Thursday, 8 February 2018

MORAL PANIC AND MADELEINE MCCANN

Reading Dr. Bonn's article on Moral Panic, reminds me of that moment as a mature student when I found out Ben Hur was a gay film!  Ditto Spartacus and pretty much every sword and sandals film.  Now I have absolutely no problem with it being a gay film, and spotting the titillating lines of Truman Capote make it all the more delicious, but it was a lightbulb moment, an awakening.  And also a great big 'where the hell have I been most of my life?

I make no secret of the fact that I spent my early years as a snooty Dallas extra wannabe looking down on those who didn't work as hard as I did and saying 'ears ears' to Maggie Thatcher simply because she was a woman!  A fling with a trade unionist put me right on most issues, but Germaine's 'Female Eunich' sealed the deal.   I was then a feminist and a Marxist, but pretty enough that the tory men I dated found it cute. Now, not so much, lol. 

I didn't go into higher education until my late 30's, and of course I knew it all (a character flaw).  But I didn't, and I was for a short period of time, truly alarmed at how little I knew!  I was fortunate to have an equally mature compatriot (luv you Sue!) doing the same course by my side, and six months in,  it hit us.  There was no turning back.  Since then I keep finding doors that I have not yet opened and I have to kick myself and say doh!  My own blog, happily, has been one of those doors to enlightenment, that continues to throw up  new and alternate ways of thinking, it is as much an education for me as I hope it is for my readers.

Please forgive the anecdotal stuff, I know how much it winds some readers up, but for most I hope, the subtext gets through.  For some people they reach an age or stage, where they think they know everything, or that is the way they want to be seen by everyone around them.  They think admitting you did not know something is a character flaw.  People like Bennett, Richard Hall and Jim Gamble would never say the words 'well, I did not know that'.  Funnily enough, I like to be proved wrong, I like to be persuaded to look at issues from a different perspective, I'm in awe at the intellect of anyone who has been able to change my mind.  I can actually pinpoint the exact moment I went from tory to socialist, thank you Keith Waterhouse.

I'm trying to explain, not very well, that it is OK to acknowledge you were wrong, that the belief system you were indoctrinated with from childhood might not be the only way.  It's like that moment when Nietzsche's words 'God is dead, there is no God' suddenly hit you, and you begin to understand the meaning of life in a way that you never did before.

I hope by now, those following the last discussion have now read and digested the Dr. Scott Bonn's 'Moral Panic: Who Benefits' article, because it so skilfully and articulately outlines exactly what happened in the Madeleine MCann case. 

However, since the extraordinarily enlightening article of Professor Scott Bonn, those shrieking 'think of the children' have gone abnormally quiet.  The introduction of this article, preceded by the artistically insightful post by Bjorn, has I hope made some of the more moderate 'child defenders' have a rethink as to exactly what it is they are defending.
 
Unlike many professors, Dr. Bonn explains the phenomenon of Moral Panic in a way that we can all easily understand.  It is of course a concept that should be familiar to every criminologist and every journalist, but they are among the groups that benefit from it, so they play along.
 
'Moral panic has been defined as a situation in which public fears and state interventions greatly exceed the objective threat posed to society by a particular individual or group who is/are claimed to be responsible for creating the threat in the first place'.
 
Clarence Mitchell it could be said, was a grandmaster at creating a Moral Panic, 11 years on and the disappearance of Madeleine McCann is still newsworthy.  But the crown should of course go to Jim Gamble, who appears  regularly on television to frighten children, and pile more stress and paranoia on their already fear ridden parents.  There are 700,000 or is it 750,000 potential child molesters in our midst.  All triggered by the sight of naked children or children in their underwear, cartoons and potentially renaissance paintings and sculptures.  They are ordinary people apparently, teachers, police, GPs, writers, etc, all waiting in the wings to  groom a child online and meet them in a car park. 
 
The disappearance of Madeleine McCann brought the subject of paedophilia to the front of the news.  Parents all over the world now had the added fear that their babies could literally be stolen from their beds.  If it could happen to responsible parents like Kate and Gerry, it could happen to you.  And Madeleine was an appealing toddler, a poster child, who raised awareness for missing peoples charities and those who would seek out and destroy all these hundreds of thousands of perverts in our midst.
 
For me, one of the saddest aspects of the whole fiasco is the effect these 'scares' have on young parents, as if they didn't have enough to worry about.  Kids now have NO freedom.  They can't go out and make friends not chosen by their parents, and they can't do all the things my generation did, like play out from morning til night.  They will live shorter lives than we will, because their parents think they are safer in front of a PC screen with a pizza. 
 
It was strange to see two Doctors,  contributing so wholeheartedly to spreading the fear, by exaggerating the risks and extent of the problem by teaming up with Jim Gamble and Mark Williams-Thomas, both media consultants and experts in CSA and both benefiting from the public's belief that paedophiles are all around us. 
 
As Dr. Bonn explains, the Media are complicit in spreading the fear because they need sensational news to attract readers, viewers and advertisers.  Jim Gamble can be relied on to present the kind of statistics that should grab headlines, but for some reason, rarely do.  The interview he gave with 'Alex' paedophile hunter sat beside him on Good Morning TV was quite bizarre.  He was still selling his idea of a 'Citizens Army' to combat paedophiles online as if the problem were urgent and endemic.  If it is urgent and endemic, shouldn't the first port of call be the children and their parents.  Ie. Telling them what to look out for and how to stay safe?  It is the parents' job to keep their children safe, not child protection officers.  And to all those who gasp at 'Alex's' stories of paedophiles chatting to 9 year olds.  Stop and think for a moment.  Who, if anyone, lets their 9 year old chat to strangers on the net?  Unfortunately, whenever the 'P' word is mentioned, common sense leaves the building.
 
But let's return to Madeleine, and another way in which her disappearance has been used to create Moral Panic.  This time, trolls on the net.  The lawlessness of the worldwide web gives anyone the freedom to say pretty much anything they like.  Old legislation doesn't work in the cyber age, and secrets cannot remain secret.  Trolls became the new Folk Devils.  Especially those trolls who targeted the parents of Madeleine McCann, whose supporters helpfully, kept a record of every insult they received going back several years.  The case for the prosecution was ready. 
 
Except, it didn't go to plan.  The target troll was a nice middle aged lady, who was driven to suicide by the sheer horror of what was done to her.  The public were outraged.  Brenda Leyland wasn't a folk devil, she was an ordinary woman, and she could have been any one of them.  Unfortunately, that took the 'trolls are now public enemy No. 1' cause back a few years.  If the harmless Brenda was the face of 'trolls', we could all breathe a huge sigh of relief. 

Gerry and Kate have been actively involved in several situations that create moral panic.  The Algarve is full of paedophiles, child trafficking is prolific (need for harsher border controls), Hacking and calls for new legislation to control the media, internet trolls and calls for harsher laws to imprison them.  They should, by now, be completely aware of what they doing, even if they don't know there is a name for it.  Do they ever wonder about the knock on effects of the fear they stir up? 

They exaggerated the problem of paedophiles whilst campaigning to find Madeleine, how many innocent men were targeted and had their names attached to the child's disappearance?  They exaggerated the problem of internet trolls.  An innocent woman died.  Yes, they have been the subject of discussion more than most victims of crime, but hey, for good reason.  No cause has been discovered for their daughter's disappearance.  I have been a member of many groups, but even as mad as some of them are, there has never been any physical threat towards the family.  Bennett went close with his pamphlet thing and should have been locked up, but by now they  [the McCanns] should be aware that even the raving loons who stalk them online, including a few of their own followers, are cowardly inadequates who will never come near them

Of course it could be that the McCanns too were duped.  Unaware that their plight was being used to usher in new paedophile laws and initiatives to convince the public we need a specially trained branch of law enforcement to police the internet.  Amber alert of course, was all about border controls and calls for all new born babies to have their DNA stored, the beginnings of New Labour's ultimate dream to have a national database on every citizen.  And  what better way to promote that than to plant the idea that babies and young children are in constant danger of being stolen.    

Hacked Off of course was a direct attack on the media.  For a while there the UK went nuts, journalists became the folk devils and all those with lots to hide could breath a big sigh of relief.  I've never been able to figure out why Gerry and Kate went to battle against the media, but I suspect they hoped to regain public sympathy, and perhaps financial reward.  I didn't watch their entire testimonies to Leveson, but I raised an eyebrow when Gerry said they should be paid every time the tabloids used their images as they [the tabloids] were profiting from them.  It was as if you could literally see him gnawing away at the hand that was feeding him. 

In any event, I don't think the McCanns profited or won any new friends with their involvement in the Leveson Inquiry, more likely, they lost a lot of old ones.  But Hacked Off is a good example of a Moral Panic having run it's course.   When all those demonising the press thought about what they were doing, in the cold light of day, they probably (hopefully) realised the stupidity of demanding the free press be censored.  The MSM are now in turmoil, not because of privacy laws, but because they now face so much competition.  Why would followers of a topic bother with heavily censored and blatantly biased reporting, when there are blogs and websites that will tell them the truth? (such as moi :)

The Madeleine case too, has run it's course, that is, its' ability to stir up extreme emotion.  All those fears that the Algarve is filled with paedophiles and child predators have not panned out.  No other child has gone missing, no child traffickers have been uncovered and no stolen children have been rescued.   Happily most of the fears born out of Madeleine's disappearance haven't come to pass, and we can look back with hindsight and understand how most of them were based on the hysteria that existed at the time.  We were led to believe that every cherubic toddler was at risk.  Totally untrue of course, most missing kids are spotty, belligerent teens, not nearly so photogenic as Madeleine.

It could of course blow up again, because the governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were compromised.    Of course Blair and Brown could simply say their orders were 'give them [the McCanns] all the help they need'  and that 'legally' was implied.  They can blame the minions for misinterpreting their instructions.  But in any event, should the full details of this case ever be revealed, they will include top ministers and police chiefs.  All of whom will have to admit they were completely taken in by the abduction story.  Oops for them, and even bigger Oops for those experts in the field, Jim Gamble and Mark Williams-Thomas.  How do these crime experts explain how they couldn't see what thousands of amateurs online have seen for years?
 

83 comments:

  1. '' For some people they reach an age or stage, where they think they know everything People like Bennett, Richard Hall and Jim Gamble would never say the words 'well, I did not know that' ''

    You missed one important name from your roll call, Rosalinda. You're not coming over all modest surely.

    ReplyDelete
  2. While not wishing to dampen your ardour for Scott Bonn, it has to be said that he's talking about a phenomenon that quite a lot of people wise to the MSM are well aware of and have been for a few years now.He's merely presented it in a formal style. I don't see any specific cases referred to in his article, including the Madeleine McCann case, and your guess is as good as mine as to how he'd welcome you using his name and opinions to suit your own context.

    I remember the moral panic when Jamie Bulger was tortured and murdered 25 years ago this month.But, that was torture and murder committed by two kids on a baby.It didn't touch on paedophilia .But, many vigilante groups were born that day. it's a sort of natural knee-jerk reaction. Normally, it fades with time.But it hasn't.

    The killers had to be tried away from Liverpool to avoid mayhem.They were tried in an adult court and that, along with influential reporting, was why both kids later received around 20 grand each compensation.Don't you love these enlightened times.

    They enjoyed a new identity and luxury holiday as youths and, as adults, the system decided that they'd served the time and were rehabilitated.Therefore, according to the laws laid out by ECRH, they could be let out with new names, falsified histories and a home found for them to live in. Venables lasted five minutes. He was re-arrested as an adult and child porn was found on his computer.So much for the 21st century enlightenment and human rights.It would seem the moral panic and vigilantes, labelled as lunatics from another age, actually had a valid argument. For the record, none of the defence's argument pointed to any images being innocent or a matter of interpretation.That was in 2013.He received a 3 year sentence. Since the initial crime, Jamie's Dad has deteriorated despite several attempts to com to terms with it.His Mum has, and still does, campaign for stiffer sentences and, in particular, to have the killers of her baby kept in prison to rot.

    Coming forward to the present day ( Feb 2018) and Venables has been in the Old Bailey this time.

    The defendant, referred to only as AB, pleaded guilty to four counts.Venables was caught with 1,170 indecent photos of children on his laptop. He admitted having 392 category A images, 148 category B and 630 category C pictures.
    And he was only put away initially as a killer child. Jamie's parents were present at the Old Bailey, no doubt angry and confused as to why their voices and feelings and their rights seem to be the only ones ignored.

    It's easy to jump to the defence of monsters and call for less barbaric treatment of them. It's very modern, very enlightened and very 'of it's time'. Those refusing to join the trend are pointed at as mobs from the dark ages.Less evolved.It's a shame that the parents of Jamie Bulger found it so difficult to be heard or have their feelings and thoughts attended to.They are only one family.They represent many.

    https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/what-happened-james-bulger-killers-14258625

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trying to understand why people commit crimes is not a trend 00:44, it's one of the most useful tools in law enforcement. It's all very well rushing to build bonfires in the town square, but if we don't understand why these crimes were committed, what went wrong etc, we are just barbarians.

      What will satisfy your anger towards the killers of Jamie Bulger? Those who sentenced those two boys at the time, were aware they were children. It was an extremely sensitive issue with strong arguments from both sides. Many then as now, wanted them locked up for the rest of their lives. But many thought it inhumane to pass life sentences to children.

      As I have said, I know little about punishment and rehabilitation, but I would hope that experts exist within the system whose understanding of human behaviour prevents repeat offenders being released. Sadly that doesn't seem to be case but any suggestion of overhauling the prison system would be met with the same outrage as in Dickens' times. Prisoners are meant to suffer, it satisfies our collective instinct for revenge.

      Delete
    2. ''Trying to understand why people commit crimes is not a trend 00:44, it's one of the most useful tools in law enforcement.''

      It can also help them predict crimes and criminal behaviour. But you have grave doubts about that according to your previous thread.Or was that just concerning the bullying of those who store illegal images on their computer ?

      Delete
    3. ''What will satisfy your anger towards the killers of Jamie Bulger?''

      Justice. A punishment that fits the crime. Both of which would have prevented what followed from Venables.

      Delete
    4. '' Prisoners are meant to suffer, it satisfies our collective instinct for revenge.''

      Instinct for punishing wrongs and instinct for justice.

      So far. you've alluded to the 1960s moral panic, the dark ages vigilantism trying to do what police forces don't, and now Dickens 19 century penal system. It's the 21st century now.It's a different world. If you want to commentate on what's happening in it, you should move forward, not back.

      Delete
    5. ''As I have said, I know little about punishment and rehabilitation, but I would hope that experts exist within the system whose understanding of human behaviour prevents repeat offenders being released''

      It's the so called experts that sit around a table and make the decisions regarding who is released. Unfortunately, they are similar to the NHS. People are knowingly discharged far too early, regardless of age and frailty because there's no alternative hospital or beds for the queue. In prisons the same thing occurs.There's a queue and room has to be made to keep the traffic flowing. They're both guilty of gambling with the fate of others.Important decisions are made according to fiscal diktats rather than human life.The money pit is only bottomless when there's some juicy spoils of war to play for.It's immoral.

      Delete
    6. "I know little about punishment and rehabilitation"

      But you make hundreds of posts about punishment (or not) of convicted paedophiles.

      Delete
    7. I disagree 17:15, we can always learn from history, it always repeats itself. And unbelievably, those spreading moral panic are still using the same pathetic arguments. Most of these threats to society are myths, whether it be mods and rockers or internet trolls.

      Delete
    8. So what are you trying to say 19:20, that I, as a lay-person should be not be allowed to have an opinion? I am finding this debate very educational, and I am sure others are too.

      Delete
    9. How are you finding it educational when all you do is give your narrow view of things you haven't taken the time to study and tell anyone who has that they're wrong ? If you're trying to back -pedal and say you're only expressing opinions, then you can't claim you're right and other opinions are wrong. I predict your new favourite buzz phrase - 'moral panic' will only enjoy a short shelf life.

      Delete
    10. ''. Most of these threats to society are myths, whether it be mods and rockers or internet trolls.''

      Have you been locked in a suitcase for the last 20 years or are you actually serious ?

      Delete
    11. No, I haven't been locked in a suitcase and I haven't been living in fear either. In fact I won't live in fear for anyone. Had it once as a child, and it's never happening again. Period.

      I actually thought the mods and rockers were quite cute and it gave me a bit of a penchant for bad boys. As for internet trolls? I fear them as much as I fear the telly tubbies, the more they try to silence me the more I laugh at them.

      Delete
    12. No, 01:25, the concept of moral panic will stay with me forever more. Not least because I had already worked out for myself what was going on. Discovering academics had been there before me and given it a name, is an added bonus.

      Delete
    13. I remember the Jamie Bulger case very well, at the time I was myself the mother of two young boys, one a toddler. My older son was afraid to hold his little brother's hand in public for fear of being lynched.

      I wept with Denise Bulger and weep with her still, I cannot begin to imagine her pain, especially as one of the evil pair continues to dominate the news. I don't know the answer, the 'punishment' side of law and order is not my bag, it's the part where I wuss out.

      'It's easy to jump to the defence of monsters.....' Where did that come from? Who is defending monsters? The two evil creatures who took Jamie Bulger needed to be locked up, no-one is disputing that. However, their actions were not representative of 750,000 10/11 year old killer kids lurking in our midst. The crime was unique, a combination of factors that fate had thrown together that day.

      At the time my anger was against the parents of the two killers. Those two boys not only had no understanding of right and wrong, they had no understanding of kindness, compassion and respect. Those qualities all decent parents teach and practice with their children from the start and that are part of their natures by the time they reach 5. What kind of upbringings created such monsters? Or have I thrown down the nature/nurture gauntlet?

      If you think this debate is about defending monsters 00:44, then most of it has gone over your head. If your claim is that there are 750,000 monsters lurking on the internet, I suggest you have a lie down with a mind improving book.

      Horrendous crimes such as the murder of Jamie Bulger and the disappearance of Madeleine McCann are, thankfully, so rare, that they still make front page news today. Both are unique in their own ways, they have never been replicated.

      But arguably, that could be said of any crime, from burglary to homicide, each is unique, there aren't patterns or categories that are specific to an entire criminal demographic. You can't for example, say, ALL murderers watched the Dark Knight, or ALL burglars watched Oceans 11, that would be stupid, but that level of stupidity is applied to illegal images without question.

      I don't accept there are 750,000 monsters in our midst disguised as normal people 00:44. Happily I have far more faith in human nature than you do, and most people, when you get to know them, are quite charming. I've spent a lifetime trying to discover the root of evil, most of it, in my opinion are 'fears born of fatigue and loneliness'. People who practice evil are being eaten alive from within.

      Delete
    14. ''If you think this debate is about defending monsters 00:44, then most of it has gone over your head. If your claim is that there are 750,000 monsters lurking on the internet, I suggest you have a lie down with a mind improving book. ''

      That number is posted here every five minutes, but only by you.I didn't mention it.If you keep putting your words or anyone else's words into my mouth then suggesting that it points to me needing a mind improving book you should give that some thought.I agree they suggest a mind improving exercise would help- but only to whoever says it.Not me.

      You dismiss owners of guns and defend owners of illegal images on very shaky ground. Gun owners could just like unusual ornaments for the mantle pieces and collectors of illegal images may just have an enthusiasm for photography.So we should stop making them 'folk devils' and quit the 'moral panic'. Great thinking.Yet you have decided you're an expert too intellectual to have to sully your hands with research. I welcome your advice about mind - improvement with the same enthusiasm I'd welcome advice from Ted Bundy on blind dates or Donald Trump's on public speaking.

      Delete
    15. ''No, 01:25, the concept of moral panic will stay with me forever more. Not least because I had already worked out for myself what was going on. Discovering academics had been there before me and given it a name, is an added bonus.''

      Forever more ? That refreshing open mind again .But you worked it all out yourself and academics later confirmed it once you'd seen they'd been writing about it. Case closed then.The intellectual snobbery popping up again.It's a shame that very little of your posted 'musings' suggest you're entitled to it.

      Delete
    16. ''You can't for example, say, ALL murderers watched the Dark Knight, or ALL burglars watched Oceans 11, that would be stupid, but that level of stupidity is applied to illegal images without question. ''

      Nobody said that all murderers watched The Dark Knight or that all burglars watched Oceans 11 . It would be a high level of stupidity had anyone said it ( other than you inventing it to demonstrate something).Your claim that '' that level of stupidity is applied to illegal images without question'' needs something to support it ( without question). It may be the case that you think that it's stupid to arrest anyone possessing illegal images but you speak for yourself and possibly a minority. The key word is 'illegal'. Or are you implying that images deemed as illegal should be made legal ?

      Delete
  3. Hi Ros,
    You write like an angel. Keep it up. I can't imagine giving so much information away about yourself in the minefield we call the internet,...and doing so well at digging for the truth in the bizarre Madeleine case. That is truly courageous.
    You are a good read.
    A fan.
    jc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your words warm the cockles of my heart JC, I wonder sometimes when I go off on flights of fancy if I am being a massive bore, or if, as I hope, my readers will find feelings they can empathise with.

      Even though I have turned 60, I still have that same childish joy and enthusiasm when I learn something new, and a need to share it with everyone. That's why I wanted to be a writer, I could reach more people! Only recently I was explaining the life and works of Mary Wollstonecraft to a good friend when SAS (smart arsed son) walked in. I pointed out what he had interrupted, and he looked at her and said 'so I saved you then'. Thereafter, the pair of them couldn't stop laughing and it all went downhill from there. The point being, I cannot supress my inner teacher, lol.

      I loved my days teaching, and it was the consensus among my students, and the other staff, that I was like no other teacher they had ever encountered, lol. Happily, my head of department thought I was wonderful and I was getting results! And, bragging here, I have a drawer full of thank you cards and letters from former students whose lives I changed with my unorthodox methods.

      Tis clear I think, from my blog, that I have spent a lifetime navel gazing. Which is a shame because I could have crammed in a lot more partying, doh! My honesty is shocking to some. My generation personified the great British stiff upper lip where everyone aspired to the values of Hyacinth Bucket. The dominant ideology was set by the traditional, conservative House of Windsor. That their respectability would one day implode was inevitable.

      The words 'good read' are music to my ears JC. I have spent a lifetime trying to perfect my craft, I discarded about 20,000 words before I published the above. And even now, I cringe, because imo, it still isn't good enough. I am my own harshest critic where my writing is concerned, I forgive myself nothing, that's why I am constantly tortured by depression. I actually have hundreds of blogs that I have never published, all down to insecurity. Many because I couldn't get them 'right', and many that simply missed the deadline of a news story.

      However, as insecure as I am, I still know I can 'write the socks off' the hundreds of books that will hit the market when the Madeleine story breaks. I have a unique writing style that appeals to many, I've kept my audience and increased it, even those who disagree with me return again and again. I'm laughing now because I remember the McCanns asking for Goncalo Amaral to be silenced because he was a talented writer! Lol. His book was too simple to read and understand, the fiend!

      In some ways I have the same arrogance of Mark Zuckerberg when he paid off those who wanted a slice of Facebook. He had the talent, they couldn't take that away from him. I feel the same way with all the forums and groups who chucked me out and all those who ostracise me on twitter. My blog is still the first point of call for those who want to read the truth about the Madeleine mystery. That they stay is because I am a good read!

      Many thanks for that JC, I've the blues for a few days and focussing has been harder than ever. That was just the boost I needed! :)

      Delete
  4. "The moral panic concept was developed and popularized by South African criminologist Stanley Cohen when he explained the public reaction to disturbances by youths called “mods and rockers” at seaside resorts in Brighton, England during the 1960s. Cohen’s work illustrated how those reactions influenced the formation and enforcement of social policy, law, and societal perceptions of threats posed by the youth groups"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many thanks for that 12:15, Dr. Bonn does of course give credit to Stanley Cohen for developing the concept. As a child of the 60's I remember how mods and rockers were turned into folk devils, I even remember my dad tutting at Paul McCartney's long hair, lol.

      But as Dr. Bonn explains, it is a concept that can apply to almost anything. Pot smoking for example, stoners were and still are, seen as violent, criminal and anti social by people who have clearly never met a stoner.

      Dr. Bonn doesn't name any specific cases whilst discussing Moral Panic, like any good Professor, he is giving his audience the framework and inviting us to take it from there.

      Delete
    2. I took it from there.If youths were running riot in a holiday resort in the 60s, the reaction would be panic. hundreds of idiots outnumbering the police and unconcerned with residents, holiday makers, children and the elderly.Is the modern way to just roll the eyes and wait for it to go away ? When drug users openly enjoy their hobby in public and annoy the public with their annoying behaviour and pestering them for loose change are we to be accepting of that ?Calling them 'stoners' might be trendy on american sites and in their films, but take a walk outside of your bubble and try Glasgow, Liverpool, Leeds, Manchester. You wouldn't glibly refer to them as stoners then. Where there's drugs there's guns. Ask any police force. The knock on effect is shootings and theft. It's social chaos. But w're guilty of 'moral panic' when we read it in the media. I don't think so. Nobody in any UK major city and inner city needs to have their opinion shaped by newspapers. All they need is to look around them. Crime is on the increase in line with poverty and police cuts.The public are victims of it and see little or nothing to give them hope that it's turning around.It's heading in one direction only. It's like a sinking ship. But it's 'moral panic' if we rage back at it.

      Today's world makes the 60s mods and rockers riots look like an out of hand stag night. The likes of Cohens observations, and Bonn's afterwards, need to be brought forward and addressed to today's world .In an ideal world, laws are updated and reshaped and even introduced to combat crime as it rises and changes, for the good of a society that wants normality.It isn't a knee jerk reaction, it isn't oppressive.It's taking into account the majority rather than a minority bent on causing the rot. Just because the public don't share the apathy of politicians who live in their safe havens doesn't mean they're guilty of moral panic.They're entitled to voice their anger or disgust with or without reporters.They're also justified.

      Delete
    3. "the public, is the most important player in the creation of a moral panic. Public agitation or concern over the folk devils is the central element of a moral panic. A moral panic only exists to the extent that there is an outcry from the public over the alleged threat posed by the folk devils."

      Delete
    4. 'Where there's drugs there are guns'. Really? I wasn't aware the UK had a big gun crime problem? Where are these shoot outs and drug wars taking place? I certainly don't live in a bubble but it's something I've never encountered. Actually as marijuana use has increased, violent crime has gone down, any police officer will tell you that. The angry, anti social behaviour you see on the streets is fuelled by alcohol.

      I worked in London for over 30 years and yet I never saw drug users pestering people in the street or annoying them and I never saw any shootings. Where do you live that it's a regular occurrence and why hasn't it made the news? It sounds like Chicago under Mob rule.

      You a bit confused about who should be the focus of your rage 15:06, but you are not yet ready to think outside the box so you will continue to believe it is some hidden enemy. I feel sorry for you.

      Delete
    5. @ Ros 19:37

      "The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has been urged to consider a gun crime strategy for the capital, following a steep rise in the number of offences and fears that victims and perpetrators are getting younger.
      Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate - sent direct to you
      Read more

      The Metropolitan police recorded 2,542 gun crime offences in 2017, the highest number in five years and 44% more than the 1,755 recorded in 2014, according to a report by the London assembly’s police and crime committee."

      Delete
    6. "Drug dealing and gang activity were identified as the main drivers of gun crime, with gangs said to account for nearly half of all offences where lethal guns – as opposed to non-lethal airguns or stun guns – were fired.

      The report also raised concerns about weapons or weapons parts being bought online through encrypted “dark web” marketplaces. The supply of weapons from eastern Europe was said to be a growing concern. "

      Delete
  5. ''you are not yet ready to think outside the box so you will continue to believe it is some hidden enemy. I feel sorry for you.''

    '''Where there's drugs there are guns'. Really? I wasn't aware the UK had a big gun crime problem? Where are these shoot outs and drug wars taking place?''

    How can that attitude and frighteningly naive outlook advise anyone else to think outside the box.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are angry at me 01:01 because I don't share your outrage at the folk devils, whoever they might be at any given time. I don't share your fear either.

      You do know fear is a choice don't you? And you are choosing to focus on fears that will probably never affect you? If you worry day and night for the next year, it won't change anything, nor even if you write a 100 angry posts to my blog.

      Would a citizens army of vigilantes help you sleep safer 01:01? People like yourself rooting out all these hidden folk devils? Shaming and exposing them and putting them on public trial? Would that give you the reassurance you need? Would society then be safe? What if you missed one? And the one you missed turned out to a spree killer? Would your world collapse?

      There really isn't anything I can to appease you 01:01, because even if the police raided every home in the UK seizing, guns, knives, drugs, computers, illegal images, etc, etc, your fear would not go away.

      Do you see where I am going 01:01? There is no logic to your fears and worse. You are demanding the government introduce laws that will eventually curb your own liberty but you just can’t see it. Probably because you scorn history.

      Delete
    2. ''You do know fear is a choice don't you? And you are choosing to focus on fears that will probably never affect you? If you worry day and night for the next year, it won't change anything, nor even if you write a 100 angry posts to my blog. ''

      I don't have a lot of time for fortune cookie wisdom. Allow me to add to your 5 minute self-help tainted philosophy. The world's a big place and there's a lot of people in it. I fear for our kids and their kids.I can look at what's happening around me and i don't need to pontificate about generations past or the last century to realise today's world is a nightmare compared to the ones are parents and grandprents lived in.It's going in one direction fast.A concept you seem to struggle badly with is that there are other's in the world.Its not all about ''me me me''. My posts, and the posts of others who are also far more clued up than you ( on most things apparently) aren't angry.They're accurate observations and come with provided sources when need be.The anger you imagine isn't in anyone. It's in that fact.It's in you because of it.

      We get he 'folk devils' thing.It's new to you.You're over using it already.

      Laws and appropriate sentences would do a lot in the way of restoring some degree of calm and stem the flow of crime and victims. Real justice would defeat any need for vigilantism.That isn't curbing my liberty or anyone else's, it's enabling us to enjoy it without the need to bolt our homes like a fortress or look over our shoulders and remain vigilant if we're doing something as simple as going out for a day or an evening.

      ''There is no logic to your fears and worse.. you scorn history.''

      I have no fears .I make observations with both eyes open ( blinker - free).There's logic in my observations and anyone who can demonstrate there isn't needs to demonstrate why rather than just say 'you're wrong' and offer no rebuttal or counter -logic. I scorn many things.Not,however, in the same way you do.I don't scorn them until I've fully grasped why they can be scorned.Not because it contradicts what I imagine.Calling anyone who points out the obvious or the obvious flaws in your narrow thinking 'angry' is weak .

      Delete
  6. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton9 February 2018 at 19:37

    ''I worked in London for over 30 years and yet I never saw drug users pestering people in the street or annoying them and I never saw any shootings. Where do you live that it's a regular occurrence and why hasn't it made the news?''

    At least you've come forward slightly from the 1960s or Dickens' day. But still not far enough

    Name a major city in the UK.There's your answer. You might not have seen any begging or shootings but that doesn't mean it isn't going on. I've never seen anyone have their limbs blown off or a building bombed. So do I think they don't happen ?

    ''The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has been urged to consider a gun crime strategy for the capital,''

    ''The Metropolitan police recorded 2,542 gun crime offences in 2017, the highest number in five years and 44% more than the 1,755 recorded in 2014''

    source :

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/23/london-mayor-urged-to-tackle-gun-as-offences-rise

    ''According to data from the National Office of Statistics, more than two-thirds of police forces recorded a rise in offences involving firearms in the year from June 2016.''

    Source :

    http://www.theweek.co.uk/89663/gun-amnesty-bid-to-get-weapons-off-british-streets

    ''Eleven firearms, comprising nine handguns and two revolvers, were recovered, along with magazines and suppressors. French officers also seized approximately 34 kilos of cocaine, and seven kilos of heroin.''

    Source :

    http://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/news/1211-guns-and-drugs-seized-as-12-are-arrested-in-cross-channel-investigation

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/nov/30/begging-prosecutions-increase-england-wales

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well done on your links and quotes from people who benefit from Moral Panic.

      There may be a rise in possession of fire arms, but we are not seeing armed hold ups or drive by shootings in the UK. If we were they would be front page news. We don't all need to wear bullet proof vests to pop out for a pint of milk.

      If the police and the Mayor want stricter gun laws, of course they are going to exaggerate the problem. But for the majority of us, gun crime doesn't affect us in any way, and probably never will.

      Delete
    2. Arguing for the sake of arguing a usual Christobel.And badly at that as usual.

      Delete
    3. @Anonymous10 February 2018 at 01:20
      Hi
      Re; your comment to Rosalinda "At least you've come forward slightly from the 1960s or Dickens' day. But still not far enough"

      We should perhaps try to see today’s violence in London from a historical perspective. When I, as a teenager in the 60s, “roamed” the streets of London, often alone and sometimes intoxicated with various substances that I’d been offered in different kinds of night clubs (the “Kilt” comes to mind), I was always warned never ever to visit the East End.

      If I ever did so, I actually cannot remember, but what I do remember is, that I encountered many injured/handicapped men on crutches and in wheelchairs, which I then assumed were affected by the war, many of whom had to beg for money. When I for the first time heard speakers at Victoria Railway Station warning about pickpockets, I thought that someone’s wallet had recently been stolen, but I couldn’t understand, that it was as a general warning, being repeated on a regular basis.

      Moreover, class differences were evident and apparent, which could be seen in both clothing and behaviour, and my overall impression then was that London was in need of modernization on many levels, with the exception of entertainment, of having fun and of expressing opinions of course.

      Things have changed since then. I’m well aware of that, but is it really to the worse? Going around looking scared, is probably a more serious danger to you, than the danger itself, that made you so scared. (as a choice between “one” and “you” I chose the latter)


      Delete
    4. ''If the police and the Mayor want stricter gun laws, of course they are going to exaggerate the problem. But for the majority of us, gun crime doesn't affect us in any way, and probably never will.''

      Great deductive reasoning. The actual facts and figures are interpreted by you as an exaggeration as they reflect a reality that runs counter to what you imagine.Whre are your facts and figures ?

      Delete
    5. ''Things have changed since then. I’m well aware of that, but is it really to the worse?''

      Google some crime statistics UK / London. And Murders / violent crimes. If we have to go back and look at Dickens or the 60s, Google them for that period too. Then make a comparison.

      For the record, looking scared or looking brave has little effect on outcomes if you're a target to a group hunting in a pack or somebody armed .

      Delete
  7. Ros

    Twice in the blog, you mention MWT as an expert in child sex abuse but his CV is bogus.

    He was a DC for under a year, never promoted and never led a child abuse investigation in his life.

    He is another liar for hire, mainly through Sky and the BBC.

    On leaving Surrey police he had a job cleaning up chewing gum, that should tell you something.

    He himself claims he began as a child abuse expert, note began and expert, and formed a company round this a few weeks after visiting PDL in May 2007.

    Another one who has done very well feeding off the misery of Madeleine McCann.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi JJ good to see you :)

      Scary isn't it? All these TV companies accept his credentials as an expert without even a few rudimentary checks. Let's hope he doesn't also have the ear of government ministers and police advisory boards. But as they are all beneficiaries of Moral Panic, I expect he does. I remember an episode of 'The Thick of It', where the Minister needed an expert and how easily he could find one arguing, well, whatever he wanted.

      Arguably, neither the government nor the media barons, want credible experts. I remember when Tony Blair put together a panel of experts to examine the drug problem and the categorizing of cannabis as a Class B drug. The top expert, Professor Knutt, reported back how harmless drugs were especially in comparison to alcohol and Blair promptly fired him. The expert report was the binary opposite to popular myths. Cannabis especially, which is a huge threat to the pharmaceutical industry.

      But back to MWT, he does much the same as his friend Jim Gamble, surprised they didn't team up, in that he tells sensational stories that bump up an audience. Child sexual abuse is headline grabbing, hugely emotive and most of us know nothing about it because it is yucky. Ergo if someone says they are an expert, who are we to argue?

      CSA is a headline grabber in a way that physical and psychological abuse isn't. If a child is battered to death by a parent or carer, we don't assume children are being battered to death all around us. CSA has that 'news of the world' err, quality, in that it guarantees sex, sleaze and hopefully a few pillars of society to knock down. Some people are worried out of their minds that others are getting up to stuff in their bedrooms that they shouldn't oughta.

      I saw MWT once at a CSA meeting at the House of Commons. He was at the other side of the room but I literally saw his face drop when he saw me. Jim Gamble was there too, and very unpopular with the crowd. He changed his mind about speaking, because, apparently, he was too emotional.

      MWT and Jim Gamble, remind me of the creepy Ray Wyre. Another society CSA expert who introduced the Satanic Ritual abuse to the UK that set off a Moral Panic that resulted in hundreds, if not thousands, of children being abused by the Authorities. How many lives were wrecked by the creepy imaginings of that man? How many families lives are now being wrecked by paedophile accusations against innocent fathers? If someone is found in possession of a gun that's what they are charged with, not a murder they haven't committed.

      Just as we wouldn't assume everyone who owns a gun legally or illegally is a murderer, why would we assume everyone in possession of illegal images will commit heinous crimes against children.

      But I wandered off there JJ. I think I will take a look at one of MWT's documentaries, I think it would be very enlightening. :)

      Delete
    2. "Just as we wouldn't assume everyone who owns a gun legally or illegally is a murderer, why would we assume everyone in possession of illegal images will commit heinous crimes against children"

      A couple of questions for you:

      What possible reason could someone have for 'innocently' possessing indecent images of children?

      Would you be prepared to leave young children in the care of someone who possessed images of that nature?

      (I am not talking about images which can be open to any other interpretation, so don't bother to come back with faux-justification in the form of artistic merit/nothing wrong with naked bodies etc)

      I think you should also re-examine your attitude to these images in general, especially your position which appears to be that those who consume commit no crime, only those who supply.

      "How many families lives are now being wrecked by paedophile accusations against innocent fathers? If someone is found in possession of a gun that's what they are charged with, not a murder they haven't committed"

      You need to understand that possessing such images IS a crime. They are charged with the crime they have committed. You are basically taking the issues of child abuse images and false accusations of child abuse and mixing them together in a cauldron of your own fevered imagination.



      Delete
    3. I'm not the one with a fevered imagination 13:43, I'm not the one making the leap from looking at an illegal image to committing a heinous crime. You are the one imagining the heinous crimes that haven't happened. Do you think those in possession of video nasties will go on a slasher/killing spree?

      Happily we don't know what goes on goes on in most peoples' bedrooms and we don't want to. Well most of us don't. If we did we would probably find a lot of it alarming and would not only leave children with them, we would avoid them ourselves.

      Finding safe childcare is a minefield, and there are far more issues to worry about than what the carer watches on the internet. I once worked for solicitors who represented the Local Authorities. ALL the cases against the Councils were to do with the cruelty and incompetence of registered child minders. In one case a childminder was found guilty of killing a child - shaken baby syndrome, but she was able to continue as a childminder with over 5s.

      I would never leave a child in the care of a paedophile hunter or a child protection officer. I find their obsession with underage sex deeply disturbing, and indeed creepy. Take a look at CSA expert Ray Wyre and his Satanic Ritual abuse theory, if that doesn't make your skin crawl, what will?

      Ray Wyre, to put it kindly, is clearly not a 'ladies' man, ergo, it is very unlikely he has any knowledge of normal heterosexual or even homosexual relationships. I doubt he went to many parties, and I'm pretty sure picking anyone up would have been a problem for him. How then was this man an expert on all things sexual? Especially sex with kids.

      Those who see kids as sexual, have huge difficulty in relating to their peers, those who are the same age. With children they have the upper hand, something they can't ever achieve with adult men and women.

      Delete
    4. "I'm not the one with a fevered imagination 13:43, I'm not the one making the leap from looking at an illegal image to committing a heinous crime. You are the one imagining the heinous crimes that haven't happened. Do you think those in possession of video nasties will go on a slasher/killing spree?"

      I'm sorry but this rhetoric of yours seems designed to deflect and to avoid answering the questions.

      I will try to explain it in terms even a child could understand.

      Why do you think it is unlawful to possess images of CSA?

      It is because those images are of adults committing criminal acts against children. The images are of the victims of crime, in the process of being abused.

      It would appear that you see nothing wrong in viewing those images. I truly cannot understand that point of view. If those images were of your children being abused would you be happy with them being distributed, so that others who weren't there are afforded a ringside seat at their abuse?
      If those images were of your children being raped, would you be happy that someone handed over money to watch that happening to them?

      You might not like it, you might not agree with it, but that is what these images are. Someone's child being abused by an adult with other adults paying to watch.

      I honestly shudder at the idea that you pass yourself off as an expert in this area.

      Your attempts to sidestep are frankly laughable. I don't know why you have included an anecdote about a childminder, it is a complete non sequitur.

      As for your comments about Ray Wyre - I know nothing of the man personally, but the ignorance you reveal is quite stunning.

      People like you are part of the problem. You have utterly skewed beliefs and a profound lack of understanding of CSA. That is very obvious from your comments which at times are little short of delusional.

      Now - as you declined to answer either of my questions last time, I am going to ask them again

      What possible reason could someone have for 'innocently' possessing indecent images of children?

      Would you be prepared to leave young children in the care of someone who possessed images of that nature?

      Delete
    5. @ Ros 14:47

      The whole of your comment is very disturbing but:

      "Those who see kids as sexual, have huge difficulty in relating to their peers, those who are the same age. With children they have the upper hand, something they can't ever achieve with adult men and women."

      is just wrong.

      What about Stuart Hall and Rolf Harris? They had very long and successfully carrers - did they have difficulty with their peers?

      Delete
    6. @anon 15.52
      I wholeheartedly agree with you.

      Ros is simply wrong.
      Research shows that most paedophiles identify as heterosexual males, most are married or in relationships with adult women.

      They exist in every strata of society, in every profession.
      Giving oxygen to the idea that they are all hiding in children’s homes or snatching runaways is ludicrous.

      Delete
    7. Ros -

      ''I'm not the one making the leap from looking at an illegal image to committing a heinous crime. You are the one imagining the heinous crimes that haven't happened. Do you think those in possession of video nasties will go on a slasher/killing spree?''

      I hate to interject as you once again refuse pont blank to admit you're wrong or naive ( I'm being polite ).Illegal, in laymen's terms, means against the law.Therefore, punishable by law. Illegal images are illegal.it is illegal to produce them and illegal to profit from them.It is illegal to possess them.The 'heinous crimes', imagined or not, are another issue. Your logic is suggesting that there's no reason to arrest or prosecute those producing, profiting from, and distributing an illegal product if they haven't or don't go on to murder someone. It makes no sense.

      Your views about childcare being a minefield and the imagined sexual secrets behind so many closed doors are obviously tainted by your own experience and therefore lack any objectivity.

      Your criticism of paedophile hunters isn't particularly well informed.You have decided that those willing to risk prosecution in an attempt to protect children from a breed of criminal the police are finding increasingly difficult to contain as ' creepy' and that you '' find their obsession with underage sex deeply disturbing''. Nothing creepy about the paedophiles I notice.

      Why refer to Ray Wyre not being a ladies' man when he's been dead for years ?That he wasn't a ladies man, in your opinion, is a suitably firm foundation for you to accuse him of being unfit for the work he used to do :

      ''is clearly not a 'ladies' man, ergo, it is very unlikely he has any knowledge of normal heterosexual or even homosexual relationships. I doubt he went to many parties, and I'm pretty sure picking anyone up would have been a problem for him. How then was this man an expert on all things sexual? Especially sex with kids''

      This from she who has 'studied psychology and human behaviour' all of her life.She who is well versed in the area of Psychology.You're actually suggesting that anyone applying to treat sexual problems need not apply for the position if they're Priests, Bachelors, or Gay.If they have been a ladies' man, however, welcome to the shortlist.

      ''Those who see kids as sexual, have huge difficulty in relating to their peers, those who are the same age''

      Those who enjoy years of going undetected are often noted for their ability to blend among peers with their superficial charm they can keep the wool over the eyes of many. that's why they seem beyond reproach when first arrested and everyone joins the chorus of shock and horror.Any difficulty blending with peers is often noted and talked about in hushed tones.

      ''With children they have the upper hand, something they can't ever achieve with adult men and women.''

      Or do they utilize their devious, manipulative skills to gain the confidence and trust of a child as a child is still innocent, rather than an experienced, cautious adult who is more difficult to con ?

      I draw your attention to your opening of this thread and your claim that :

      '' Funnily enough, I like to be proved wrong, I like to be persuaded to look at issues from a different perspective, I'm in awe at the intellect of anyone who has been able to change my mind.''

      OK, we've bought the ticket, now show us.

      PS
      Anon 14:47 / Anon 15:52 / Anon 15:26..good posting. kudos for the reasoning and logic. I was beginning to think i was speaking a foreign language on my own.

      Delete
    8. I don't what adult sexual relationships these men had, do you? They were TV personalities like Jimmy Saville, but as I have been saying all along, they are all individuals and unique in their own ways.

      Err, I'm the one who has been saying the greatest risk in the home and from those known to children.

      Delete
    9. Spare me your crocodile tears for children 15:26, I can see right through you.

      The childminder anecdote is reminder that VIOLENCE is far more prolific and far more deadly, yet you have no concern for that at all. You are only interested in sexual abuse. Why?

      You are presenting yourself as an expert in CSA yet you don't know who Ray Wyre is? It is you who hasn't done the research. You might want to look up the devastation caused by that sexual abuse expert before you start pushing for the same thing all over again.

      Delete
    10. "Spare me your crocodile tears for children 15:26, I can see right through you.

      The childminder anecdote is reminder that VIOLENCE is far more prolific and far more deadly, yet you have no concern for that at all. You are only interested in sexual abuse. Why?

      You are presenting yourself as an expert in CSA yet you don't know who Ray Wyre is? It is you who hasn't done the research. You might want to look up the devastation caused by that sexual abuse expert before you start pushing for the same thing all over again."

      What is starting to come across to me, rather clearly, is that you are a rather unpleasant person, actually. You know nothing of me or my experiences but I think we all know enough to see through someone who feels the need to accuse another of shedding 'crocodile tears'

      I find your accusation that I 'have no concern for' children affected by violence just utterly spiteful. It WAS a non sequitur in an article you wrote about a supposed moral panic over paedophilia.

      At no point have I suggested or presented myself as an expert in this field, so that was just another spiteful dig, but for the record I am well aware of Ray Wyre, and what I said was that I know nothing of him personally, whereas you seem to believe yourself qualified to pronounce on his sexual preferences.

      Once again, you neglected to answer the two questions I posed. I think it is becoming obvious why you won't answer them.
      Let's try again anyway. Maybe you will have the decency to do so this time

      What possible reason could someone have for 'innocently' possessing indecent images of children?

      Would you be prepared to leave young children in the care of someone who possessed images of that nature?

      Delete
    11. You think I'm unpleasant? Well I think you are a piece of shit. And you really don't want me to tell you why. Don't write to my blog again, you will be binned.

      Delete
  8. You may wish to take part in this Ros - but it closes on 12/02/18
    https://consult.education.gov.uk/life-skills/pshe-rse-call-for-evidence/consultation/intro/

    ReplyDelete
  9. Another example of appeasing the enlightened and not learning from past mistakes. Another example of what's really going on in the real UK towns and cities.

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/father-rhys-jones-brands-justice-12000641

    ReplyDelete
  10. "I saw MWT once at a CSA meeting at the House of Commons. He was at the other side of the room but I literally saw his face drop when he saw me."

    He was probably wondering what you were doing there, given that you appear to have no understanding of the issue whatsoever

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, that wasn't the reason 18:28. I'm a careleaver, how could he possibly know more than I do? I had over 5 years experience of every creepy, manipulative, sadistic bastard you could imagine, for some reason they are really drawn to child protection.

      Like many care leavers I have a sixth sense, I'm the all grown up version of the kids who fell into the hands of child abusers. I recognise them instantly, and they know I know. They start to tremble and become incoherent, I've seen it happen several times, it's like having a super power.

      I'd quite like to see MWT explain CSA to me, he would have my full attention. He wasn't there in the convent, but according to you, he knows far more than I, that's got to be interesting.

      Delete
  11. Harry Leslie Smith‏
    @JimGamble_INEQE
    You know damn well that if they had come from my side of the tracks & that had occurred they would have been pilloried by the press and the government wouldn't have spent 11 million pounds looking for the child and that was my point in the tweet, unless you can tell me otherwise?

    Jim Gamble‏
    @Harryslaststand
    They did come from our side of the tracks. Made good in life & yes, made a mistake on holiday. Don’t feed the trolls on this Harry. You are much better than this. They pay a price everyday & their twins are growing up in a social media world - would u want them to read this?

    https://twitter.com/Harryslaststand/status/963144965315477506

    Interesting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm a big fan of @Harryslaststand, he is very insightful and can see straight through BS.

      Gamble like the parents, is using the twins as a human shield, the parents should be above criticism because they have children. No other parent affected by tragedy bring their other children into the limelight, yet Gerry and Kate name them and talk about them at every opportunity. With Madeleine they said 'it's not about us, it's about this child'. Now it is about the twins, babies when Madeleine disappeared, but now their first line of defence.

      They have spent 9 years suing the former detective who searched for their sister, claiming they are doing it to protect their children. Absurd of course, because the Court case has kept them and the twins on the front pages. Sean, they said, heard Goncalo Ammaral's theory on the school bus and Michael Wright claimed trolls were threatening to kidnap the twins. Horrific headlines that could and should have been avoided.

      Delete
    2. I just followed that link to Twitter.I read what was referred to here and continued to read the predictable disintegration of logic and reasoning.If that's the home of 'the court of public opinion' you can keep it.I don't know which is worse, Twitter, or the public.A match made in Hell.It was nice to see a long irrelevant comment from a News Of The World reporter.Whatever happened to that rag ? It really had it's finger on the pulse of what was going on in the world.Sad to see one of it's fine, upstanding reporters having to lurk on a social network. Whatever would the Murdochs and Freuds say.

      Delete
    3. I preferred the Beano 8:40, it had some great characters! Desperate Dan with his cow pie, lol, the Bash Street Kids, Keyhole Kate. Actually not sure if KK was in the Beano, I was also a fan of the Dandy, Bunty, the Four Marys was gripping! Of course, they were all quickly put aside when 'Jackie' came on the scene! It had 'real' boys in it! Nothing like the spotty oiks we hung around with, lol. I pretended to be far too sophisticated to lust after David Cassidy, but I secretly did, ha ha.

      From thereon, I have no idea what you are talking about, have you partaking of the falling down water?

      There is nothing in least sad about seeing a NOTW commenting on social media, journalists are no different to the rest of us, they live breathe, and yes, use social media.

      Your class barriers are very pretentious 18:40, don't you think it is great that 'stars' are no longer distanced from the rest of us. Twitter is a great leveller, don't you think?

      Delete
    4. no, not really

      Delete
    5. ''Your class barriers are very pretentious 18:40, don't you think it is great that 'stars' are no longer distanced from the rest of us''

      That's a little like Jack The Ripper telling me I don't hold women in high enough regard. The only stars distanced from me are in the sky.Unless you can explain to me how being a star is an indicator of class. A few examples for starters ..Charlie Sheen ( look out for the upcoming soda pop scandal).,Kevin Spacey ( he quite likes meeting young ones in strange places for odd practices whether they want to help him or not), Stephen Fry ( admirer and champion of Clement Freud's 'charm', and someone who thinks adults who suffered sexual abuse as children should ''get over themselves'').

      Delete
    6. Ah, there should always be a place for Stars dahlink, could you imagine how dull this world would be without them? And I don't mean stars in the sky, I mean living, breathing personalities who deserve their right to twinkle.

      And if they are not fine, upstanding, pillars of the church and community, so what? It makes them all the more interesting. I did at one time have a girl crush on Talullah Bankhead, I loved her deep sexy voice and her private was positively scandalous.

      Marilyn Monroe, hope some recognised the quote above, was sensual, erotic and fabulous, her fragility added to her appeal.

      I feel sad for you 22:03, much of the joy in my life has come from the Stars of stage, screen, TV and literature, I've been a movie buff since Bob Hope made me throw all my sweets up in the air while watching the Cat and the Canary. Comedy and frights, genius! And yes, I do get a buzz out of meeting someone famous, who doesn't?

      Delete
    7. ''I loved her deep sexy voice and her private was positively scandalous. ''

      Her private ? dare i ask - her private what ?

      Delete
    8. ''I feel sad for you 22:03, much of the joy in my life has come from the Stars of stage, screen, TV and literature,''

      No need to feel sad for me. Most of mine has come from life and people and the things in life i've experienced and enjoyed in life with those people.I've met a few stars and even had a drink or two with a few.It was ok and interesting sometimes.I'm sure they often tell people they once met me too.

      Delete
    9. LOL 01:54, her private 'life'. She was bisexual and her language was pretty colourful. On meeting a reporter who had quoted her using euphemisms, she said 'oh, you are the guy who can't spell f*ck'.

      Delete
    10. "Bankhead struggled with alcoholism and drug addiction, and was infamous for her uninhibited sex life."

      Yes I can understand how you relate to her.

      Delete
    11. ouch @ 12 :08 lol

      Delete
  12. ''I'm a big fan of @Harryslaststand, he is very insightful and can see straight through BS.''

    Translation :

    '' I love reading anything that echoes what I suspect.Especially if it's concerning GM and KM and their child''

    I think Jim Gamble gave him the perfect answer.Especially about feeding the trolls ( and sickening bloggers)

    ReplyDelete
  13. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton 11 February 2018 at 22:25

    Any need for that kind of language ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed. No excuse for that sort of behaviour, carrying on like a fishwife because she was put on the spot and couldn't answer.

      Delete
    2. LOL 20:05. As a small child I remember living next door to a family of 3 women, all of whom wore headscarves when they went out. Not very original I know, but that's how they became known to us - as in quick, quick, turn the music down, the headscarves are coming. Their faces seemed to be all the more sour due to the tight knots under their chins, and 'fishwife' was the term they used when my mother called them feck off you miserable old cows and turned the volume up higher. To you, 20:05, her words are my words. Now, must go gut a trout :)

      Delete
    3. Your description of your mother explains a lot.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous13 February 2018 at 20:05

      ''Agreed. No excuse for that sort of behaviour, carrying on like a fishwife because she was put on the spot and couldn't answer.''

      Oh she's answered. She's done it by holding back a good few more replies she couldn't challenge.Some would say censoring, which is unusual for somebody so anti- censoring . perhaps she's anti censoring as long as it doesn't include anything exposing her lack of knowledge on things she claims expertise in.

      Delete
    5. Probably 21:18, she was err, quite a character, of which, she had a least six! The loved nothing more than a slanging match over the garden fence, which really lowered the tone of Virginia Water, lol, but in a split second, she could go from fishwife to Queen.

      She loved to cause mischief, even her dying days she had the hospital ward in chaos. She accused the nice old lady in the next bed of hiding gin under her covers, and the deaf octogenarian opposite of sneaking one of the male porters into her bed at night. Of course they had never been so insulted in their lives, one had never touched liquor and the other, a frail old spinster and accused harlot, was waving her walking stick! Bizarrely, when I returned the next day, they were all laughing and best of friends. Good job really because I was getting nowhere with the 'completely out of character' argument. I didn't appreciate her let's say, uniqueness as much as I should have, but I'm lucky, when I think of her, I smile, especially at her mischievousness ways. She was always a big kid, the fun kind, that you want to hang out with. And I had a good giggle with the Registrar as he pointed out the discrepancies in her date of birth 'you'd be surprised at how often that happens' he told me.

      Apologies for waffling 21:18, you didn't deserve that! For some reason my dear old mum is in my head today, and that's a good thing, memories of her make me smile.

      Delete
  14. Another child attack in public ( UK). Four days ago. Note, not attacked by anyone known to her, or her family and not at home. Again.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/feb/11/police-hunt-man-alleged-rape-attempt-on-10-year-old-girl-manchester

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Okay, I'm done. Anyone who can make cheap jokes about the attempted rape of a child just isn't worth the calories it takes to write a reply.

      Delete
    2. Your compassion for children overwhelms me 09:34. Nothing says I love kids more than kicking in the head of a suspected paedophile.

      Does your compassion extend to kids living in poverty, or battered kids? How about those kids in the Refugee camps?

      Or like most of these paedophile hunters and their supporters, are you only interested in the sexual abuse?

      Delete
  15. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXZAfNPjvLo

    1:13

    "Carolyn sent us an email saying that a lot of children are asking whether they going to be abducted in the night and whether the parents are going to protect them..."

    ReplyDelete
  16. 12/06/2007

    Gerry McCann: "The whole world really has changed and is a lot smaller in this computer age."

    ReplyDelete
  17. Why wouldn't you answer the questions you were asked, Ros?

    You clearly don't think that possessing indecent images of children is a big deal; why is that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you dense? I have answered your questions in more ways than there are positions in the Karma Sutra! All in my blogs, all in my replies. Try again, and think as you read.

      Delete
    2. The fact that her position is what it is says much more than any tepid justifications for it. It's indefensible and it's immoral . It's put the final nail in the coffin of what dubious integrity she may have had once had. It's really difficult to accept much of anything she may comment on now as she is clearly carrying too much damage from her personal history around . It goes a fair way to explaining the almost constant anger and jaded view of anyone she envies and anyone who demonstrates actual knowledge gleaned via objectively studying research. She'd rather just use the blog as an outlet for her demons. An unpleasant to view cathartic exercise.

      Delete
    3. Why thank you for that psychological profile in a nutshell lol 23:00. You are really good at this, you are not the eminent Sigmund Freud are you?

      So I defend the indefensible, I'm immoral, carrying too much damage, constantly angry and have a jaded view of people I envy - everyone.

      Rofl. Had I returned from a holiday minus one child I would be feted by the Establishment and nominated for a sainthood. Funny old world, lol.

      Delete
    4. your final paragraph confirmed the 'nutshell profile's' accuracy

      Delete