enough will not grow up to a be a criminal' (unknown). To that I would add, 'any child who is loved enough will not grow up to be a victim'. Mummy tigers teach their cubs to know when to run, hide or fight back, we should teach our 'cubs' the same from the very start. Self confidence is their best form of protection. Even in our civilised society, predators target the weakest and most vulnerable. We can never rid the world of predators, but we can ensure that those we love are equipped with all the self esteem, knowledge and skills they need to fend them off."

    That is the biggest pile of garbage I have ever read. Firstly, you are exercising a blame culture, holding not just the victims but also their families responsible for the abuse. Yes, abusers will often seek out the vulnerable but that doesn't mean that that vulnerability is a fault or character defect of the victim. FFS, the child is ALWAYS going to be vulnerable in any adult/child interaction.

    Is there any point at which you are going to hold abusers responsible for their own actions?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What is your problem with empowering parents and children?

      I'm not blaming the victims, and pretty sick of you to say I am. The law cannot keep up with the bad guys, therefore, some will slip through, ergo kids need to be able to look after themselves. Just as they need to be able to look after themselves every time they step out of the door.

      Parents are responsible for their children, not child protection. Relying on 'the authorities' to remove all dangers, so your child will be safe is ludicrous. You tell a child not to go off with a stranger, you tell a child not to remove clothes for creeps online. Is that a big pile of garbage?

      Nowhere have I said vulnerability is a character fault of the victim, in fact I go to great lengths to demonstrate anyone can be vulnerable at any time. I am urging everyone to reach out to those who are vulnerable, because they are less likely to be a victim if they have support.

      I have held the abuser, Matthew Falder, entirely responsible for his actions throughout the above blog and I commended the police for catching him. Ergo, your final sentence is just a bare faced lie.

      Delete
    2. You really do come out with some nonsense.

      This is a direct quote from your post:

      " 'Any child who is loved enough will not grow up to a be a criminal' (unknown). To that I would add, 'any child who is loved enough will not grow up to be a victim'."

      Apart from the fact that you are simply wrong, can you not see how offensive you are?

      Did you not read the article quoted the other day which discussed the ages of children being subjected to serious sexual abuse in seized images? Increasingly, they are below the age of two. Please do explain how your two year old victim is supposed to be able to ''look after themselves''?

      The problem here, Ros, is that you are still completely fixated on the idea that paedophiles are roaming about the streets looking for kids to snatch, and all you need to do is make them a bit savvy, a bit streetwise, and they'll be just fine.

      Cobblers.

      For most children who are the victims of abuse the threat comes from within their own four walls, not outside of them, which makes your suggestion completely ludicrous as well as incredibly offensive.

      I mean, to use your yardstick, your parents clearly never loved you enough, because you have ''Victim'' written all over you.

      Delete
    3. I have no idea how the quote and the one I added are offensive. And if below 2 year olds are now the biggest target demographic for paedophiles, it's safe to say they aren't loved enough.

      Err, I'm the one who told you that most child abuse occurs in the home by someone known to the child. I've said it consistently throughout every blog I have written on the subject.

      I use paedophiles roaming around the streets as a metaphor for your paedophiles roaming around the internet. I was taking the pee, I wasn't literally saying there were perverts behind every lamp post.

      You end by telling me my parents clearly never loved me. Well Ouch. Shall I now go cut my wrists or gas myself in a hotel room? Dirty, scummy, vile, 17:17.

      I'm no victim, as you have seen. And I haven't the slightest doubt about my parents love for me, that's why I feel so very blessed.

      Delete
  8. "Finally, I accept there is a dark web, lol, I put the urban legend thing in as a wind up, I felt you lot were running out of material for your proverbial kicking. I also wanted to draw out how many were familiar with it and, err why? Tbh, I'm getting a bit bored with this subject, and might move onto something less controversial, like drugs or the #MeToo campaign."

    You can't even own your mistake without using it as an opportunity to have a swipe at those who corrected you, can you?

    I'm sure you are getting bored with the topic - you ran off and started this new thread, after all - but you are the one who brought it up in the first place. You reap what you sow, Ros

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, the good kicking is thoroughly justified, I deserve all I'm getting and then some, eh?

      It wasn't a mistake, I knew it would you lot up and it did. It doesn't bother me, but you might, at some point in your life, be a little ashamed at the way you are behaving. Perhaps that's why you are all anonymous.

      Delete
  9. Hi Rosalinda and thanks for comments.

    Here're my 2 latest posts for further discussion in the context of paedophilia.


    Björn re-sent from 19 February 2018 at 18:46

    Hi Anonymous15 February 2018 at 22:44, Rosalinda and others.

Interesting comment, much appreciated.

”Most abusive images of children will be made in countries where children are more vulnerable and their disappearances go unnoticed. Having lived in Bogota and Delhu, I have seen and met these street urchins. They live in a constant state of insecurity and fear”


Yes, you're of course so right. It is in poor undeveloped countries with dictatorship or weak democracies that children suffer the most. 

In Bogota, New Dehli and in a lot of other big cities around the world, there’re vulnerable, abandoned and homeless children. I’ve personally experience that in Saint Petersburg.

We should not forget all those who’ve fled to China from North Korea, especially young girls, who’ve become slaves and are exploited sexually, without being able to move on to the freedom in South Korea. Many of them may end up as abused victims in pornographic films. Wherever children are abused and neglected, society is responsible. Saving children from being used in whatever business by ruthless criminals, who exploit them is first of all a political issue, which should be dealt with, on a global level.

Trump, in my opinion, could easily rescue all North Korean refugees in China, whereof many are children who’re sexually abused, if he just demanded China's co-operation in solving the problem. 

I’d rather discuss child pornography and abuse of children in the light of, or perhaps in the darkness of political failures in many countries to create human living conditions for their people, and for children in particular. 

We must never forget, that the inhuman socio-economic conditions were there long before the child sex industry on the internet was invented, and will remain, no matter how many paedophiles will be jailed and regardless of how many indecent images will be seized by our western authorities. 

In short, what I’ve tried to say here is, that there aren’t thousands of Fritzes abusing thousands of children in their basements, who keep the sex industry going, but the dire and unbearable living conditions in socially and economically underdeveloped societies.

    Björn re-sent from 20 February 2018 at 11:30

    @Anonymous19 February 2018 at 22:46
 Hi
, Just a new perspective on "blackmailing"



    ”The so called difficult line between art and sickening images has relevance to the case too. Felder posed as a female artist as a ruse to procure photographs from women. In the name of art, they complied. He then used the photographs to blackmail the women into the real agenda.”

If we hadn’t had our culturally inherited fear of nudity and sexuality and our sickly prejudiced perception of how women should or shouldn’t be depicted in image form, it wouldn’t be possible to use any innocent images at all for the purpose of extortion. 

If more women, with the support of men, would just dare to challenge the patriarchy like the FEMEN movement does with all their brave topless female activists, Felder and his likes wouldn’t have a chance to do what they’ve done. 

How could a blackmailer possibly use any of the topless images of Inna Shevchenko or of her followers in order to blackmail them?

Why cannot parents husbands and friends of those women/girls, whose ”artistic” images are circulating on the internet tell them, that they’ve no reason whatsoever to be ashamed of themselves, as we all have been living in an enlightened world since the French Revolution and that we don’t need to care the least about what the Pope, the Prophet Muhammad or the Archbishop of Canterbury tell us to do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That post could use some editing and a e-submission. I see you have quoted what I've stated on the previous thread.

      Rather like Ros, you seem to have a very loose understanding of the mechanics of blackmail.If the women you refer too thought they had nothing to fear in terms of consequences from their partners or family, they wouldn't be vulnerable to blackmail.Such women might well feel ashamed of what they did in the heat of a moment or out of sheer boredom and the need for some escape from their monotonous life.That's where the blackmailer works ; in those areas.You also fail to take into account, regardless of the 'enlightened world' you seem to be imagining we live in, that the women in question actually have reason to feel ashamed of being so careless and reckless.Realistically, the scenario of a woman confessing to her husband/ parents that she had been secretly passing naked images of herself to somebody she didn't know online is very rarely going to meet with ''oh you silly thing, what am i going to do with you darling, let's have a cup of coffee''. That's why they are open to blackmail.If they are offered something like the destruction of images, but at a price, out of desperation, they'll pay that price. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Pope or Mohammed.

      Delete
    2. Many thanks Bjorn, you have made so many important points, I didn't want to see them lost in the mire.

      It is a tragedy that in the 21st century such cruelty and exploitation still exists Bjorn. We are fortunate that among our forbears, there were pioneers and philanthropists brave enough to make changes that would improve the lives of everyone. Now, not so much. I though the 80s were about greed, but looking back the Gordon Gekkos were crude prototypes for what we have now. This is a dystopia even worse than that imagined by George Orwell and Aldous Huxley. Greed is not only good, it is made more enjoyable by watching the suffering of others.

      You are right of course, society sets the standards for which we should feel guilt and shame. And most of it comes from ancient doctrine. People who step out of the accepted codes and conventions must be made to suffer. It is abhorrent, but you are right, it is the judgement of society that these victims fear the most, and that's what drives them to suicide. Those who blow the issue all out of proportion and perspective are doing the victim no favours whatsoever. How on earth would the young girl in the Portrait I mentioned on the last blog, feel if she saw the horror expressed on MMM at her partially exposed nipple? If she hadn't felt abused before, she sure would if she read that lot.

      Delete
    3. Hello @Anonymous20 February 2018 at 21:29

      Sorry, my answer about the sexual revolution was intended for the Anonymous here below


      Hello @Anonymous20 February 2018 at 17:35

      Just a few words how to understand shame in the context of women's liberation

      During the sexual revolution in the 60th, girls and women took control of their sexuality. No matter how they dressed or with whom they slept and with how many, they never allowed themselves to be undervalued and judged according to old moral values. Marriage in its traditional form was called in question, as the women learned more and more about alternative ways of living. The strongest women were those, who at that time studied at our universities, because they were able to argue for their right to be liberated, in their own right, from the traditional roles as women. At the same time, and as a consequence of the sexual revolution, our universities also became less authoritarian.

      Although some weekly magazines at that time attempted to exploit their sexual boldness, few if any of those women, who got educated at our universities became a part of the sex industry that followed later. I speak from my own experience, what I’ve seen, heard and experienced.

      Unfortunately, others less educated and weaker later became the victims of the porn industry ruled by the old patriarchate, which had totally misunderstood what women's liberation at all levels in society, including their sexuality was all about. In a similar manner, the Ukrainian porn industry a few years ago tried to hijack the Femen movement, but failed.

      The patriarchy in its entirety (not only in Sweden) always expects that women should learn how to fit into the patriarchal order and demands control over women's sexuality and women’s sense of shame, is important for the maintenance of these oppressive mechanisms

      Delete
    4. ''few if any of those women, who got educated at our universities became a part of the sex industry that followed later.''

      ''Unfortunately, others less educated and weaker later became the victims of the porn industry ruled by the old patriarchate, which had totally misunderstood what women's liberation''

      A couple of points, Bjorn.

      Are you trying to suggest a link between intelligence and womens' choices regarding entering the sex industry ? It certainly looks that way. Women who lacked intellect walked into it stupidly because they didn't know any better.

      Some things haven't changed since the 60s. Women have never been held at gunpoint to join the industry.And women aren't great earners because they attract men looking for girls who look like they could beat you in a debate about existentialism versus nihilism.

      You're hinting that you need an education to understand the so called glass ceiling women apparently broke through. That women of lesser education are exploited. That's not the case. Women in the industry generally approach the industry rather than get scooped out of obscurity by shrewd producers looking out for dumb women.They may not be able to give you a dissertation, but they can give you a photograph of the houses they have bought and the zeroes on their pay cheques. Not bad for dummies. Retired with all of that by the time they're 40. All due to the choice they made.

      ''The patriarchy in its entirety (not only in Sweden) always expects that women should learn how to fit into the patriarchal order and demands control over women's sexuality''

      Porn has hundreds of niches because there's that many preferences.It's supply and demand.The producers fund it, pay the crew and cast, then market it.Everyone wins.There's never been so many porn actors and actresses and so much money generated by it.But I fail to see what any of it has to do with the evil twin we were discussing that dwells in the shadows of the dark web.

      Delete
    5. Hello @Anonymous22 February 2018 at 02:39.

      Essentially I agree with you.

      In whatever business women may be, they should, take control of their lives, as you suggest they can and also do. If they decide to engage in the porn industry, which in fact is a symptom of a healthy society, in my opinion, it should of course be on their terms.

      If a society has a real liberated view on sexuality,as that which the sexual revolution in Sweden tried to achieve, it wouldn't be possible for any sexual offender to blackmail any woman/girl to perform sexual acts or pose in front of a camera, which unfortunately happens too often.

      That was in a nutshell what I tried to say, talking about Sweden in the 60s.

      Delete
    6. @Björn22 February 2018 at 09:48
      corection of my swinglish
      I wrote "If a society has a real liberated view on sexuality" I should og course have written "liberal view"

      Delete
  10. Hi Rosalinda
    Here's the first post that I wrote, that should make it three then.

    Björn re-sent from 17 February 2018 at 23:03

    @Anonymous16 February 2018 at 18:40

Good night.


    Perhaps not so well-formulated by me, but I maintain, that the "journalist" makes it easy for herself by referring to material she’s unable to evaluate or assess , as she lacks competence to do so.

    I’ve Just read the article you refer to, but in a hurry. Not a word about where those children are being photographed or filmed. In what institutions? In what homes? In whose basements? In what countries? Just figures and statistics, but nothing about where a responsible parent or a caring nanny might be. Some of the children, who’re supposed to be found in images or film clips on the internet, are said to be aged 2. Are all those victims stolen and from whom, or do parents lend their toddlers to paedophile rings, so that their children can be filmed and sexually offended? Or is it the parents themselves, who do it.

Finally, as far as I can see, not the slightest suggestion in the article about how to rescue all these children, who, according to the article, must regularly be subjected to torture in form of sexual abuse. May I also add, that the article is written by a musician (Philippa Ibbotson), not by a scientist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I really would suggest you read the article properly next time, Bjorn.

      If you object to the journalist's credentials, perhaps you ought to have noticed that the research upon which she reports - which incidentally, I provided a link to, and which is a pivotal study cited in a further 120+ studies - was conducted by experts in the field. She is merely reporting on it, like reporters do.

      I'm sure if it is important to you to know where the children are, you can ask for the information; however I doubt it would be provided to someone with no legitimate right to it

      Incidentally, I don't see why the article would carry suggestions about how to rescue the children; that wasn't the subject of the article or the research in question

      Delete
    2. @Anonymous20 February 2018 at 17:35
      Hello again

      I cannot agree with you.Had you experienced the sexual revolution in Sweden in the 60s, you would have seen things differently.

      Delete
    3. "I cannot agree with you.Had you experienced the sexual revolution in Sweden in the 60s, you would have seen things differently"

      Bjorn, can you please explain this comment, which appears to have nothing whatsoever to do with the point I raised?

      Delete
    4. any chance of you explaining anything bjorn..

      Delete
  11. ''The crimes of Matthew Falder make pretty grim reading, and my heart goes out to his victims. Mostly, because they lacked the confidence and self esteem to tell him to F. off. ''

    They lacked the power. That's how blackmail works. Do you ever read anything beyond a headline, Ros. Do the two sentences that follow a hash tag amount to in depth research for you ? Ironically you could learn from the iceberg analogy. Thee's far, far more to an iceberg than the tip.Thee's far, far more to a story than the headline.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is it necessary to be so rude 16:17, must you insult me with every post you make?

      Do I ever read anything beyond a headline, you sneer. Well yes clearly I do, which you would have seen had you read the whole blog.

      Many thanks for telling me how to read a text, what a shame you don't practice what you preach.

      Delete
    2. 16:17

      I agree with Rosalinda. Confidence and self-esteem are essential, all the more so if “they lacked the power” as you say.

      “One victim was a 16-year-old girl from East Anglia, whose bravery in challenging Falder helped nail him.”

      https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5629159/matthew-falder-was-caught-by-nca-gchq-and-16-year-old-girl/

      Delete
  12. ''The levels of confidence between public school kids and state school kids is profound. Public school kids are educated to be leaders. State school kids are educated to be led. ''

    That reflects the social strata they come from more than the schools they attend.

    ''I am using my blog to send a message to anyone vulnerable out there that, they don't have to put up with abuse or blackmail...a few kind words, or intensive counselling, in order to value and appreciate themselves enough to say no''

    Do you understand how leverage works ? Try saying no to a blackmailer.

    ''But let's get back to Matthew Falder...he was an academic and a computer whizz kid,''

    He knew he had to learn enough to be able to access the dark web and how to encrypt so he learned all he needed to.

    ''He was not atypical of a predator, he didn't exhibit any of the traits criminal profilers would expect''

    He was. He just chose an arena where detection was difficult.Predatory instincts exist in the mind, not where you are.You take them with you.

    '' Kudos to the police by the way, for tracking him down, it was a difficult job, but they got the creep.''

    But the financial cost, the time it took and the manpower involved all adds up to the need for the specialist team to get organised. or 'paedohile hunters' as you call them ; vigilantes.

    ''It is easy to stir up fear and hysteria when a monster is uncovered..he is a freak of nature and not typical of everyone around us.''

    I see, so we shouldn't 'overreact'. Nice attitude.Very sensible.

    ''Unfortunately, governments and those with agendas, use the aftermath of an horrendous crime to introduce draconian laws that affect the freedom of all of us ''

    Again ? How many times do you need to be told that those laws have been in place for years ? Cyber crime /cyber terrorism ? You call anything designed to capture these sick creatures 'draconian'. You go overboard in your efforts to minimise the problem.

    ''Falder pretended to be an Artist. Well that's it then, shut every art gallery''

    No. You have twisted the facts to sell your goods again.He asked for photographs as an artist and received them.He then used blackmail to acquire obscene photographs.He knew the former was acceptable and the latter wasn't but was good leverage for blackmail. Have you seen anyone in these discussions calling for any art to be censored ?

    ''Those trying to connect Falder's monstrous crimes to the art debate, are clutching at the flimsiest of straws. ''

    Those using art as a comparison to photographs of the torture and rape of real children are clutching at nothing.

    ''The best gift you can give your child is confidence. It's like a suit of armour that will protect them for life''

    Not from paedophiles and rapists they won't.

    ''I'm getting a bit bored with this subject, and might move onto something less controversial, like drugs or the #MeToo campaign.''

    Good idea. But, please, research it first.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 17:06, I can't be arsed. You are being contrary for the sake of it, and I have no interest in that level of pettiness.

      Delete
    2. 17.06,

      We are wasting our time. She's all over the place like a madwoman's shite.

      Delete
    3. good comeback rosalinda

      Delete
    4. Suggestion :

      When you finally take a rest from piling responses you can't handle in to your 'spam box' ( your 'censored' box) could you possibly start publishing some sources here instead of repeating as nauseam the word 'demographic' ?

      Delete
    5. Responses that demonstrate the very hysteria I am talking about. There is something very strange about those bombarding me with abuse. And that they are working together to silence me should disturb everyone. These are not teenagers trying to drive another teenager to suicide, they are adults, some of whom claiming to be professionals, saying things like 'your parents never loved you' to a manic depressive. As concerned citizens, they are writing to 'relevant bodies' to inform them that I should not be trusted with children, ie. that I am a paedophile. As the proverbial kicking goes on and on, they ask 'do you give in yet?', because if I don't state they are right, the kicking will continue.

      Regardless, I have published enough I hope, to illustrate how fanatical these 'concerned citizens' are. Their obsession with child sexual abuse goes off the scale, it blinds them to the real horrors that are far more prevalent, and all around them. The poverty, deprivation and ignorance that is the breeding ground for abuse.

      I can demolish any one of the pathetic excuses you put forward for your bizarre behaviour, your fixation on the sexual side of child abuse especially but they are peppered with so many demeaning, dehumanising, personal insults that I can't be arsed.

      Meanwhile, the police investigating the disappearance of Madeleine, and the child protection part of the Madeleine campaign, would probably find much of interest in my spam box.

      Delete
    6. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton21 February 2018 at 09:35

      ''Responses that demonstrate the very hysteria I am talking about. There is something very strange about those bombarding me with abuse.. And that they are working together to silence me should disturb everyone. ''
      Who are they ? I for one haven't bombarded you or your readers with any abuse.Nor do i 'work' as part of anything. I'm not saying you aren't receiving any, only you would know that.But to treat all responses as one isn't productive. You can report abuse-did you know that ? If anyone's threatening to report you they'll need to add their identity to reports and if they have nothing to report then they're in trouble not you.

      ''Regardless, I have published enough I hope, to illustrate how fanatical these 'concerned citizens' are. Their obsession with child sexual abuse goes off the scale''

      That's what antagonizes people. People obsessed with child abuse and people concerned about the safety of children and providing safeguards aren't the same thing. You're calling people concerned about children sexual abuse obsessives.That's why people are responding that way. They feel insulted.

      ''The poverty, deprivation and ignorance that is the breeding ground for abuse. ''

      It's a breeding ground for a lot of crime.It's also a breeding crime for a variety of abuse.But the faulty wiring that contributes to paedophilia isn't learnt from environment. It's something with more of a basis in biology. That's why a lot of well off people from areas far from poverty stricken are in the category.

      I can't comment on the rest of your post. I'm guessing there's a history to it, The ridiculous 'online wars' thing that does neither side or anyone involved any favours.

      Delete
  13. Anonymous20 February 2018 at 19:11

    ''We are wasting our time. She's all over the place like a madwoman's shite.''

    Now that's what i call a simile :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. WE ARE WASTING OUR TIME - so it is a coordinated attack, I wonder why that is? Why are you desperate for me to say that you (the collective you) are right, and I am wrong?

      Your bullying techniques may work elsewhere, but I think you are pathetic.

      Delete
  14. “Falder is not alone so we will continue to develop and deliver our capabilities nationally for the whole law enforcement system to stop offenders like him from wrecking innocent lives." - Matt Sutton, NCA senior investigating officer

    They know Falder is not alone, so I expect arrests will follow soon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 22:24 Good I am glad to see this in the hands of professionals.

      Delete
  15. Ros: "the figure comes from an expert, Jim Gamble. Why are you now trying to backtrack on that figure and play it down?"

    Do you now accept that the figure is a fair approximation?

    D

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No. I think it is hugely inflated to spread fear, suspicion and paranoia. It is hugely divisive, suggesting NO man can be trusted, it is putting a distance between men and children that is heart breaking. Police, teachers, doctors, writers, now all have a cloud of suspicion over them that they are paedophiles pretending to be ordinary people - invasion of the body snatchers, Part III. Nope, not buying it.

      Delete
    2. ''No. I think it is hugely inflated to spread fear, suspicion and paranoia. It is hugely divisive, suggesting NO man can be trusted, it is putting a distance between men and children that is heart breaking''

      It isn't heartbreaking because it isn't true. How do you arrive at the conclusion that 'NO man can be trusted' ? What has been inflated to spread that idea ? It sounds, once again, that you're being guided by your own experiences and how they've shaped your personal opinions and your bias.

      Delete
    3. Everyone is guided by their own experiences...... including you 14:56. Are you saying I shouldn't be allowed an opinion because I am a careleaver.

      If you have an expert stating there are 750,000 active paedophiles living and working amongst us as 'normal' people, it is bound to cause suspicion. No man wants to be alone with a child in case he might be accused of something, it is ridiculous.

      Delete
    4. "Everyone is guided by their own experiences...... including you 14:56. Are you saying I shouldn't be allowed an opinion because I am a careleaver.

      If you have an expert stating there are 750,000 active paedophiles living and working amongst us as 'normal' people, it is bound to cause suspicion. No man wants to be alone with a child in case he might be accused of something, it is ridiculous."

      You shouldn't be allowed an unchallenged opinion, no. You are claiming the figure is "hugely inflated" to spread fear, and that it is ''divisive"
      Leaving aside your fuzzy logic for a moment, would you like to tell us what the true figure is?

      Delete
    5. Official statistics, published annually, show the amount of child sexual abuse recorded by authorities in the year. The problem is much bigger than shown in official statistics, as most crimes are not disclosed and/or reported.

      Most sexual abuse isn’t reported, detected or prosecuted. Most children don’t tell anyone that they’re being sexually abused. It’s a crime that is usually only witnessed by the abuser and the victim.


      1 in 20 children in the UK have been sexually abused

      Over 90% of sexually abused children were abused by someone they knew

      Source: Radford, L. et al. (2011) Child abuse and neglect in the UK today. London: NSPCC.

      Over 54,000 sexual offences against children were recorded by the police in the UK in 2015/16

      Source: Bentley, H. et al (2017) How safe are our children? The most comprehensive overview of child protection in the UK 2017.

      In 2012, there were nearly 30k registered child sex offenders on the register at that time. This takes no account of those unconvicted or who had come off the register

      Source: Hansard

      All published data, all in the public arena. There really is no excuse for your "I'm not buying it" response









      Delete
    6. ''Most sexual abuse isn’t reported, detected or prosecuted.''

      ''Over 90% of sexually abused children were abused by someone they knew''

      It's difficult to produce significant trends when most( what percentage?) crimes aren't reported.

      Delete
    7. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton21 February 2018 at 18:06

      ''Everyone is guided by their own experiences...... including you 14:56. Are you saying I shouldn't be allowed an opinion because I am a careleaver.''

      I'm ' 14:56 '

      I didn't say you were not allowed an opinion, nor did i make any reference to you being a careleaver. Why say either ?

      ''No man wants to be alone with a child in case he might be accused of something, it is ridiculous.''

      I rarely trust statistical analyses. You can make statistics sing if you go about it the right way. I believe paedohilia is prevalent and growing nonetheless. I believe it is cross -class too.And I know, not suspect, that SRA isn't the myth many think it is. It may not be as rife as many say but it has existed for a long time ( their 'God' sanctioned it).Despite all of this, I love children. They'e the only people i fully trust. I have no qualms about being alone with one or more because of fear of the figures floating around.

      Delete
    8. I'm 60, I have a lot of life experience and I have never met a Satanist or anyone remotely interested in having sex with kids. Ergo, the idea that there are 750,000 ACTIVE paedophiles in our midst IS ridiculous. That kind of figure is terrifying for parents and suggests they should suspect everyone, it spreads fear and paranoia.

      Finally, you accept that most kids are abused by someone they know. Therefore all the paedophile hunters and child protectors targeting random strangers online aren't in fact protecting anyone.

      Looking at images and physical abuse are not the same thing. and those kids who are being abused are being let down by those chasing viewers of pictures. They have more concern for a cartoon image than a real child being battered.

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

      Delete
    10. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton22 February 2018 at 04:28

      ''I'm 60, I have a lot of life experience and I have never met a Satanist or anyone remotely interested in having sex with kids. Ergo, the idea that there are 750,000 ACTIVE paedophiles in our midst IS ridiculous''

      In other words, you haven't met one so they don't exist.I haven't met a drugs baron.So, by your logic, I have to believe they don't exist. I've worked alongside people who could tell you different.

      ''Finally, you accept that most kids are abused by someone they know.''

      I didn't say that. I accept they often are but i don't trust statistics and i believe the number of trafficked kids are not going to people they know.

      ''Looking at images and physical abuse are not the same thing. and those kids who are being abused are being let down by those chasing viewers of pictures. They have more concern for a cartoon image than a real child being battered.''

      Unfortunately, cartoons aren't in the equation.Some people like looking at images of kittens. They love kittens.Some like looking at images of tortured and abused ( physically and sexually) images of children. Why would that be ? And why would it be illegal do you think ?

      Delete
  16. Ros - I have just seen your comment on the previous blog 20 February 2018 at 13:03.

    You are wrong and your views and attitude are very disturbing.

    I will not be commenting on this subject anymore as you never listen to reasoned debate.

    D

    ReplyDelete
  17. Unfortunately Falder is not a one-off. Children are abused in all walks of life all over the world. If a case like this can happen in the UK - arguably one of the most controlled countries in terms of state intervention and health and safety - just imagine how much more prevalent this must be in countries without the safeguards that we have. This is a classic example of someone in a position of power and with authority (academic prowess) abusing his position. Unfortunately, you cannot eradicate vulnerability. Everyone, at one stage or another, will be vulnerable. The very young, the very old, the sick, those who are carers and so on. Good parenting is not taught in schools but perhaps it should be? I would say the best way to try to eradicate abuse would be education. The more light that is shone in dark corners, the better. I know that children and young people are warned against 'grooming' on the internet but there needs to be even more education on how corrupt individuals will take advantage of people if they think they can get away with it. This is not spreading paranoia - on the contrary, it is just good commonsense. Most people are not bad but some are. It's spotting the one's that are that is important. And they tend to be well-hidden and in places where you don't expect to find them. Institutions where young people are cared for, for instance. Professions such as medicine and law can harbour raging narcissists. Religion is another good hiding place. Children need to be taught that you have to beware of the wolf in sheep's clothing. I'm always amazed by how just one or two people with serious personality disorders can poison an entire organization, an institution. Heck, even a whole country (Trump?). The McCann case is a good example of how people can dupe huge numbers of well-meaning but naive members of the public. When the McCann case gets busted (which it will eventually I think) it should be put on the national curriculum as an example of how narcissists behave and how fake news can be spread.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for your post 18:37.

      I agree that education is the most effective way of protecting kids. Not just online, but in every walk of life. There are predators everywhere, especially in the real world, and we can't be with our kids 24/7.

      Delete
    2. "Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton22 February 2018 at 05:32
      Thank you for your post 18:37.

      I agree that education is the most effective way of protecting kids. Not just online, but in every walk of life. There are predators everywhere, especially in the real world, and we can't be with our kids 24/7."

      So there are predators everywhere, but you don't believe the estimates?

      Your ignorance surrounding this subject is truly epic

      Delete
    3. Take your mind off child sex for two minutes 10:17, and maybe look up the word predator, it applies in lots of situations.

      Delete
    4. "
      Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton22 February 2018 at 13:04
      Take your mind off child sex for two minutes 10:17, and maybe look up the word predator, it applies in lots of situations."

      When used in the context of child safety, what other situations do you mean? You introduced the word ''predator'', Ros, then leave this very rude reply to a perfectly reasonable observation. On the one hand you are saying "there are predators everywhere" and on the other you are dismissing the official estimate because 'you are not buying it'

      Delete
    5. Everything is black and white for you 08:56, you seem incapable of holding two seemingly contradictory statements in your head at any one time.

      I was using predator in the broader sense, the clue was in 'take your mind of child sex'.

      Predators come in many guises 08:56, users, liars, manipulators, con-artists, psychopaths who suck the life out of you to make themselves feel better. All predators of the non child sex variety, all potential dangers to our children, not just in childhood but for the rest of their lives.

      Delete
    6. "
      Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton23 February 2018 at 09:36
      Everything is black and white for you 08:56, you seem incapable of holding two seemingly contradictory statements in your head at any one time.

      I was using predator in the broader sense, the clue was in 'take your mind of child sex'.

      Predators come in many guises 08:56, users, liars, manipulators, con-artists, psychopaths who suck the life out of you to make themselves feel better. All predators of the non child sex variety, all potential dangers to our children, not just in childhood but for the rest of their lives."

      Fascinating. Except you are the one who brought up 'child sex' actually; I am assuming you were in fact referring to child sexual abuse.

      So basically you are now applying the term ''predator'' to anyone who isn't very nice. The term actually means those who exploit others, so now that we've got that sorted out, and given that you have been provided with data on the prevalence of Child Sexual Abuse from several published, robust sources, can you now please tell us what the real figure for ''active paedophiles' is in the UK, seeing as you are not buying the expert's data?

      Delete
  18. Anonymous21 February 2018 at 18:37

    The phrase '' I blame the parents'' occupies as equal space in the lexicon of the language as it does in the scripts of satirists everywhere. When something horrendous occurs, often the phrase will be uttered glibly or ironically for laughs. Sometimes it's funny. But it's journey from being a serious observation to a predictable one - liner says a lot about how a majority mock psychology . It's fair to say that Freud's slightly neurotic ( no pun intended, Sigmund) reliance on the Mother as the source of all ills hasn't helped.But now the concept has become more comic than serious.Education about right and wrong is a must for any parent. Despite the hundreds of magazines and books or daytime television gurus trying to make child rearing a rocket science in which strict rules need to be explained, it isn't. It's simple.The basics have stood the test of time. A parent needs to know right from wrong and teach it to their children. Then teach them that not everyone else plays by the rules and that they need to be careful, and explain why. It's about consequences. Striking the balance between making your child a gibbering wreck or wild, free spirit who trusts everyone and everything is the only tricky part. We update the rules as society changes, as laws change, and as crimes rise. But, to discuss the problem of children being abused and suggest that it could be remedied by better educating them at home implies careless parenting.It smacks of ' I blame the parents'. I'm sorry, but I blame the abusers.Who or what they blame is of secondary importance.

    ''And they tend to be well-hidden and in places where you don't expect to find them. Institutions where young people are cared for, for instance''

    What's your solution ? How do you educate a child in that area ? Educating them gives them sense, not an extra sense. Are they to put 2 and 2 together and cautiously clam up and mistrust people who are caring for them as any one of them could be an abuser ?

    ''Professions such as medicine and law can harbour raging narcissists. Religion is another good hiding place. Children need to be taught that you have to beware of the wolf in sheep's clothing.''

    That covers a lot of places and people to mistrust.Policemen and vicars added to the carers. The wolf wears the sheep's clothing so you can't see him.Educating doesn't teach X-ray vision.

    '' I'm always amazed by how just one or two people with serious personality disorders can poison an entire organization, an institution. Heck, even a whole country (Trump?).''

    How ?

    ''The McCann case is a good example of how people can dupe huge numbers of well-meaning but naive members of the public. ''
    Is it ? How ? Which people ?

    ''When the McCann case gets busted (which it will eventually I think) it should be put on the national curriculum as an example of how narcissists behave and how fake news can be spread.''

    I'd prefer to see an introduction to Psychology instead.That way, the next generation won't use words they hear online and in documentaries and repeat them before understanding them.Please explain your definition of Narcissism and how it applies to a McCann.Then tell us how they spread news without owning a news outlet.

    Your final paragraph was inspired by the fake news you preferred to believe.Unless the police forces pf the UK and PDL have been asleep for eleven years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In many cases 21:02, there is very good reason to say 'blame the parents', if you look at the background and upbringing of violent criminals and sociopaths, they are usually dysfunctional. We are all products of our upbringing and we are what our parents made us. 'Give me the child until he's 7 and I'll show you the man' (Aristotle). It is a parents' duty to teach a child how to stay safe. A mummy tiger doesn't blame the predators for attacking her cubs, she teaches her cubs how to evade predators.

      Why is wrong to state that parents should be responsible for their children? How is that controversial? Isn't empowering children so they don't become easy prey, a good thing? If the creeps online were told F.Off at the first instance, they would quickly run out of victims.

      I'm not saying education is 100% effective, but it greatly improves the chances of the naïve and the gullible and it is more effective than the shooting fish in a barrel approach of the paedophile hunters.

      Finally, you don't get to tell my readers what words they can or can't use. Hundreds, actually thousands, of people see the McCanns as narcissistic. Which, given their headline grabbing antics over the years, is not unreasonable. How many victims of crime pay half a million to keep themselves on the front pages for a year? They may not own a news outlet, but they employ a spin doctor, a PR agency and they regularly put out press releases, that's how they spread news.

      The McCanns, not Warners, not the police, not the media, were responsible for their children's safety. They left 3 children, under 4, alone in a holiday apartment, yet they have blaming everyone else ever since.

      Whilst your quest to track down every predator may be admirable, it isn't realistic. And in the Madeleine case, even if this had been a predator free world, those 3 young children were still in extreme danger. People don't leave children alone because of fear of predators, the fear is they might become sick or have an accident.

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

      Delete
    3. Anonymous21 February 2018 at 21:02

      '' A parent needs to know right from wrong and teach it to their children. Then teach them that not everyone else plays by the rules and that they need to be careful, and explain why. It's about consequences. Striking the balance between making your child a gibbering wreck or wild, free spirit who trusts everyone and everything is the only tricky part. We update the rules as society changes, as laws change, and as crimes rise.''

      Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton22 February 2018 at 06:12

      ''Why is wrong to state that parents should be responsible for their children? How is that controversial?''

      Anonymous21 February 2018 at 21:02

      ''The phrase '' I blame the parents'' occupies as equal space in the lexicon of the language as it does in the scripts of satirists everywhere...But it's journey from being a serious observation to a predictable one - liner says a lot about how a majority mock psychology''

      Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton22 February 2018 at 06:12

      ''In many cases 21:02, there is very good reason to say 'blame the parents', if you look at the background and upbringing of violent criminals and sociopaths''

      Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton22 February 2018 at 06:12

      ''Finally, you don't get to tell my readers what words they can or can't use. Hundreds, actually thousands, of people see the McCanns as narcissistic. ''

      Anonymous21 February 2018 at 21:02

      ''Please explain your definition of Narcissism and how it applies to a McCann''

      Delete
    4. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton22 February 2018 at 06:12

      ''Finally, you don't get to tell my readers what words they can or can't use. Hundreds, actually thousands, of people see the McCanns as narcissistic. ''

      Don't your readers get to enjoy that wonderful free speech then ? You remember your speeches about that on a few threads I'm sure. Everyone should be allowed free speech and censorship of any kind makes your blood boil( etc etc etc).Then again, you were flailing in the wind at the time trying to justify a former detective who had made sickening allegations against two parents who had lost a child at the time.

      Can you update your readers regarding your revision of all of it please. If i'm reading your thread correctly, you still hate censorship and love free speech but you will censor those who disagree with you and Bjorn and refuse to allow their thoughts to be published.You also ( according to the quote I've cited above) want to tell your readers what they can and can't say.

      Perhaps you could supply the answer to the reasonable question that has angered you. That is, what is the definition of a narcissist and how does it apply to either McCann ? I'm not asking for the definition of thousands of twitter lurkers who think they can change the world with a re-tweet, just yours and the poster who mentioned it.

      Delete
    5. I'm not publishing malicious, spiteful comments. If you can't get published, clean up your act!

      Delete
  19. Hello @Anonymous21 February 2018 at 18:37
    well said

    Regarding your view on education ”I would say the best way to try to eradicate abuse would be education”

    I wholeheartedly agree, but at the same time, I’d like to add, that there’re people who basically are extremely narcissistic and use all their knowledge to satisfy their own selfish needs by exploiting others. Therefore, all children should be given a real chance to develop empathy within the realm of their families, as it cannot be taught in school.


    ReplyDelete
  20. is the new snake oil basically that paedohiles only pick uneducated children ? wake up..how about - and this is radical - educating the f**g paedohiles about right and wrong

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Err, you do understand education is not a punishment 22:35?

      And how do you go about educating 750,000 persons unknown?

      You seem upset at the idea of empowering potential victims, why is that?

      Delete
    2. You seem unable to grasp simple points

      Delete
  21. Interesting point Bjorn, but what if the children are growing up in families where empathy is not on the agenda? School can, quite literally, be a lifeline for children growing up in abusive environments, even if the abuse is relatively 'low-level'. I don't agree that empathy can't be taught in schools. I think a school - like any institution or indeed organization - can create a culture where children/adults are respected and feel cared for. A family may not be able to create this environment, sadly, but it can be created elsewhere. Very young children are of course incredibly impressionable. Creating an atmosphere of cooperation, caring, and inclusion in a nursery or school environment is 100% achievable and is not difficult as long as the adults are committed to this.

    Anon @21.02: Well yes, in the McCann case I do blame the parents! Who do you blame - the children? Or perhaps the mythical 'abductor' as rare as the unicorn. You are exaggerating my argument in typical 'straw-man' fashion so as to try to destroy it. A reasonably intelligent three year old could get to grips with the idea that MOST adults are responsible and wish others no harm. However A FEW do not fit into this category and those FEW could be anywhere. Not just hiding down a dark alley-way but perhaps in settings where they would not be expected. This is where education comes into it. Even very young children can understand 'right' from 'wrong' and gut reactions are often very reliable.

    A child or indeed adult doesn't need X-ray vision - common-sense and trusting one's gut feelings is good enough. Just because a person is within a certain profession or institution or has certain letters after their name doesn't necessarily mean that they are any more respectable or honorable than anyone else and in fact it could mean the opposite.

    Fairy tales and fables are of interest in this respect. While ostensibly fantasy, they do have nuggets of wisdom and truth behind them which is presumably why they have endured over the centuries.

    But, to get back to the apology of a human being who is Falder, I can see why the historical solution of the stocks might not be a bad idea and a bit of public humiliation might be cathartic for the victims.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello @Anonymous22 February 2018 at 00:40

      Yes I agree with NL, excellent and well formulated.

      It's just that I personally as a child experienced so much bullying, when I found myself among peers in school and among other children in society’s collective and also later as a teenager in the military organizations.

      As for empathy, the lack of such qualities was often more encouraged than it was regretted. So family life, in my view, became the right opposite to life in all kinds of institutions, when I grew up. I was, as a matter of fact, in an orphanage for 2 or 3 weeks, when my mother was in hospital, and I can still remember that strong feeling of alienation, though I was not bullied and the staff (the nannies) treated us so well. Some of the kids had been staying there for months or even for years. I often wonder what happened to them later in life.

      Of course we’ve different experiences of our childhood and naturally mine differs from many others’ and I also know so well, that many children today are treated poorly in many families and that they’re better off at orphanages even if they will have to stay there most of their childhood, but an orphanage can never replace a good home.

      Delete
  22. Anonymous at 00:40

    Excellent post. Thank you.

    NL

    ReplyDelete
  23. ''Anon @21.02: Well yes, in the McCann case I do blame the parents! Who do you blame - the children? Or perhaps the mythical 'abductor' as rare as the unicorn. ''

    I blame the parents for leaving the children alone.That doesn't make them narcissists, it makes them reckless. An abductor who evades detection isn't as rare as a unicorn, he just hasn't been identified. It being a myth is a guess and needs support.Evidence against anyone other than an abductor is equally as rare.

    '' However A FEW do not fit into this category and those FEW could be anywhere. Not just hiding down a dark alley-way but perhaps in settings where they would not be expected. This is where education comes into it.''

    In what way would you educate a child to be able to identify these covert masters of manipulation ?

    ''A child or indeed adult doesn't need X-ray vision - common-sense and trusting one's gut feelings is good enough. Just because a person is within a certain profession or institution or has certain letters after their name doesn't necessarily mean that they are any more respectable or honorable than anyone else and in fact it could mean the opposite.''

    That makes sense to us adults. How do you explain that in terms a child would understand ?

    ''Fairy tales and fables are of interest in this respect. While ostensibly fantasy, they do have nuggets of wisdom and truth behind them which is presumably why they have endured over the centuries. ''

    Yet we still tell excited children about the Pied Piper and Red Riding Hood.If we explained them as cautionary tales, we'd have children scared to go anywhere and do anything or talk to anyone.

    '' the historical solution of the stocks might not be a bad idea and a bit of public humiliation might be cathartic for the victims.'

    It's a human instinct.But, in the context of this and recent discussions, it needs a couple of points to be identified.Gamble calls for his 'Citizen's Army'. Those who are trying to pass themselves off as the unofficial version of that army are being called vigilantes.Vigilantes seek out targets and dish out the punishment.The unofficial army in this discussion seek them out and tell the police.But, they are being labelled vigilantes and the examples of vigilantes in the past dishing out punishment is being applied to them.The police often whine about being under resourced. The unofficial army are trying to make up the numbers, not be judge, jury and executioner.Gamble wants an official version with uniforms( yes, very clever, dress them up so they can be spotted a mile off).

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton22 February 2018 at 04:28

    I'm 60, I have a lot of life experience and I have never met a Satanist or anyone remotely interested in having sex with kids"
    --------------------------------------------------

    You have commented in the past that you were aware of sexual abuse of children in the convent school that you attended. I believe that you have also said that someone admitted it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm talking about my adult life which was somewhat different to my time in the convent.

      Just to be clear, I had never encountered violence, cruelty and abuse until I was placed in care. And the same goes for many of the other kids. Those claiming to protect us, were the ones doing the abusing. Ergo, whenever I encounter people who are 'passionate' about protecting children, it sends shivers down my spine, especially for those seized in police raids.

      Delete
    2. This is so sad, though, surely 'in care' should mean what it says?

      Delete
  25. Ros, why are you removing posts?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 13:53 Because I am not giving the spiteful and the malicious a platform to abuse me.

      Delete
  26. ''And in the Madeleine case, even if this had been a predator free world, those 3 young children were still in extreme danger. People don't leave children alone because of fear of predators, the fear is they might become sick or have an accident. ''

    ''Anon @21.02: Well yes, in the McCann case I do blame the parents! Who do you blame - the children? Or perhaps the mythical 'abductor' as rare as the unicorn. ''

    '' actually thousands, of people see the McCanns as narcissistic. Which, given their headline grabbing antics ''

    I see the objective, unbiased , well balanced thinking has once again raised it's unpleasant head. It's been a while...

    There's one thing ( among many) that troubles me about this particular train of thought, apart from it being wild guesswork, of course.Those who need no encouragement to sell this idea online accuse or occasionally imply with the usual subtlety, that the parents are guilty of burying their child.Most think they killed her first.Others hedge their bets in case of legal retribution, and suggest an 'accident' cold have occurred, hence all that invisible blood spatter. When challenged to provide the evidence that the police don't seem to be able to, they use their little trick of saying that the parents were monsters for leaving their children alone. That's where I have the problem....

    If they left the kids alone to go about alerting their friends to help them construct an elaborate alibi that would shut the case down before it opened, then it wasn't a case of neglect, it was more a case of a concerted effort by several people to pervert the course of justice.It troubles me that nobody offers an explanation as to why the friends would risk so much when they hadn't done anything wrong.And those who point accusatory fingers at one or more of those friends being responsible for the death of the child offer no explanations of why the parents would forgive them on the spot and hide the body.Yet, returning to the apartment to find one child missing makes an abduction scenario 'ridiculous' and words of that ilk .

    Some opine that the parents are all kinds of bad.They buried their own child.They conned the tax payers and government out of money they later laundered.They influenced and controlled which news was released as well as the Met.They got the detective in charge removed.They ordered a 'hit' on an 'anti'. All of this under the close scrutiny of two police forces yet the accusers daren't enter into that. they won't pontificate about the police letting it happen, or the government handing out cash without noticing it all. they won't call the forensic team incompetent or dishonest. it's the McCanns - open and shut. The court of public opinion says so, like they did about Lindy Chamberlain.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No dingos in Portugal 14:13. and unless Jane has suddenly remembered the man she saw may have been a mangy dog.

      Nobody is blaming the police or the forensic teams, because they had nothing to do with Madeleine's disappearance. And blaming the police and the government for 'letting' the crimes happen is beyond stupid. A bankrobber could say, not my fault, the police let me do it. Good luck with that as a defence.

      Delete
    2. ''Nobody is blaming the police or the forensic teams, because they had nothing to do with Madeleine's disappearance. And blaming the police and the government for 'letting' the crimes happen is beyond stupid. A bankrobber could say, not my fault, the police let me do it. Good luck with that as a defence.''


      I didn't say otherwise, as much as you're trying to suggest I did. What i clearly ( to the lucid) suggested was that those who, after eleven years, continue their manic witch hunt of the McCanns never talk about the police saying no incriminating evidence exists. The hunters say there is. So, they're disagreeing with the police -or implying that they're lying. It clearly isn't stating that they had anything to do with the disappearance. That's being childish. The police have also stated that the McCanns are not suspects or being investigated. I tend to believe them considering we're eleven years on. But the vigilante tweeters say they are suspects. They, somewhat desperately, try to suggest that the police stating such is a sign that they'e bluffing to lull the parents into a false sense of security (yep-good luck with that). The sniffer evidence and blood ? Again - eleven years.Why didn't any of that provide the Holy Grail ? The experts said it wasn't sufficient- twitter said it was.

      Before you arrogantly pronounce anything that makes sense to reasonable people as 'beyond stupid' you should consider the evidence.Or lack of it. If you can't bring yourself to do that, perhaps if your read this thread, and recent three, and your own contributions to them,you'll understand what the general feeling is with regards to what is or isn't stupid.

      Delete
    3. I don't think the police are going to name any suspects in Madeleine's disappearance, right up until the 'day'. If there are a number of suspects, they won't want to tip them off. Like the PJ the Brits seem to be acting under Judicial Secrecy, they all seem to be keeping their cards very close to their chests.

      The police might make statements to say the parents and their friends aren't suspects, but they have never stated why. They have never put forward the reason(s) why the entire Tapas group are ruled out. Which is a shame, because they could have spared them all years of misery.

      The final Judgement in the McCanns' case against Goncalo Amaral, states in the summing that the parents were never cleared. Why, at this point, or even before, didn't the parents cite the fact that the PJ and SY had ruled them out? It would have been great for their claim.

      I have considered the evidence VT, for too blooming long, and I still don't buy the abduction story. There is no evidence for an abduction, the blood and cadaver dogs alerted to 5A and the car, and Madeleine hasn't been seen in almost 11 years.

      That's pretty strong evidence for my belief. Gerry and Kate have never acted like parents of a missing child. You can argue until you are blue in the face, that we don't how we would act, well yeh we do, and it would have been nothing like them. Every twist and turn they have taken over the years defies logic and rationale, from blowing their multi-million pound fund, to book burning, to campaigning to gag the free press. Not exactly popular causes VT. Maybe unfair, but they are like automatons, in all these years they have never shown their ‘warm, fluffy, likeable sides’, that part of their personalities that might have kept their public onside. Not replying personally on Facebook, it’s things like that.

      Their unpopularity lies directly at their own door VT. Whilst I agree that some on twitter and in the forums might accurately described as vigilantes, the majority simply don’t buy such a tall tale.

      Delete
  27. '' They all seem to be keeping their cards very close to their chests. ''

    Close to their chests is an understatement.Who ever heard of a poker game lasting eleven years where the big stakes are lifted out of public funds.If they have suspects or even one they should make an arrest.The only reason they couldn't have is because they have nothing on the suspect.If they can't find anything after this time what are they waiting for ? Somebody so cunning for so long to have a fit of conscience and confess ?

    ''The police might make statements to say the parents and their friends aren't suspects, but they have never stated why.''

    That stands for every case everywhere.Only if pressed by journalists or documentary makers do they answer .They aren't obligated to publicly announce anything regarding anyone who isn't an official suspect or been charged or arrested.

    ''The final Judgement in the McCanns' case against Goncalo Amaral, states in the summing that the parents were never cleared.''

    It has never been in a Criminal Court. Who has more weight ? A judge deciding what libelous remarks are or the heads of the joint forces investigating the crime ?

    ''There is no evidence for an abduction''

    One spec of concrete evidence is as good as a mountain. There isn't one that suggests anything either way.The parents say they left their child unprotected and, on their return, she had gone.Under any circumstances the police have to consider two things on the spot; she's wondered off or been taken.They have to act on both instantly.She has never been found, or we're told as much.The official investigation says she is still considered as abducted, regardless of what happened subsequently.Detectives who feel strongly that the abduction is a fabrication had PDL to operate in. It's hardly Hong Kong.

    ''That's pretty strong evidence for my belief. Gerry and Kate have never acted like parents of a missing child''

    It's about interpretation. Those who want to find something to fit their suspicions will see all kinds.But, your key word there was 'act'. All you, me, and everyone have witnessed have been short soundbytes from early on. You don't know if they had been crying hysterically or raging at investigators behind closed doors before being coached to keep calm and clear before the cameras.Nobody likes talking about the mess KM was when Yvonne martin turned up uninvited.All that's said about that was how suspicious she was about Payne.

    ''they have never shown their ‘warm, fluffy, likeable sides’, that part of their personalities that might have kept their public onside.''

    And the public with their pause buttons and face reading magic and magnifying glasses would have read that as what ? Have you and the others who have the parents as guilty ever commented on the unguarded moment GM had and was snapped laughing( unlike an automaton)? The hate went viral and hasn't stopped. They're probably praying to see the parents be warm and fluffy.Then the real slaughter can begin.

    '' Not replying personally on Facebook, it’s things like that. ''

    McCann hunting has become an online international sport.Think about it.

    ''the majority simply don’t buy such a tall tale.''

    Majorities have been wrong before. Trend following is nothing more than wanting to be part of a swarm. A place not to think individually. The merit of a thory isn't judged by how many believe it, but how much can support it.This is why I refer to the Lindy Chamberlain case. The masses were gathered salivating at the trial outside the court.Some of the more passionate wore and sold tee shirts ( ''the dingo's innocent!''). Years later, once the evidence was found, and she was released from prison, only a comparatively small, sober crowd greeted the news.The majority never showed their faces.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here we go again VT. The police must have something on someone, or the investigation would not be ongoing. When the PJ had 'nothing' the case was shelved, ergo, it took 'something' for them to re-open it, and keep it open.

      I'm not sure it's true to say suspects aren't ruled out in open investigations and reasons given, such as 'passed lie detecter' (in US), or they proved to be elsewhere at the time. Something that explains WHY they are no longer persons of interest. It would have been the kind thing to do in this case, as obviously the suspicion still looms.

      Is Madeleine 'still' considered to be abducted? Even their onside tabloids don't use the word abducted anymore. You say there is no evidence either way, which can't possibly be true because there are two live investigations.

      Applying gang mentality to those who don't believe the abduction story, is crude and far too simplistic. The McCanns have been in the headlines and on our TV screens for years, that is they have put a lot out there to judge. And people have judged them, as they judge anyone in the spotlight, that's the downside of celebrity.

      Their misfortune, other than their own strange behaviour, was the release of the Portuguese police files which told a completely different story to the McCannns' official narrative. That, combined with the unprecedented amount of information on the internet, has led to the public reading beyond the headlines and making their own minds up. We are all capable of independent thinking VT, it is insulting to say non believers of the abduction story, are following the crowd.

      The 'public with their pause buttons and face reading magic' sounds a tad paranoid VT. Yes there are weirdos out there with their magnifying glasses etc, but so what? Why should that bother Gerry and Kate? And I speak as someone who has been put through that same public dissection. OK, not on the same scale as G&K, but enough to know that worrying about it is absolutely pointless. I also have enough confidence to know that if my critics met me in person, they would see how ludicrous their accusations are. I'm simply not the bitter, twisted harridan they claim I am. In fact, most people find me quite charming lol.

      'McCann hunting' again is a tad paranoid. Their have allowed their fear of criticism to cut them off from their supporters. Look at the masses of horrendous allegations that are thrown at Jeremy Corbyn daily, and indeed Diane Abbott. There is no question that Jeremy, Diane, or indeed myself, would be stopped from using social media. Gerry and Kate and intelligent and erudite, and they have always had a lot to say, so it must be horribly inhibiting for them not being able to speak publically in their own names. For me, that would be a prison.

      Majorities have been wrong before, yes, but 'ask the audience' is still a good option.

      As for Lindy Chamberlain, her story, like the McCanns' was hugely emotive and reported globally. These cases, unfortunately, do stir up the 'think of the children' mobs, that's life.

      Delete
    2. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton23 February 2018 at 09:15

      ''As for Lindy Chamberlain, her story, like the McCanns' was hugely emotive and reported globally. These cases, unfortunately, do stir up the 'think of the children' mobs, that's life.''

      The emotions are stirred up because, in both cases, children were innocent victims.It stirs up anger and sadness at the same time. That isn't the state of mind that lends itself well to making well informed decisions or judgements about anything. It tends to provoke an instant hunger for revenge disguised as justice. That's not a 'think of the children' mob, it's just an angry mob justifying their behaviour by saying they're thinking of the children. Sections of the mobs would have gladly strung both sets of parents from lamposts and regarded themselves as renegade heroes.Would it have brought the children back unharmed ? Or back at all ? No. It would have provided a collective catharsis and no more. And, in the Lindy Chamberlain case, it would have provided two more innocent victims and a mob of unhinged murderers. This is why trained experts need to investigate facts and find evidence. If a guilty verdict is pronounced, then the mob can rage.

      Looking at both cases, it's hard to miss the parallels. But, they occurred a generation apart and in different hemispheres.I don't suggest using one case to solve another.Or one case to explain another.The take away from comparing both is that a lot can be learned about human nature.. A lot can also be learned about how the media can manipulate the collective psyche in the name of money and divorce itself from conscience. A dangerous cocktail.

      Delete
    3. Who stirs up the angry mobs VT? The media act as a conduit, they don't make the news, they report it.

      In the case of Madeleine, you have 'stirrers' on both sides. In the Justice for Madeleine camp, you have extremists who have taken the law into their hands. They have 'investigated', held 'trials' and reached verdicts, finding not only the parents, but numerous innocent witnesses of crimes that they themselves have imagined. All from the comfort of their armchairs.

      They are led by the Christian, Evangelical far right in the shape of Mr. Fire and Brimstone himself, Tony Bennett. A passionate lifelong campaigner against deviant sex and protector of children, Bennett stepped up to rally the concerned citizens. Joined and ably abetted by alien hunter Richard Hall and fellow religious nut who interprets door closing as time to have sex with the kids, Hyatt.

      On the other side you have child protection 'experts' telling us that children are being stolen from their beds on a regular basis and there are 750,000 active paedophiles among us lusting after our kids.

      Both sides are feeding propaganda to the media, though thankfully Bennett's sick fuck antics have had their day. When the media were more onside with the McCanns, he was useful as the ugly side of their critics and trolls, but since the Brenda Leyland debacle, demonising McCann critics has become less popular.

      Battles are now fought on social media. Popularity is measured in followers and likes. The old angry mobs are now mostly cyber, they express their outrage in 140, or 280 characters. The pen is literally mightier than sword.

      Unfortunately for the powers that be, angry mobs can be rallied in moments. the Arab Spring, the UK 2011 riots. The attempting ousting of Jeremy Corbyn, brought 10,000 protestors to the Houses of Parliament. Governments must always now be prepared for an instant backlash. You can see why they are using increasingly more desperate measures in their attempts to police the internet. The need for folk devils has never been greater.

      Delete
    4. I should add VT, that in the case of missing Madeleine, most of the initial anger and outrage has died out. I think most now consider the case as sad, rather than bad. Even if the parents were involved, no one can dispute that they have suffered and are suffering still.

      But just as they won't accept responsibility for leaving the toddlers at risk, they won't accept responsibility for every had decision they have made ever since. They chose to stay in the media spotlight, they chose to embark on a journey of revenge against Goncalo Amaral.

      I feel sad for them, because none of their advisors or family and friends, have had the decency and kindness to point out all the paths to destruction. Or how futile their battles against Goncalo Amaral were always going to be, ie. The Streisand effect.

      Delete
    5. @Anonymous23 February 2018 at 17:53


      ”Sections of the mobs would have gladly strung both sets of parents from lamposts and regarded themselves as renegade heroes”

      Possibly true, however, the only mob that really succeeded in destroying someone’s life was that, which was led by Martin Brunt, supported by the McCanns and their team of lawyers and with the sole aim of silencing as many as possible of those who refused to believe in the McCanns’ fairy tale.

      In what way has Brenda Leyland's death helped the McCanns to find their daughter? If Madeleine really has been abducted,why do the the McCanns still care so much about those who don't believe them.

      So all of your “heroes”, who were responsible for stigmatizing Brenda Leyland, can still be found among British newspaper editors, British MSM journalists and British corrupt lawyers.

      R.I.P. Brenda Leyland

      Delete
    6. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton24 February 2018 at 10:03

      ''But just as they won't accept responsibility for leaving the toddlers at risk, they won't accept responsibility for every had decision they have made ever since. ''

      Who do they was responsible for leaving the children ? What are the 'bad decisions' they've made ever since ? They had no choice from the outset to have faith in the PJ. Some would say, in hindsight unfortunately, that was their worst decision. But how were they to know ? Their child was gone. They had to.

      Delete
    7. Björn24 February 2018 at 10:21

      ''R.I.P. Brenda Leyland''

      Rest in peace ?

      It sickens me how many times i see that posted. It looks emptier and increasingly insincere.Here's a radical idea : If you genuinely want her to rest in peace, why don't you let her. Why not stop using her passing as a desperate attempt to come across as having genuine feelings about her when all you do is mention her to scrape the bottom of the barrel trying to blame the McCanns as being directly or indirectly responsible for her tragic passing. Do you honestly believe that anyone of sound mind who reads the bitterness and unfounded, unsupported allegations time after time is fooled by the R I P sign - off as a sign of being genuinely touched by it ? Do you believe it adds a human touch and a passable justification ? it doesn't. It's a cheap trick, it's an ineffective trick, and it fails to show any respect to her memory or, indeed, allow her to rest in peace.

      Delete
    8. ''They chose to stay in the media spotlight, they chose to embark on a journey of revenge against Goncalo Amaral''

      After they lost their child, Amaral was supposed to co-ordinate a thorough investigation and act fast. He had an initial idea that 'it was probably the parents' and allowed that to to prevent him doing it. Instead, he decided to believe his own guess without grounds and later call them liars and that they buried their own child.He has failed to prove either and that justifies his removal.The parents did what any accused parents would do. They wanted him silenced but failed. Since then he has become the online poster boy of the massed ranks of vigilantes who also don't believe evidence isn't important when you have enough suspicion and imagination. Amaral has toured the globe with his bizarre book of theories. Who is really on a 'journey of revenge' ?

      Delete
    9. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton24 February 2018 at 09:38

      ''Who stirs up the angry mobs VT? The media act as a conduit, they don't make the news, they report it.''

      It depends which branch. They report it, yes.But they can present it in a way that isn't always balanced or impartial.TV have advertisers paying for time and newspapers have agendas dictated by their private sponsors. The result is that news is presented with bullet points lost inside a forest of innuendo.

      ''In the case of Madeleine, you have 'stirrers' on both sides. In the Justice for Madeleine camp, you have extremists who have taken the law into their hands. They have 'investigated', held 'trials' and reached verdicts, ''

      They make up the army of vigilantes I was referring to elsewhere.

      'They are led by the Christian, Evangelical far right in the shape of Mr. Fire and Brimstone himself, Tony Bennett.'

      Many are called, few are chosen, to coin a biblical phrase. I'll add to it :'' some choose themselves''. If people choose to follow a pied piper then so be it.It makes them gullible, not bright. Even sheep need a dog to direct them.The vigilante sheep follow of their own volition.No excuses. As for Richard Hall..I believe he had the right intentions initially, as he seems to have in all areas he looks at.But I think he's guilty of refusing to back track in fear of losing credibility.he has the ball and just runs.

      We don't need experts throwing numbers around when it comes to dangers to children. At the same time, we can't afford to play the numbers down.It's easier than people think to resist being caught up in a hysterical trend.Calmness is the key. You can't research emotive issues properly without it.

      Propaganda is the main reason we need to question news.If we allow ourselves to be trained rather than taught, we never learn.Question everything and analyse the validity and evidence of the answers found.

      ''Battles are now fought on social media...The pen is literally mightier than sword. ''

      Before the internet mobs would gather in bars and the like to share rubbish and talk too loud.They were the platforms and they served nobody but the shouters.They just have keyboards now.Just because we've gone digital doesn't mean rubbish is now important.

      The pen owners have their pen keepers in the shape of governments. As the world continues to ride to hell in a handcart, anger is growing and people other than the loud are 'talking' online. All they have is a vastly superior number. But that would constitute the biggest angry mob in world history and the shit hitting the fan would be too hard to contain. Once we had the underground and what was talked about stayed secret.The internet isn't secret.The new digital underground is called 'alt' and nothing can be hidden. The wonders of th web may well be technically ingenius, but it was a true stroke of genius for those who decided to 'give' us it.

      No 'pun' of pen and pen was intended.It was just a happy coincidence *

      Delete
    10. Ros 24 February 10.03

      Myself and many others don't believe the toddlers were left at risk, we only have the McCanns and their Tapas friends' words for that. As has been said many times, if "neglect" had to be their get out clause how big was the crime that befell poor Madeleine.

      As for Lindy Chamberlain I still have my doubts that a dingo took her baby and that it took years to find a blood soaked baby's jacket (with the buttons undone apparently, what dingo would be that intelligent to undo buttons) hidden in a lair not far from the camp site. All too convenient and smacks of it being staged and planted after the facts were known and she was imprisoned. Somewhat like Madeleine's fate, certain people backtracking and coming up with excuses to fit in with the narrative that appears on different websites.

      Delete
    11. You can't write Brenda Leyland out of the Madeleine story 13:45. The pro-active Team McCann have been fighting their cause online since day 1, that is they have been on a mission to silence all those who do not believe the abduction story. They have fed the trolls and they have used the trolls to support their claims of victimisation. They are being bullied because of Goncalo Amaral, they claim. Even you, refer to him as the 'poster boy'.

      Unfortunately, they haven't focussed on finding their daughter, they have focussed on getting revenge. Days before the horrendous siege on Brenda Leyland, Gerry was demanding that an example be made of those who torment them.

      The pro McCann book by Summers and Swan, drew attention to the trolls online who target the parents and Jim Gamble appeared on Martin Brunt's news report warning all McCann critics that will be 'in the dock'.

      It was, without any doubt, a coordinated attempt to stop all online criticism of the parents. But it was a disaster. The public weren't horrified at the treatment of the McCanns, they were horrified at the treatment of Brenda Leyland! It backfired spectacularly, which is probably why you are so keen that Brenda should be forgotten.

      The media attack on Brenda was intended to cause her maximum distress, showing her outside her home on a 15 minute news cycle, with the tabloids demonising her on the front pages. It was unspeakably cruel and something that should never happen again.

      Delete
    12. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton24 February 2018 at 18:21

      ''You can't write Brenda Leyland out of the Madeleine story 13:45''

      That would depend if you had her written into it in the first place. I never did, and never will. Brenda Leyland was part of a separate story that developed later . That was, and still is, the story of how social network platforms work and the effects it has when two sides go to war and become as angry as each other. One side has anger and nothing to go to war with other than that anger suspicion.The other side has frustration as they can't make that simple point clear enough. If you add to the mix that certain half witted individuals go too far and issue threats of attack on the people they are arguing over, it becomes a news story. It doesn't matter if these headcases were ever going to carry out the threats or if they just wanted to be the main strutters on the virtual battleground; a bit of ego satisfaction. But, given the fact that a lot of lunatics that do carry out threats that were initiated online via facebook etc, who is going to ignore them when they have children and their personal details have been shared via MSM time and again ? It's a gamble too far to shrug it off.

      Brenda was, unfortunately, the victim chosen by the MSM to hold up as an example of how troublesome social network mentalities can be when their users lose sight of facts and allow personal demons take over the wheel. Unfortunately, they harassed a lady who was delicate . They wanted the sensational headlines. They didn't care about details . What happened after Brunt had finished his dirty work was tragic,but, if we wan't to analyse it and discuss it, we should do so with an open mind, not one hoping to re-write it to fit into the 'Team McCann' mafiosa fairy tale. It's that kind of unfounded, subjective BS that started the ball rolling in the first place and ended with a tragedy that may have been avoided if a lot of people conducted themselves in a mature way and not like angry gangs of teens.

      Delete
    13. It was the public humiliation that drove Brenda Leyland to suicide, an example of the 'worst that can happen', the sum of all our fears.

      Those running Stop the Myths, wanted internet trolls publically named and shamed in the same way as suspected paedophiles. Instant justice and retribution. What they did to Brenda, they threatened to do to all of us over the course of several years. It was the main weapon to silence online critics. They held a blacklist of names taken from Facebook and social media to pass to employers and to destroy small businesses. These were the concerned citizens or McCann family members who compiled the Dossier given to Martin Brunt. And Jim Gamble congratulated Martin Brunt on his fine work.

      You say Brenda was chosen by the MSM to hold up as an example. I seriously doubt that, as mentioned earlier, the media report stories, they don't create them.

      Firstly, Brenda was chosen by those who created the 'dossier', the McCann supporter site 'Exposing the Myths'. All the news agencies didn't simultaneously select Brenda out of the hundreds of names that were submitted in the dossier.

      They went with the story they were given and Brenda was selected because she was 'so ordinary'. Those gunning for the 'trolls' wanted to show that these sinister trolls were masquerading as harmless old ladies, rather than tattooed thugs carrying knuckle dusters. As we know, their ploy spectacularly backfired, had they gone with the usual stereotype, it might all have turned out different.

      In trying to demonise Brunt, you are literally trying to demonise the messenger. I was shocked that MB played a part in this debacle, but he is still only the messenger. And the message was given to the police, and MB, by members of the McCann family according to Sir Bernard HH.

      Brenda's story is an example of how far those trying to protect the abduction narrative were prepared to go to silence the McCanns critics.
      It might have helped the McCanns if they had issued some words of condolence, explain that they never wanted their complaint to go that far, but they didn't. That's cold.

      Delete
    14. Anonymous24 February 2018 at 17:31

      ''Myself and many others don't believe the toddlers were left at risk, we only have the McCanns and their Tapas friends' words for that.''

      What does that mean ? That your opinion( and the others you claim share it) of risk doesn't include leaving three infants alone in the evening ? Or are you one of the 'she went missing days before ' mob. Is there evidence of it ? Or is that mob bored with the same old stories being repeated so have gone for a new angle. I'd be interested to hear the logic behind it. Don't worry, I won't suggest the logic should be supported by evidence. This is the Mccann case, after all.

      ''As for Lindy Chamberlain I still have my doubts that a dingo took her baby and that it took years to find a blood soaked baby's jacket (with the buttons undone apparently, what dingo would be that intelligent to undo buttons) hidden in a lair not far from the camp site.''

      Why do you have doubts ? yes, it is very unusual for a dingo to undo buttons, I agree.But it wouldn't rock the world for someone not to fasten them in the first place. Maybe they were undone on discovery, who knows ? Or, maybe Lindy Chamberlain absconded from prison under the cover of darkness and planted them then scurried back to her cell. That would explain why DNA and blood passed forensic tests.It could even be that the courts and forensics department wanted to look stupid rather than keep the case closed. Who knows.

      Delete
    15. Hi 17:31, sorry, but I believe the neglect was all too real. And I reached that conclusion on the statements they gave the next day. There is an arrogance, almost a callousness about their attitude to childcare. No remorse whatsoever in their collection decision to leave the children on their own. They almost take pride in the perfect solution they found for holiday makers everywhere, it worked so well on the 5 previous nights. And it would have worked perfectly well on the 6th night, if it hadn't been for a random predator.

      Each of their statements screams 'we didn't do anything wrong'.....[in leaving the children unattended]. They are already fending off neglect charges, the biggest fear at that time for all of them. Charges that could threaten their careers and livelihoods.

      It's like the Smithman argument all over again, lol. But I'll go on, as briefly as possible, why on earth would they all hold their hands up to such serious charges? If the kids were being looked after, there is no sane or logical reason for them to have held that back.

      They made a collective decision to leave the kids on their own every night. This braggadocious group of doctors, had found their own way to enjoy their holiday without the hassle of young kids, or the additional costs of babysitters. They were patting their own backs.

      As for Lindy Chamberlain, I can't say one way or the other, it isn't a case I have ever looked into, and I wasn't fond of Meryl Street in a dark wig.

      The Madeleine case is a one off for me and I feel almost hostage to it. My obsession, and yes, I have them too, is clearing my name. Not through the Courts or any vendettas, but through openness and honesty. Those who read elsewhere on the web that I am a monster, can read here and judge for themselves, and I’m glad that you have 17:31, even though our opinions differ :)

      Delete
    16. Ps. Forgive the 'braggadocious' it is a new word for me, rolls off the tongue and is wonderfully descriptive!

      Delete
    17. Ah the dreaded "Dossier of Death" (source: Ros)

      Delete
    18. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton24 February 2018 at 21:25

      ''The Madeleine case is a one off for me and I feel almost hostage to it. My obsession, and yes, I have them too, is clearing my name.''

      You certainly are hostage to it. What do you need your name clearing of ? What have you been accused of ? Who by ? Is it just internet gossip and bitching again ?

      This is why i keep the Madeleine case and the internet 'public court' completely separate.One really happened and one is an ongoing virtual competition between different breeds of strange people with internet access.

      Delete
    19. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton24 February 2018 at 20:37

      ''It was the public humiliation that drove Brenda Leyland to suicide, an example of the 'worst that can happen', the sum of all our fears. ''

      Always refreshing to have an example of the Katie Hopkins school of thought.We need intelligent celebrities to inform our thinking.

      I don't particularly care what Stop The Myths or any other forum /blog /Twitter account wanted to do.I still don't. They have proved from the outset that they are, on the whole, incapable of debating issues with any level of self control for more than five minutes and can't be trusted to behave like adults. They drew the attention of the MSM and they arrived in their gravy train to see what they could get out of it.

      ''These were the concerned citizens or McCann family members who compiled the Dossier given to Martin Brunt. And Jim Gamble congratulated Martin Brunt on his fine work. ''

      Shortly before the event, Brunt started following Brenda on Twitter. That's sinister.Sky and Twitter must have been aware of the plan.Nobody questions their scruples though do they.

      ''You say Brenda was chosen by the MSM to hold up as an example. I seriously doubt that,''

      Who else did they doorstep.Who else did Brunt start following then follow in real time with a camera crew ?

      ''Firstly, Brenda was chosen by those who created the 'dossier', the McCann supporter site ''

      If Arsenal supporters wreck the town the team don't get arrested or blamed.Why do you blame the McCanns on various threads ?

      ''In trying to demonise Brunt, you are literally trying to demonise the messenger. I was shocked that MB played a part in this debacle''

      I'm demonising the MSM. But Brunt and his throw away one liners ( ''Kate will be charged soon'' ) and close relationship with phone contact /translator /suspect, Murat, demonised him more than I or anyone else have.

      ''Brenda's story is an example of how far those trying to protect the abduction narrative were prepared to go to silence the McCanns critics. ''

      How far is that exactly ? Ambushing her outside her home only to receive short, calm and composed replies before calmly driving off ?

      ''It might have helped the McCanns if they had issued some words of condolence, explain that they never wanted their complaint to go that far''

      And then waited for thousands of deluded armchair detectives to grab that and say it was proof they instigated it.Silence is golden.

      Delete
    20. All the proof that they [Team McCann] instigated the media attack on Brenda was already there, from Gerry's 'we want an example made' to the Summers and Swan book, to Jim Gamble's involvement to Martin Brunt's indepth look at the trolls attacking the McCanns online. That they didn't show compassion to protect themselves, is not endearing, it's cowardly.

      As for Silence is Golden, how's that working out? 11 years on and they are under more suspicion than ever.

      Delete
    21. ''As for Silence is Golden, how's that working out? 11 years on and they are under more suspicion than ever.''

      Which part of 'they are not suspects' as announced by the UK and the PJ don't you get ? They're under more suspicion than ever by people who have nothing more than suspicious minds and boredom driving them in circles.

      In your world, how does the ''under more suspicion than ever'' translate into common sense or fact ? It looks to me like wishful thinking on your part.Nothing more.

      Delete
    22. Hello

      @Anon 24 February 2018 at 13:45
      and thanks for comment.

      "It's a cheap trick, it's an ineffective trick, and it fails to show any respect to her memory or, indeed, allow her to rest in peace"

      Here, just what's behind a few of my "tricks"

      You’re so mistaken. I saw a short video clip in which Brenda Leyland appeared, when she was ”door stepped” by Brunt. She then looked so scared and lonely. She actually reminded me of a woman I used to know and like very much. I sincerely felt so sorry for her and I thought that it was so unfair, that she should be” made an example of”. Nobody deserves to be outed like she was, for commenting on the case in question and for giving her opinion on the McCanns, even if the choice of words sometimes may be inappropriate.

      In a way I feel the same for Kate McCann. I find it almost unbearable to see Kate McCanns' facial expression of guilt, that becomes worse for every anniversary. She always seems to feel compelled to give short, queer and blurred answers to seemingly simple questions regarding the ongoing investigation and the latest Fiona Bruce interview is no different in this respect. The only thing we’ve learnt from that interview is, that the Operation Grange means “huge” to her and Gerry, and that there’re still progress being made, though we’re not told in terms of what.

      The restrained truth is well kept by Kate behind her tormented face but as long as she doesn’t let it out, she’ll be the one that’ll go on suffering more and more.

      I remember reading that the social worker Ywonne Martin on the day after Madeleine had disappeared wanted to talk with Kate alone, but was prevented from doing so by Dave Payne, and by that she may have lost a chance to sort things out. Had she been allowed to talk to Kate then, we wouldn’t perhaps have had the farce we’ve had for almost 11 years now.

      As for Kate McCann, she needs to talk with a completely independent psychologist in the absence of Gerry and other so-called friends, because she’s in need of help and treatment and I actually worry about her and I also feel so sorry for her. I cannot be the only one who sees that Kate McCann is suffering severely, and that it has nothing whatsoever to do with me or the “trolls” on the internet.




      Delete
    23. @ Bbjorn

      This is like the 'how to interpret art' discussion again...

      Brenda Leyland, in the doorstepping incident we all saw, looked to me to be slightly annoyed. Given the impudence of Brunt, and the nature of the ambush, nobody would have been surprised had she lost her head, shouted, and stormed off uttering expletives. But she didn't do any of that. She listened to the questions looking only slightly annoyed by the invasion and conducted herself with grace under fire. Her calmness was admirable and it shook Brunt.It was him panicking.it's in his voice.

      ''In a way I feel the same for Kate McCann. I find it almost unbearable to see Kate McCanns' facial expression of guilt,''

      You surprise me. Could you describe what a facial expression of guilt looks like without leading me into a body language exercise ? Is it like a normal or pained expression but with some added interpretations of the observer ?

      ''She always seems to feel compelled to give short, queer and blurred answers''

      Straight ones that avoid ambiguity you mean. But even that's being interpreted subjectively by the haters now.Unless you have examples that say otherwise of course.

      ''Operation Grange means “huge” to her and Gerry, and that there’re still progress being made, though we’re not told in terms of what. ''

      Huge as it looks like their last chance of finding her daughter. OG will announce their findings or lack of success when it all gets shelved.

      ''The restrained truth is well kept by Kate behind her tormented face ''

      A guess.

      ''but as long as she doesn’t let it out, she’ll be the one that’ll go on suffering more and more.''

      Yes.She lost her child.Gloating suits you.

      Your paragraph about Yvonne Martin is pointless. She claimed to have seen the newsflash on Sky news, the employers of Brunt. She claims she thought it was a good idea to turn up unannounced to help.Payne stopped her as it was, as normal people would agree, an intrusion on private suffering. She then hinted at suspicions she had about the man who sent her away.Nothing came of her suspicion other than further suspicion about Payne online.

      ''As for Kate McCann, she needs to talk with a completely independent psychologist in the absence of Gerry and other so-called friends, because she’s in need of help and treatment''

      Is she really. What treatment would that be exactly and why ?

      ''I actually worry about her and I also feel so sorry for her. I cannot be the only one who sees that Kate McCann is suffering severely''

      That's the anti's 'disclaimer'. it's added for effect to give an impression of fairness and balance.It would work if it wasn't at the close of yet another diatribe intended to heap misery on her on top of the misery that losing a child has already caused. Everything you write about the McCann case sees constant accusations of her being a liar and cruel.

      Delete
    24. Hello VT I presume @Anonymous25 February 2018 at 21:37


      No,VT, Kate isn’t a liar in a traditional sense, nor is she cruel, but, for her own sake she needs to tell the whole truth, because she hasn’t. I don’t believe for a second that Kate, who, before she lost Madeleine was a career woman, at least in her mind, hasn’t been able to move on with her life just because she has been traumatized for more than 10 years due to the loss of her daughter (I know she works now).

      Naturally she must have gone through a great deal emotionally,as does everyone who’s lost a dear child, but as for Kate there’s much more to it.

      In order to get a better understanding of her psychological state of mind under the influence of her husband, Clarence Mitchell, Dave Payne and others, who hold her back, I’d recommend Kate Chopin’s novel “The Awakening” from the 19th century, which depicts the main character Edna’s suffering in a seemingly harmonious idyllic existence, which none of the men around her including her husband can see.

      Delete
    25. Björn26 February 2018 at 09:48

      ''No,VT, Kate isn’t a liar in a traditional sense, nor is she cruel, but, for her own sake she needs to tell the whole truth, because she hasn’t. I don’t believe for a second that Kate''

      And yet you feel sorry for her.See, you can't stop yourself and think instead, can you.You have decided that because you don't believe her that she hasn't told the whole truth.What is it the police are satisfied with but you aren't ? Or are you saying the police are choosing to believe her but really don't ? That would make them corrupt.Is that what you're implying ?

      ''In order to get a better understanding of her psychological state of mind under the influence of her husband, Clarence Mitchell, Dave Payne and others, who hold her back, I’d recommend Kate Chopin’s novel “The Awakening” from the 19th century,''

      Is that the 'independent psychologist' then - a book from the 19th century ? A novel ?

      This case isn't a work of fiction lifted from a book. It isn't a movie. Nor is it a game of Cluedo. This really happened and the we're talking about the real parents of a real child.

      It actually wouldn't take a psychologist to get an idea of Kate's state of mind, given the circumstances. She is in a kind of limbo not knowing what happened to her child or where she ended up. Even if she suspects the worst it isn't a fact until there's proof.So there's no closure, nor will there ever be if the 11 wasted years are a gauge. No closure. At best she /they will learn to adapt to it all if never really coming to terms completely.She's trapped in every parent's worst nightmare. yes, the obvious rapid reply to that is anticipated : ''she shouldn't have left them''. Yes, that's true.But that doesn't equate to murdering and dumping her. It doesn't equate to her finding her dead then burying her.It doesn't equate to a group conspiring to bury the evidence and facts. They make good story lines in novels and movies to a degree. That's all.

      In what way is Kate's mind under the influence of the people you suggest ? The impression she has given throughout the ordeal is that she is capable of independent thinking and doesn't need to rely on anyone to influence what she says or how she thinks. I'll pull one name from your list - David Payne. In what way could he influence her, and why would he feel the need to.

      Delete
    26. @ Hello Anonymous26 February 2018 at 14:29

      ”This case isn't a work of fiction lifted from a book. It isn't a movie. Nor is it a game of Cluedo”

      I agree, but it’s still a farce and has been so ever since the McCanns just minutes after Madeleine allegedly had gone missing, claimed that she must have been taken by a stranger.

      ”This really happened and the we're talking about the real parents of a real child”

      If ”this” refers to Madeleine being taken away by a couple, a paedophile or someone else with the intention of keeping her alive, then you only have the McCann's claims about Madeleine being well and findable to support your assumption about an abduction, but no evidence.

      If, on the other hand, “this” refers to Madeleine having died due to an accident in the apartment and then being hidden by her parents with a little help by others, there’s evidence supporting such an assumption.

      As for Dave Payne,
      ”In what way could he influence her, and why would he feel the need to”
      Yes, a good remark. ”why would he feel the need to”, but apparently he did feel a need to do so, when the police arrived and especially in the morning of the following day, when Ywonne Martin approached Kate.

      Kate and Gerry had that night spent most of their time trying to make everybody aware of what had happened to Madeleine, so why would Kate suddenly feel this need to be protected and why would Dave Payne take on the role as her protector, if there wasn’t anything that he needed to keep secret from the general public or from the police authorities?



      Delete
  28. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton23 February 2018 at 09:15

    ''Here we go again VT. The police must have something on someone, or the investigation would not be ongoing. ''

    If they had anything on anyone why haven't they aced on it.It's wishful thinking.They're leaving the door open in the hope that someone will confess or someone will inform. Failing that, they have to come up with an exit strategy that won't cause too much anger and hatred to so many who have hijacked the case and become self proclaimed experts. The 'they have something on someone'' could have been said this time last year, the year before and so on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon 23 February 10.20

      Don't forget the Fund. If there was no abduction as Eddie and Keela signified than the Fund would have been fraudulent from the day it was set up. It can take years for money to be traced through offshore accounts, Courts in overseas countries have to be asked for permission to look through bank accounts etc then the permission has to be waited for.

      Someone mentioned on CMoMM that the Fund was opened in a company name so the McCanns may not be held liable to account (not sure whose side he's on) but if the McCanns have been shown as Directors I would imagine they would be liable for where the money has been spent and stashed when their names are shown on the UK Companies' House register as Directors.

      Delete
    2. I'm not sure it could take years to unravel the finances 17:42. I have been watching the Mueller investigation into Trump and within months he was dishing out indictments. The Madeleine Fund I'm sure is far less complex.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous24 February 2018 at 17:42
      Anon 23 February 10.20

      ''Don't forget the Fund. If there was no abduction as Eddie and Keela signified than the Fund would have been fraudulent from the day it was set up. It can take years for money to be traced through offshore accounts, Courts in overseas countries have to be asked for permission to look through bank accounts etc then the permission has to be waited for.''

      But the official word of the PJ and SY is that there must have been an abduction.The offshore accounts is something imagined.The case is real.It isn't a novel.

      Delete
    4. The investigation is ongoing because they have something to investigate. And chances are, it's been the same something all along. I doubt the requests of OG for more funding include the words, 'we've got nothing, and we're going nowhere, but could you give us a top up anyway'.

      Delete
    5. thy might as well include them

      Delete
  29. ''I'm not sure it's true to say suspects aren't ruled out in open investigations and reasons given, such as 'passed lie detecter' (in US), or they proved to be elsewhere at the time.''

    Lie detectors are good fun on daytime TV . But even in the US they aren't allowed as evidence.But solid alibis are.The suspicion only looms in the public domain.If it was looming in the police for eleven years, they'd have done something about it. Who would it be kind to to explain their innocence ? They've obviously told the parents.
    ''Is Madeleine 'still' considered to be abducted? Even their onside tabloids don't use the word abducted anymore''

    That doesn't surprise me. But why point to tabloids ? They're sensationalist rags who lie and bend truth for cash.They feed a particular section of the public. The section not that bothered with reality but who love 'celebs' and scandal.

    '' You say there is no evidence either way, which can't possibly be true because there are two live investigations''

    That's the exact reason I said there can't be any.They're still both looking and hoping.

    ''Applying gang mentality to those who don't believe the abduction story, is crude and far too simplistic. ''

    I'd say forming or joining gangs online to post hatred and accusations is crude and simplistic.I wouldn't call what they do and what they are particularly complex.

    '', combined with the unprecedented amount of information on the internet, has led to the public reading beyond the headlines and making their own minds up''

    Vigilantes then.Nobody has access to more real information than the police. Why haven't they made the same judgement? Possibly bcause they don't waste time on gossip amd invention.Or the likes of Hyam.
    ''We are all capable of independent thinking VT, it is insulting to say non believers of the abduction story, are following the crowd. ''

    I's an observation. They see the size of the crowd and they see what they all believe. An abduction is far less salacious.It's dull by comparison and has no mileage at all.

    '' And I speak as someone who has been put through that same public dissection.''

    If we allow public dissection to be held in any importance it's one step from vigilantism.It's the digital equivalent of public stoning.

    ''Their have allowed their fear of criticism to cut them off from their supporters.''

    You say fear ; I say anger.

    ''Gerry and Kate and intelligent and erudite, and they have always had a lot to say,.. For me, that would be a prison. ''

    I agree. On the other hand when one word can spark mass hysteria online and that public dissection, it's their only route. ''No - and that's an 'emphatic' no''. The 'emphatic' word that has been used as a qualifier, ergo subconscious admission of guilt. It could be argued that it was a polite 'are you deaf ? How many ways are there to say no ''

    ''Majorities have been wrong before, yes, but 'ask the audience' is still a good option.''

    Not for justice. We have a legal process. It's been there since wicth burning was banned.We have police forces and lawyers.

    ''The 'public with their pause buttons and face reading magic' sounds a tad paranoid VT. Yes there are weirdos out there with their magnifying glasses etc, ''

    So who is most paranoid ?

    '''McCann hunting' again is a tad paranoid.''

    You said it yourself ; the story has become huge and global due to the internet social platforms..They're observations.Paranoia is irrational.The majority of commentators have the McCanns guilty and never tire of sharing their detective or magic skills

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Worrying about what people say, is futile and if you worry about it too much, you could drive yourself insane. Most people accept that, which is why they are not afraid to be controversial. You can't win 'em all.

      The McCanns have reasonable grounds to complain, in that their may read the horrible things that have been written about them. But, realistically, the same applies to everyone who has children, not just them. Kids the world over have to read horrible things about their parents, 'I've got kids' will not stop a newspaper publishing a story, for anyone.

      Delete
    2. One line in your long diatribe stands out VT, 'if WE ALLOW......'. First, who is 'we', second no-one has the power to allow or disallow public opinion. That statement is totally delusional.

      In the past, people spoke behind your back, now they do in front of your face, albeit anonymously. But just as you can't legislate against criticism in the real world, you can't legislate against criticism online.

      I said fear, you said anger. So angry that they ran away and hid? Or so angry, that they persuaded others to go online and express that anger for them? Anonymously.

      Delete
    3. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton24 February 2018 at 18:49

      ''Worrying about what people say, is futile and if you worry about it too much, you could drive yourself insane.''

      Is considering other people insane too ? I don't think it is.

      ''The McCanns have reasonable grounds to complain, in that their may read the horrible things that have been written about them. But, realistically, the same applies to everyone who has children, not just them.''

      There's a difference - a big difference- between reading an unfortunately horrible truth about your parents, or family, and reading horrible accusations that have never been proven right.

      Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton24 February 2018 at 19:47

      ''One line in your long diatribe stands out VT, 'if WE ALLOW......'. First, who is 'we', second no-one has the power to allow or disallow public opinion. That statement is totally delusional. ''

      The 'we' is us - the public. I can see what you have done there. You've tried to suggest I said we shouldn't allow public opinion where I actually said :

      ''If we allow public dissection to be held in any importance it's one step from vigilantism.It's the digital equivalent of public stoning.''

      Is it only wrong if the public dissection is of paedophiles and child porn fanciers ? Tell me about 'delusional'. But do it without editing or rewording my questions to ones you can answer.

      ''In the past, people spoke behind your back, now they do in front of your face, albeit anonymously.''

      So how is that to your face ?

      ''So angry that they ran away and hid? Or so angry, that they persuaded others to go online and express that anger for them? Anonymously.''

      Keeping to the context in which that was said, so angry that they tried to pursue their accuser in a libel case.

      Delete
    4. No, there isn't a difference VT. The McCanns are not an exception to the rule. Karen Matthews was ripped to shreds even before she was charged, the media delved into her world and it wasn't pretty. Every parent of every child falls under suspicion, and we don't live in a Disney world that make horrible stuff go away.

      Goncalo Amaral had no choice but to publish his side of the story. He was being accused of all sorts of heinous crimes in the British newspapers. He didn't sue them, he told his side, as is his basic human right.

      No Court in Portugal or Europe will take away Goncalo's right to tell his story, and why should the public be denied 'both' sides?

      Their anger against Goncalo Amaral is pointless. His book, though the definitive account of what may have happened to Madeleine is now lost in sea of propaganda and fantasy. A victory against GA was never going to turn back any tides.

      Their priority should have been finding their daughter, not getting revenge on the detective who tried to find her. No reasonable, logical person would pursue legal action to the point of financial ruin. But that's exactly what the McCanns have done. Have they paid their legal costs in Portugal yet?

      They have not used Madeleine's Fund wisely, they have allowed millions, who knows how many, to be frittered away on spin doctors, high priced lawyers and PR agencies who have failed miserably to improve their image.

      And the Fund has never been used to help any other child. That carefully worded clause in their Company Agreements, states clearly, not until Madeleine AND her abductor are found, will surplus funds be passed onto other charities.

      The Fund is as of course as transparent as a pea souper, but the objectives are carved in stone and have been since the money started piling in, and I'm guessing, those well chosen words cost a pretty penny.

      The remains of the Fund, have remained static at around 750K, but it's being moved from pillar to post. Probably to keep it out of reach of Portuguese lawyers. Most recently it has been referred to as the McCanns 'own' money, in that they will use their own money to finance a new search when Operation Grange closes down.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous24 February 2018 at 20:37

      ''There's a difference - a big difference- between reading an unfortunately horrible truth about your parents, or family, and reading horrible accusations that have never been proven right.''

      Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton24 February 2018 at 22:01

      ''No, there isn't a difference VT. The McCanns are not an exception to the rule. Karen Matthews was ripped to shreds even before she was charged, the media delved into her world and it wasn't pretty''

      So, you fail to understand the difference between reading horrible truths about parents or family and reading horrible accusations that have no evidence to support them then. Fair enough. I'm not sure many- if any at all- who read here have that problem.

      In your eagerness to aim at the McCanns (your instinct), you haven't thought that out have you.It's effecting your rationality.

      ''Goncalo Amaral had no choice but to publish his side of the story. He was being accused of all sorts of heinous crimes in the British newspapers''

      Are the headlines about Amaral concerning his war against the press and his revenge on them, or are they about something else ? Something far more serious that would sell books faster and bigger numbers ? Who did he go after ?

      ''Their anger against Goncalo Amaral is pointless.''

      The libel case was pointless as the bizarre summation of the judge proved.Their anger was still justified and understandable.Until the child is found, evidence of her death is found, and evidence of their involvement is proved, his accusations are still no more than that -accusations.Their anger is still justified until that time.

      ''Their priority should have been finding their daughter, not getting revenge on the detective who tried to find her''

      It was their priority.Unfortunately, Amaral was too slow.Paying money for investigators they didn't know would fail them on top of the joint police operation isn't 'not trying'.

      ''The Fund is as of course as transparent as a pea souper,''

      That's not pea soup. It's clouded judgement.Clouded by bias.The fund has nothing whatsoever to do with whatever happened to Madeleine.it's just a hopeful straw to cling to by those desperate to foment anger at the parents.It lacks substance and objectivity.Imagining how it's been used and is being used and what for is guessing on your part.

      Delete
    6. You are hardly in a position to criticize my reasoning while you are still obsessing about Goncalo Amaral. It's been 11 years already,let it go.

      Searching was never their priority. They were more interested in fund raising, suing newspapers and appearing on the TV.

      ....Amaral was too slow. Paying money for investigators they didn't know would fail them.....

      In one short paragraph, on behalf of eternal victims Gerry and Kate, you have blamed GA for Madeleine's loss and the investigators THEY hired for defrauding them. The McCanns, once again, are blameless.

      Finally, you are trying to separate the Madeleine Fund from the Madeleine narrative. It can't be done. Some might say, the huge Fund Gerry and Kate accumulated while they were in PDL, prevented justice from running it's course. The parents lawyered up straight away, making the job of the police far more difficult.

      Frittering away £4m/£5m, no-one knows, in less than 3 years would raise anyone's eyebrows. If the Fund were a registered charity, the directors would have a lot of explaining to do.

      This case stopped being just about a missing child, the moment Gerry and Kate launched their Fund and Online shop.

      Delete
    7. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton25 February 2018 at 07:57

      ''You are hardly in a position to criticize my reasoning while you are still obsessing about Goncalo Amaral. It's been 11 years already,let it go.''

      You should heed your own advice, Rosalinda. The terms in which you fawn over the mad former detective are quite toe curling at times.If he's your last hope as an argument, no wonder nobody takes you seriously any more.

      Delete
    8. ''This case stopped being just about a missing child, the moment Gerry and Kate launched their Fund and Online shop''.

      You're implying that the last ten plus years have seen the police party to deception and fraud and the UK Governments being conned out of money by them.That's beyond silly.It's even beyond desperate.I don't know which leaves a worse taste, your unbalanced hatred of two parents who lost a child or the crazy reasoning behind your crusade to leave the child porn customers alone . Feel free to come back to planet earth soon.

      Delete
    9. Ros, you mentioned that you just want to clear your name. I'm sure a very small percentage of your readers bought that, rather than your real driving force being bitterness and anger.Tell me, how do you hop to clear your name by accusing the McCanns and Co of fraud when you have no evidence or good reason. Like everything else relating to the case, all you have is your ill will and bad mindedness.

      Delete
    10. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton25 February 2018 at 07:57

      ''In one short paragraph, on behalf of eternal victims Gerry and Kate, you have blamed GA for Madeleine's loss and the investigators THEY hired for defrauding them. The McCanns, once again, are blameless.''

      Obviously the paragraph was still long enough to evade your understanding of it ..

      I said - and you quoted me- that Amaral was too slow. He was. He uses the phrase ' we made a few mistakes early into the investigation' . How is that blaming him for Madeleine's loss ? She had already gone. He was just too slow .

      I blamed the investigators for defrauding them, yes. Who else is to blame ? They did it. They took the money under false pretences . They didn't honour the contract .
      ''Finally, you are trying to separate the Madeleine Fund from the Madeleine narrative. It can't be done.''

      It can. The only way it can't be is if you stretch the word 'narrative' to fit your own ideas. Madeleine disappeared fro the apartment when the parents were having dinner elsewhere.That's the narrative. The fund was introduced later as part of the strategy to find her.

      ''The parents lawyered up straight away, making the job of the police far more difficult. ''

      In what way can lawyers hinder an investigation into a missing child ?

      ''Frittering away £4m/£5m, no-one knows, in less than 3 years would raise anyone's eyebrows.''

      Anyone but the fraud squads of the UK and Portugal would you say ?

      ''This case stopped being just about a missing child, the moment Gerry and Kate launched their Fund and Online shop.''

      It did for you. it didn't for SY,PJ, or OG. You hope that OG is investigating it.That isn't the same as they are investigating it.The official updates from all involved in the case is that they are still looking for Madeleine.

      Delete
    11. 'In one short paragraph, on behalf of eternal victims Gerry and Kate, you have blamed GA for Madeleine's loss and the investigators THEY hired for defrauding them. The McCanns, once again, are blameless.''

      Oh yes...the entire world population thinks this!!!

      Delete
    12. It would take more than a shovel full of salt, to believe the McCanns were victims of the dodgy detectives they hired. They were very careful in their selection of lawyers, why not the same diligence when hiring detectives? And they were 'conned' not once, but twice!

      They allegedly paid out hundreds of thousands of pounds of Madeleine donations to these dodgy detectives, and made no attempt to get the money back. Strange, as they are not shy about issuing Writs, but for those who defrauded them of possibly millions, not even a word of complaint.

      How does 'being lawyered up' hinder the police? LOL, ask any detective!

      And the PJ did find the McCanns Fund and Online shop very strange for parents of a missing child, it's in the police files. It's one of the many reasons the police found the parent's behaviour suspicious.

      Delete
    13. Rea it again Ros - the question was:

      "In what way can lawyers hinder an investigation into a missing child ?"

      Delete
    14. ''And the PJ did find the McCanns Fund and Online shop very strange for parents of a missing child, it's in the police files. It's one of the many reasons the police found the parent's behaviour suspicious.''

      Doing strange things isn't against the law. The PJ did strange things too. Especially when they arrived at the crime scene.The working theories shortly after were even stranger.

      ''How does 'being lawyered up' hinder the police? LOL, ask any detective!''

      If one had posted it here, I would have.But they didn't. You did. I asked you.

      ''It would take more than a shovel full of salt, to believe the McCanns were victims of the dodgy detectives they hired. ''

      Try a spoonful of fact. It happened.

      Delete
    15. ''very strange for parents of a missing child, it's in the police files. It's one of the many reasons the police found the parent's behaviour suspicious.''

      Is that why they harassed Murat instead and brought him in for questioning twice as many times as the parents. Where was his online shop.

      Delete
    16. Ros -

      ''I said fear, you said anger. So angry that they ran away and hid? Or so angry, that they persuaded others to go online and express that anger for them? Anonymously.''

      That's your fevered, strange, dark imagination guiding you again. You SUSPECT that they had 'anonymous' people expressing anger on their behalf without a shred of anything. The actual fact that all the world saw was that they expressed it openly and attempted to go though the right channels with it. Unfortunately, the right channels ( Court) in Portugal are a bit behind the rest of Europe.

      Delete
    17. Anonymous25 February 2018 at 15:57

      ''''In one short paragraph, on behalf of eternal victims Gerry and Kate''

      Ros, you claim that this isn't a hate blog.You claim, somewhat unconvincingly , that you're not suggesting that you know what happened to Madeleine or who was behind it. The sentence I have chosen to quote back to you comes with a question. How can you refer to parents who lost their three year old daughter abroad and have never seen her since in eleven years as 'eternal victims' ? That's not nice is it. If your mind is as open as you occasionally claim, a little empathy should be present even if it's just as a parent.Why it isn't is up to the reader to guess I suppose.

      Delete
    18. The lawyer Rachel Oldfield certainly hindered the investigation into a missing child by attempting to pervert the course of justice in naming Murat as being outside 5A that night.I hope that improves your knowledge.

      Delete
    19. Why would anyone at all belive the McCanns and their friends? There is not a shred of evidence for their theory of what happened. Not a shred. Statistically speaking, in missing child cases, those responsible are usually family, close friends and/or people known to the child who he or she trusts. There is no evidence to suggest that this case does not fall into the statistical norm. And in fact there is considerale evidence that it does. The parents insistence on an abduction, for starters. The parents didn't bother to look for their daughter in the first few housrs. The parents considered there was 'no risk' (of abduction) and then, on finding Madeleine not in her bed, abduction is the only explanation they will consider. The parents acted in a strange manner when police arrived. The witness statements were inconsistent and sometimes contradictory. Eye-witnesses consider that it would have been impossible for Jane Tanner to see 'the abductor' from where she was standing. I could go on....and on.....there is so much more. There is every indication that Madeleine died that week in my opinion and that the parents covered it up. (GM: 'Find the body and prove we killed her'.) The McCann media interviews were hugely ill-advised. They both ooze deception and duplicity from every pore and they are truly terrible actors. The mystery is not what happened to Madeleine as I think Dr Amaral cracked that early on (although I don't think she died in an accident) but WHY are this beyond mediocre couple and their friends being protected? Why does Madeleine not deserve justice? She is the victim in all this, and her siblings, not the parents.

      Delete
    20. JJ26 February 2018 at 15:33

      ''The lawyer Rachel Oldfield certainly hindered the investigation into a missing child by attempting to pervert the course of justice in naming Murat as being outside 5A that night.I hope that improves your knowledge.''

      Not really.You don't understand the question.Was she charged with that by the way ?

      Delete
    21. Anonymous26 February 2018 at 17:24

      ''Why would anyone at all belive the McCanns and their friends? There is not a shred of evidence for their theory of what happened''

      Why wouldn't they ? Why did the police believe it ? lack of evidence possibly ? Alibis that were accepted by them ?

      '' Statistically speaking, in missing child cases, those responsible are usually family''

      Yes. Statistics. Numbers concerning hundred of people and cases that have nothing to do with the case. Imagine the police arresting them based on percentages.They're investigating a missing child not placing a bet.

      ''The parents insistence on an abduction, for starters.''

      What would you insist if you returned home and your child had gone ?

      ''The parents acted in a strange manner when police arrived''

      Strange how ? Were they chanting mantras to the moon ? Strange is pretty abstract.

      ''Eye-witnesses consider that it would have been impossible for Jane Tanner to see 'the abductor' from where she was standing. I could go on....and on..''

      You have done.I know it's being pedantic, but do you think the police bothered to check what was possible or impossible to see ?

      ''. There is every indication that Madeleine died that week in my opinion and that the parents covered it up''

      You suspect it.Nothing more. What could substantiate your guess ?

      ''The McCann media interviews were hugely ill-advised. They both ooze deception and duplicity from every pore and they are truly terrible actors. ''

      On the other hand, as you've chosen the more exciting story, maybe you saw something that wasn't there.Calling them actors is your way of supporting the idea.

      ''but WHY are this beyond mediocre couple and their friends being protected? Why does Madeleine not deserve justice? She is the victim in all this, and her siblings, not the parents.''

      I can't comment on them being mediocre as i don't imagine i have personal experience of them.Most who comment seem to, though.They've seen then on TV, see.They might be being protected because it's known that they are innocent.After all, it's only desperate celebrities and bored online sleuths who have conducted a non-existent inquiry and come up with air tight reasoning.

      Delete
    22. Anon 26 Feb 22.24

      I understand the question perfectly, you do not like the answer.

      The fact that you do not know whether Oldfield has been charged or not, shows you have no grasp of this case whatsoever but are on Ross's blog for mischief and disruption.

      Continue asking the same stupid questions and I will continue answering.

      Do you ever consider they are tying up charges against the Leicestershire Police, Gamble and CEOP, Oldfield and Fiona Payne all at the same time or then again nobody can grasp the nettle and stop the farce

      Delete
    23. Hello @Anonymous26 February 2018 at 17:24

      You, just like me cannot see the Emperor's new clothes. Unfortunately there're som people on this blog, who imagine that they can.

      Madeleine probably died due to an accident in the apartment, but as long as it cannot be proved, there’ll always be speculation about the McCanns having slapped her too hard or having done something else to her.

      As I’ve said before, the McCanns know what happened and Kate suffers the most, as she’s prevented from telling the truth, by those around her, who don't suffer the least.

      We must never forget, that the abduction story is fabricated by the McCanns and not by the Portuguese PJ. Saying so, is not a false rumour or slander, as it’s so well documented both in the PJ files and in MSM articles (interviews). If Redwood, Rowley and others who’re, or who’ve been working on the case believe(d) in the McCann fairy tale, they certainly would’ve believed in the Emperor’s New Clothes as well, had they been characters and admirers of the Emperor in H.C Andersen’s tale.  

      Delete
    24. ''The fact that you do not know whether Oldfield has been charged or not, shows you have no grasp of this case whatsoever''

      Yes, perfectly reasonable question. Have they charged Oldfield( or anyone?).Wouldn't OG be eager to announce such and make their costs look justified ? When is the court case ( real world, not online) do you think ? Or is it being delayed a few years by red tape.

      ''Do you ever consider they are tying up charges against the Leicestershire Police, Gamble and CEOP, Oldfield and Fiona Payne all at the same time''

      No. Why would anyone think that would take so long. That's just wild speculation without so much as a spec of evidence to suggest it's the case. I would only consider them if I was writing a rough draft for a short story.

      Delete
    25. @ Björn27 February 2018 at 11:14

      ''Madeleine probably died due to an accident in the apartment, but as long as it cannot be proved, there’ll always be speculation''

      What makes that scenario any more probable than any other ?

      ''there’ll always be speculation about the McCanns having slapped her too hard or having done something else to her.''

      You got that right. Speculation by those with dark imagination.Ghouls.''It's happened in unrelated cases so why not in this one '' being their case for their own prosecution.

      ''As I’ve said before, the McCanns know what happened''

      We all missed the news that you didn't Bjorn. What is it exactly ? Have they told anyone or are you and others speculating ( again) ?

      ''We must never forget, that the abduction story is fabricated by the McCanns and not by the Portuguese PJ''

      Must 'we' ? Count me out of that 'we' until proof that no abduction took place is introduced by any detective or police force. The Portuguese, via their former coordinator, Amaral- fabricated that she was down a well, in a fridge then the trunk of a car and eventually secreted into a coffin due to be burnt in a crematorium.But we believe all of those fabrications despite them being all over the place and contradictory of each other and say that a child disappearing from an unguarded apartment is blatantly untrue and a diversion. Brilliant.

      ''it’s so well documented both in the PJ files and in MSM articles (interviews). If Redwood, Rowley and others who’re, or who’ve been working on the case believe(d) in the McCann fairy tale, they certainly would’ve believed in the Emperor’s New Clothes as well,''

      How many individuals are implying are either stupid or are just lying as part of a conspiracy there ?

      Delete
    26. Hello Anonymous27 February 2018 at 19:12

      ”What makes that scenario any more probable than any other ?”

      Here just a few facts why I think so.
      -no broken or jemmied window.
      -no finger prints, but Kate’s on it
      -no scratches on the window frame
      -nobody, but Kate having seen the alleged open window
      -both curtains in the window couldn’t have blown open as Kate describes it, as just one section at a time of the window could be open (besides there wasn’t any draught)
      -no wide open door to Madeleine’s room, which was first reported in MSM
      -no draught in the apartment, yet Kate claimed that the door was “smashed shut”
      -none of the children waking up screaming that night
      -the alleged abductor carrying Madeleine didn’t just bother to close all doors behind him, but also a gate, without leaving any trace behind and without being seen by anyone at the scene of the crime

      -the scent of death detected by the dogs in the apartment as well as in the McCanns’ hired car

      -the scent of death indicated on clothes belonging to Kate, but on nobody else’s clothes
      -the mysterious disappearance of Madeleine’s pink blanket and Gerry’s tennis bag
      -the unnecessary washing (possibly twice) of Madeleine’s little “cuddle cat”
      -the Smiths’ description of the man, who carried a sleeping or possibly dead child in a direction away from the McCanns’ apartment
      -the McCanns’ reluctance to physically look for Madeleine in the early hours after she had disappeared
      -the McCanns’ and their friends’ refusal to participate in a reconstruction
      -the McCanns and their friends declining help offered by other tourists.
      -the McCanns not waking up their twins to see if they were well, let alone ask them if they had seen something.
      -the McCanns not asking their closest neighbours that night if they may have noticed something strange.

      and also, of course, Madeleine’s DNA profile 15 markers out of 19, though inclusive, which was found in the rented car





      Delete
    27. Bjorn

      Thanks for your long list of 'facts'. It's difficult to understand how two police forces missed all of what you didn't.Don't they have internet access ? Don't they read their own files ? Who knows. Maybe they actually are as corrupt as you are suggesting but won't say outright..

      The window..

      A point or two. Using the door for entrance and exit is quicker and quieter.If you are going to abduct someone from an apartment you know has small sleeping children, working a window open or breaking it blows it. Not only could you be seen or heard from the outside, you could cause crying or screaming inside.Part of your kit would be gloves.The reason being obvious. Blow some french chalk on your own window later and see how many different sets of fingerprints you find other than those belonging to whoever is residing in your house.

      ''-the alleged abductor carrying Madeleine didn’t just bother to close all doors behind him, but also a gate, without leaving any trace behind and without being seen by anyone at the scene of the crime''

      That's an indication of an abductor who has done it before, not an opportunist.Knowing what looks suspicious( opened doors to the exterior, opened gates) and what doesn't draw the attention of potential passers by.

      ''-the scent of death detected by the dogs in the apartment as well as in the McCanns’ hired car''

      Why haven't the police acted on it ? Is it indisputable evidence of the death of a human. I won't say indisputable evidence of Madeleine's death as it would seem indisputable that it would be her if it was accepted as evidence.Having said that, the scent of death in the apartment would suggest a death but not a cause or killer.Why couldn't it be caused by an abductor who silenced her and took her away along with possible DNA traces of himself ?

      References to laundry are null and void. When the police arrived the whole apartment, inside and out, should have been declared a crime scene. Even though chaos had been there before the police, it could still have been a 'hands off' scene. Toys, blankets, clothing and so on could and should have been removed in bags for forensic analysis. It didn't happen.

      The Smith sighting only excites those who are desperate to see vengeance on the parents. Smith himself isn't sure enough. He could be summoned to court even if he didn't volunteer to give an official statement that was explicit enough.

      Th reconstruction is far less important than you make out. What could have some of it ?

      The public searched with the police from the outset.
      The most important thing for the McCanns and friends to do from the moment the PJ turned up was to furnish them with as much detail as they could manage and for the police to go door to door following that.

      The DNA didn't pass muster. It wasn't corroborated by enough.The markers were explained in laymens' terms.

      Your one reasonably balanced observation is concerning the sleeping siblings and nobody from the medically trained group not checking them thoroughly.With one child gone and two others undisturbed by the crowd running around the apartment panicking, It would suggest they were sleeping a little too deeply than is natural.It could have been a case of them being knocked unconscious by an abductor via a rag soaked in chloroform or something more sinister in a small dose. The Calpol hypothesis is too stupid to discuss and always has been. Why didn't the PJ examine them ? Why wasn't any forensic testing done for substances or any bloods taken ?Or don't they have dogs trained for those jobs yet..


      Delete
    28. @Hello Anonymous28 February 2018 at 19:51

      Thanks for comment

      As for the suspicion about the parents or possibly Jane Tanner, by mistake, having given Madeleine an overdose of calpol or something else to make them sleep better, I still believe that it could have happened.

      I just cannot understand why the McCanns’ didn’t take their twins to hospital immediately in order to find out if they had got something poisonous in their bodies or if the intruder had done something else to them.

      Finding Madeleine gone, they couldn’t possibly know if she and her siblings had been sedated by the abductor or not and here we agree.

      Why didn’t they want to know? Neither could they know if that sedation, if it had happened, could at that time already have killed Madeleine. Nor could they then have known if such a sedation would not cause damage to the twins as well.

      And later, why just letting the Paynes take their children to their apartment that night? Just as strange as their decision to take them to the crèche in the morning as if nothing had happened.

      As for the scent of death. It takes at least an hour for a dead body to develop body fluid, whose scent then stays for months/years after it has been washed away. So if a burglar had killed Madeleine, he must have stayed at least an hour in their apartment and, in fact, at the same time as Gerry, Kate or Oldfield were watching on Madeleine. Not just unlikely, but also impoosible.

      No matter how many police forces there’re working on the case, no progress will ever be made, if not a single police detective has the courage to reinvestigate the McCanns.

      I still maintain, that British journalists too often ask the McCanns kind questions, while police detectives don’t ask them any at all and that’s the problem in a nut shell.

      Delete
    29. That was a good read Bjorn, and pretty much summed up why so many people are suspicious of the abduction story.

      There is no logical explanation to any of the facts you put forward, though kudos to VT for trying.

      The main thrust of VT's argument is that the police did not declare 5A a crime scene and seal it off. A ploy to blame the PJ I'm sure, but I doubt any police force in the world secure the premises as a crime scene immediately a child disappears. Most kids re-appear.

      You are right Bjorn, it was the parents who were claiming Madeleine had been taken, their evidence being the open window which appeared to have been staged. In fact, Kate was forced to admit that after one court hearing, when she issued a statement saying the abductor may have opened it as a 'red herring'.

      That all the usual police procedures were not enforced, I suspect, lead directly back to the anguished phone calls of the Tapas Group to the UK. Some might say, including Goncalo Amaral, that diplomatic pressure was put on the Portuguese authorities to 'go easy' on the parents. Gerry was allowed to sit behind Kate during her first interview to reassure her as she was questioned!

      It's bizarre that the McCanns are now complaining about the kid gloves treatment they were given - it was they were who demanding it. GA did say however, that mistakes were made and accepts responsibility for them. I sympathise with him however, the global interest the case attracted and the pressure from 'above' to solve it quickly put him in an untenable position.

      I still maintain that someone in Tony Blair's office made the wrong call that night, probably TB himself, and has continued the lie to save face. Blair is now in an embarrassing spat with Fire and Fury author over his attempts to get a job with the Trump administration. He is frighteningly well aware of his legacy, and it is eating him from the inside out.

      I agree on the British journalists giving the McCanns' an easy ride. Mostly, I suspect, because the journalists themselves would get a rough ride if they added to the distress of parents with a missing child.

      Delete
    30. @Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton1 March 2018 at 10:26

      Hello Rosalinda, and thanks for feed back

      Unfortunately, this case became a political issue just hours after Madeleine had gone missing,which has earlier been discussed on this blog.

      Otherwise it would have been a very normal criminal investigation about a crime against a small child, and as such it wasn’t really so unusual and strange, because children sometimes die from accidents or from violence caused by family members, who for different reasons choose to lie about it.

      However, it was the fairy tale about the abduction, that made the whole case so unique and incomprehensible to so many. Had not the Leicester Police, the S Y and a certain “spokesman” intervened, that story would have died after just a few days.

      I really hope, that Rowley and his team can see beyond the McCanns’ narrative, because that’s all it takes to solve the case in my opinion.

      Delete
    31. Björn

      You believe isn't really a good argument.It wouldn't be one for the police either if they didn't investigate the possibility.Why Jane Tanner of everyone there ?Why weren't the police surprised enough by the sleeping twins to investigate ?

      ''Why didn’t they want to know? Neither could they know if that sedation, if it had happened, could at that time already have killed Madeleine.''

      If the insinuation is that they sedated the twins, it would define their motive for letting them stay asleep and in the background. How do we explains that of the police ? Incompetence ?

      ''Just as strange as their decision to take them to the crèche in the morning as if nothing had happened.''

      The circus was underway.The cameras and lights and microphones.The eyes of the world and a missing Madeleine.What would you have done ? You could have had the children among other children and under the watchful eye of the staff there. Alternatively, you could glue them to your side as the world and his dog followed you and questioned you and police were ever present.Would you want them present as you answered questions about what had happened before you'd decided how to explain to the twins ?

      ''As for the scent of death. It takes at least an hour for a dead body to develop body fluid, whose scent then stays for months/years after it has been washed away.''

      Any science with that ?

      ''No matter how many police forces there’re working on the case, no progress will ever be made, if not a single police detective has the courage to re-investigate the McCanns. ''

      Is it a matter of courage or a matter of orders ?It appears the PJ were happy to treat it s a crime and investigate all angles but with an unduly sharp focus on the parents.It also appears that the UK turned up very quickly without knowing the full facts but knowing enough to issue a hands off remit to the PJ regarding the parents.They treated it with the urgency of a national security risk while the PJ treated it as a crime committed against a child. The PJ shelved it in 2008. That was enough to let us all know they had no faith in a resolution being reached.They had their reasons.Amaral has only hinted at them.

      By the time friend of the Freuds and Murdoch, Cameron, was PM the UK was hearing of the usual cash -strapped Britain and the need to cut everything. The police had to make cuts too. There wasn't enough funding to keep the forensics - the most important department in solving crimes- on their feet. Yet funds were ' found' for the McCann case. Cameron had to announce both. Mitchell had left a large salary in Whitehall to work for one paid by a mystery benefactor to control information surrounding the case.To tell the UK that we were in dire straits and their was no money for vital services in one breath then that millions could be found for this case is the most bizarre aspect of the whole game.Prime Ministers are surrounded by spin doctors and they couldn't spin this one.It all smacks of someone high up in the UK being over a barrel for something.Why else would you risk political suicide and a PR nightmare by writing cheques like there was access to a bottomless secret well after all. Key name involved -Theresa May, then home secretary, later rewarded with the big chair.She went on to apply her talents and make some calls trying , and succeeding, to suffocate the inquiry into Leon Brittan's paedohileia allegations and destruction of incriminating dossiers .

      The circus was funded for the long haul.A missing person case isn't. A missing child is expected to be found sooner rather than later.People don't leave large 5 figure salaries if the think they're required for a few weeks or months as a PR controller.

      Delete
    32. ''I really hope, that Rowley and his team can see beyond the McCanns’ narrative, because that’s all it takes to solve the case in my opinion.''

      What was 'the narrative'advanced by the UK regarding Their willingness to give this all a blank cheque ?What was it for the close interest of UK diplomats and politicians ? How did Mitchell come to have so much confidence that leaving an important, well paid position in the civil service was a positive career move if the child could have been found within days ? What would he have done then if that happened ? He would have to be pretty confident it wasn't gong to happen. How would former Labour man, former Tory, future Freud man, be able to make that decision so readily and at such short notice ? That's the only 'narrative' worthy of such a long debate.

      Delete
    33. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton1 March 2018 at 10:26

      ''That was a good read Bjorn, and pretty much summed up why so many people are suspicious of the abduction story. ''

      So many people, yet they only comprise the audience . They paid for their ticket with a slice of their taxes. As we are now enjoying act 11 and the fat lady can be heard clearing her throat, what this observer is wanting to know is why the police aren't suspicious of it. I suggest that eleven years more or less rules out the arrival of a Deus ex Machina .

      The explanations are based in logic and
      probability.They're put forward as possible explanations, not carved-in-stone facts. The counter arguments regarding the McCanns being responsible for manufacturing an abduction narrative and drawing their friends into the conspiracy to uphold it is offered as more than likely the case with nothing to support it.Why would their friends yield so readily ?

      Saying that an opened window 'appeared' to be staged isn't evidence of it actually being staged. The abductor could easily have used the door.Even the McCanns could have been mistaken over the window. They were panicking and scared. The suggestion of going easy on the parents isn't necessarily the same as leaving them out of all possible equations. It could be argued that a kid gloves approach was advised given that she was in a different country to her family and her child could be anywhere.An aggressive approach can lead to a suspect ( in the detectives mind) clamming up and that's time wasted.

      Pressure was put on the PJ from the UK, not just Amaral.The buck just stopped at his desk. The PJ didn't have to give in to all demands or suggestions.It was their turf. Amaral later reflected that, as a show of good faith, he let the UK send possible forensic evidence back home when they had sufficient facilities in Portugal. When the evidence contradicted his hypothesis he then insinuated that the UK had tampered with it. If he's wrong he's defaming them. If he's right, the UK are perverting the course of justice.Why won't antis expand on this area ?

      The MSM are controlled as what they report has to be. Truth is so heavily diluted, you can't taste it now.But, they're still a business and still need to profit.With 'Hackgate' and Mitchell's previous record highlighting the Soham children and the hacking (coincidentally)of those children's parents phones, trial by media could have caused serious damage to a few reputations as well as the MSM as a body. The media couldn't afford to profess knowledge of something that two police forces couldn't.



      Delete
    34. I have no idea of point there 00:42, or indeed if there is one.

      Why are we (antis) not discussing the forensics sent to the British laboratory? Probably because the forensics are not the big deal that they are to the 'pros'. I get the impression the forensics are the McCanns' main defence. That is, they claim 'nothing' was found, and the dogs were wrong. That will be a question for the expert witnesses and of course technology will have advanced since 2007.

      Delete
    35. @ Ros 07:50

      So you are saying the forensics are not important to "anti's" if they don't prove anything against the Mccanns. However the very same forensics if tested again because of advances in technology will become important if it is against the Mccanns.

      Grasping at straws one of your many expert subjects by any chance?

      Delete
    36. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton2 March 2018 at 07:50

      ''I have no idea of point there 00:42, or indeed if there is one. ''

      That would depend how determined you are not to see one.

      ''Why are we (antis) not discussing the forensics sent to the British laboratory? Probably because the forensics are not the big deal that they are to the 'pros'.''

      That short but sweet sentence sums up supremely why it's difficult to take the arguments put forward by all antis seriously.Evidence of crime ? Who needs that nonsense when you have an imagination...It doesn't matter what the big deal is for the pros. Forensics are crucial to the police when investigating a crime. Especially one that has very little evidence on show.

      ''I get the impression the forensics are the McCanns' main defence. That is, they claim 'nothing' was found, and the dogs were wrong.''

      That's a reasonable conclusion when you consider what the police have stated.Unless the police, and Grime, change that stance of course. Also, the antis champion, Amaral, still says that the forensics were incriminating evidence and that they must have been tampered with.Another one of his hypotheses that hasn't been proven to be right.

      ''That will be a question for the expert witnesses and of course technology will have advanced since 2007.''

      Well, it's 11 years later than 2007 now and it has advanced. As the investigation is seemingly little more than an official line now, you'd expect that one bright spark involved would explore that avenue wouldn't you.Or, to be realistic, rather than desperately hopeful, maybe that particular avenue is never going to be explored.

      This is likely to be the one theory that the antis all cling to like a life boat once the inevitable happens and the case gets put in a cooler.Rather than accept what has been glaringly obvious for years ( it's going nowhere), that lifeboat of tomorrows miracle magic technology will be their final argument.It will be no stronger than all previous arguments and will enjoy the same success. The identity of the culprit(s) has been shielded more efficiently than a world leader or pope.

      Delete
    37. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton2 March 2018 at 07:50

      ''I get the impression the forensics are the McCanns' main defence. That is, they claim 'nothing' was found, and the dogs were wrong.''

      Not exactly an earth - moving revelation worthy of the years of closely scrutinizing the case is it.The reason nobody has been arrested or charged is due to the absence of any evidence at all, including items examined by the forensic team . So, here's another impression to catch on to : the complete lack of forensic evidence is the main problem that has crippled the police and any prosecution team, and rendered the case unsolvable unless someone feels like confessing.

      Delete
  30. Ros: "These cases, unfortunately, do stir up the 'think of the children' mobs, that's life."

    I am very pleased to be part of the think of the children mob.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Ros: "Tony Bennett. A passionate lifelong campaigner against deviant sex and protector of children"

    Do you have a problem with that Ros?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You cared enough to write it - maybe you could explain why you find it weird?

      Delete
    2. ''Nope. Can't be arsed.''

      nice touch i'm sure

      Delete
    3. Hello 'nice touch I'm sure@' what exactly can you be 'arsed' about...do tell us....???!!!

      Delete
    4. hullo 00.22

      'nice touch I'm sure' was a sarcastic reply to the '' can't be arsed'' post

      Delete
    5. At the moment I can be arsed about the snow. I worry terribly about those stuck in it or without heating. But I also appreciate the beauty of it, no artist can compete with nature. And I love the sense of community it creates, as good people step forward to assist others. Mostly, I love the sheer joy on the faces of small children, as each generation learns to make and throw snowballs! Elderly mutts think they are pups again, so too adult workmen and work women, who cannot resist the urge to knock off the hat of a colleague with a snowy orb.

      I quite feel like running out there and making a snow angel myself, and there are any number of good reasons not to. But I have a devilish alter ego who keeps saying 'so what'.

      I should of course worry about bigger and far more immediate matters, I should add my voice to those I admire on the Left. I don't know what stops me, some kind of mental block I suspect. Lack of confidence I suspect. I am in awe of those who can and do write politically and I am so pleased to be able to help in a small way by retweeting them.

      I'm painfully aware that I am not like other writers. Naff as the Marmite analogy is, I accept it. Fortunately, there are many who are happy to muse along with me.

      Delete
  32. Dogs.Blood evidence.Leaked disinformation.Questionable policemen. Questionable relationship between police and government, Awkward relationship between two police forces. Tabloid lies and agendas. Rumours of blood in a car. Crazy, conflicting theories made public. Bizarre religious allusions as 'clues'. The public madness finds a voice. Sound familiar ? Antis or haters, look away now.Anyone else, take your pick. The final link is the most important

    video 17 mins

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=715&v=0dmefPEazTE

    newspaper

    http://www.newsmediaworks.com.au/chamberlain-case-the-story-of-a-lifetime/

    summary of hysterical vigilantism

    https://www.fictionpress.com/s/1307468/1/the-dingo-ate-my-baby

    the 'biggie' ..a proper, balanced essay by Dr Nicola Goc. Not for the faint-minded......Kate McCann Vs Lindy Chamberlain Vs Public Opinion :


    http://www.academia.edu/769404/_Bad_Mummy_Kate_McCann_Medea_and_the_Media

    ReplyDelete
  33. "the horrendous siege on Brenda Leyland,"

    FGS

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was like the Libyan Embassy shooting revisited.Or something else really tense.

      Delete
  34. Robbyn Swan:

    "We had a single meeting with the McCanns and one with the Met – both of them early in our research. The parents, and then the police, made only one request of us – a fair one given the parents’ hope and the Met’s working thesis that Madeleine may still be alive – that we do nothing that might hinder or interfere with the ongoing investigation. We have been careful to abide by that request."

    [...]

    "It is only now after looking at every angle that we can justify expressing an opinion."

    https://www.algarvedailynews.com/legal/3409-summers-and-swan-reply-to-critics-of-their-madeleine-book

    Summers and Swan can justify expressing an opinion, but did nothing that might hinder or interfere with the ongoing investigation?

    ReplyDelete
  35. I see bennett the blonk has taken time from building conspiracy theories against everyone who has died since 2007 on his cesspit forum, to post on the UK Justice forum.

    Maybe he could remind us of how many times he has said he is not going to post about the Mccann case anymore?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bennett....

      quote
      In his judgment (Paragraph 108), Mr Justice Tugendhat said that even for me to repeat facts in the case could be deemed libellous and a breach of my undertakings. He said in relation to the contents of a certain leaflet: “A list of factual statements can carry an inferential meaning additional to the literal meaning of each fact…”

      In other words, he said: Facts can be libellous.

      That statement by Mr Justice Tugendhat is one reason why I really cannot continue to make any more public statements about Madeleine’s reported disappearance. The impact of my actions on members of my family is another. Besides that, the process of defending yourself and pursuing legal claims on your own is both stressful and mentally exhausting. The possibility of being sent to prison, being made a bankrupt and losing my home were all factors which have weighed heavily on my mind. It is time for me to cease making any more statements on the case - not even repeating facts.
      end quote

      Delete
    2. ''In other words, he said: Facts can be libellous. ''

      If Mr B could understand that the judge would have used 'other words' if he needed to rather than the ones he thought were explicit enough, he wouldn't need such a lengthy definition of 'shut up'

      Delete
    3. Bennett is supposed to have some grasp of the law isn't he. Didn't he have a grasp of those ever so complex laws regarding harassment,slander and libel ? Didn't he know that legal representation doesn't come free ? Didn't he anticipate the likely retaliation and that the consequences would be felt by his family and not just him ? All that for what ? Being the man who solved the unsolvable from a computer ? Giving Agatha a run for her money in the best seller list ? Greed makes people blind, Mr Bennett, old chap. But, good effort with the kilometer thingy..

      Delete
  36. @Anonymous 26 February at 14:29

    The McCanns know Madeleine is dead, but, as you say: “that doesn't equate to murdering and dumping her...”

    10 June 2007

    https://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/maddy-s-father-it-s-time-to-grieve-1-1420039

    ‘Mr McCann said last night he was finding it increasingly hard to control his feelings: "There's been a lot of emotion in the last 10 days. In the first few weeks when I slipped into dark moments of despair I was finding it quite easy to emotionally switch a light back on, but I've been finding it increasingly difficult to do.

    "More importantly, I don't want to do that anymore. I want to be able to grieve and let those emotions out."’

    [...]

    ‘Mrs McCann said speaking in public about the search for her daughter was a useful "distraction, but it's time to step back from that"'

    [...]

    ‘Madeleine's uncle John McCann, from Glasgow, said he was hoping the customising could be done by June 22 - which would be the 50th day since she disappeared.’

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Anonymous27 February 2018 at 08:36

      Hello 08:36 , I'm 14:29

      ''The McCanns know Madeleine is dead, but, as you say: “that doesn't equate to murdering and dumping her...”

      You're either misquoting me, or mistakenly confusing what someone else said and putting it into my post...

      What I actually said was :

      ''She is in a kind of limbo not knowing what happened to her child or where she ended up. Even if she suspects the worst it isn't a fact until there's proof.So there's no closure, nor will there ever be if the 11 wasted years are a gauge''

      Regarding the usual rants of the antis about the children being left alone, I said :

      '' ''she shouldn't have left them''. Yes, that's true.But that doesn't equate to murdering and dumping her. It doesn't equate to her finding her dead then burying her''

      I stand by both until otherwise proves to be the case.

      ''"More importantly, I don't want to do that anymore. I want to be able to grieve and let those emotions out."’

      I can see what you're driving at with that quote. A sort of Freudian slip by Gerry ( if he doesn't think she's dead, why grieve etc). It's true to say most grieving is begun following a death.Most.Not all.It's not unknown to grieve over a loss of other things or people that don't involve a literal death. It can be the death of a way of life, death of a relationship or a major change in lifestyle in which you had no say in but still had to adjust to.Grief is still experienced with varying degrees of intensity and length of time.

      Here's a link. It's useful in that it relates to this area of the discussion and useful in general for anyone who has or is experiencing grief or knows someone who is.

      https://www.griefrecoverymethod.com/blog/2015/07/can-you-experience-grief-if-no-one-died

      Delete
    2. ‘Mrs McCann said speaking in public about the search for her daughter was a useful "distraction, but it's time to step back from that"' (10 June 2007)

      She is incredibly unreliable.

      Delete
  37. "Re: Madeleine McCann- bald man in playground

    Post by Tony Bennett Today at 9:40
    It is also one that can be reliably dated to Saturday 28 April and NOT, as the McCanns appear to have claimed, on Wednesday 2 May."
    ---------------------------------------

    bennett calls the Mccanns liars again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Time CR put him behind bars and reclaimed their £47.000

      Delete
    2. @ 19:22 I believe he may be looking for a GoFundMe to boost his pension.

      Delete