Tuesday 14 May 2019

THAT'S IT FOR ME

For the past few months I feel as though my blog has been under seige, that is, it has been taken over by one or more supporters of the McCanns who have made it their life’s work to stop reasonable discussion of the missing Madeleine case.  They don’t just want to stop discussion, they want to threaten and intimidate those who dare to question the abduction story.
 
It is to my eternal shame that they were able to drive away Shallis, an intelligent, interesting new poster who ‘s academic interpretations sent the ‘Malevolents’ into a feeding frenzy. Even now, after she has gone, they ‘accuse’ every intelligent poster of being ‘Shallis’, reaffirming they will come after her if she reappears.
 
How has it come to this? These malevolents are acting in the same territorial way as they do in the cesspits. A stronger host could have prevented it, I’m sure, and all those who mocked my lack of rules and censorship, have their moment to say ‘told you so’.  But yes, I am mid conundrum.  I cannot bear to read through the 10,000+ words Ziggy writes each day, thus they are slipping through, filled with their contempt, ridicule and pure spite.  They are miserable reading.
 
My recent postbox is filled with complaints, I’m not enforcing ‘the rules’ properly.  They are asking me, another adult, to tell them, also adults, how to behave!  Seriously? Do they need actual written instructions on how not to be an arsehole? I politely asked people to show consideration to others. That’s not a big ask.  It shouldn’t even be necessary in polite society.  And how do they expect me to enforce said rules? Make my every post a ticking off?  It's like the McCanns' simpleton argument, Warners did not put up posters telling them to take care of their children.  When tf do these people take responsibility for their own behaviour?
 
For me, the Shallis affair was a turning point, a wake up call. I’m running a forum where a clique of posters can drive away new posters they don’t like. Wtf? Heck, they have even managed to drive me away.  The thought of reading their posts makes me sick to the stomach, which has sadly meant that many posts from newcomers and those who do respect the rules are going unanswered.
 
This blog is coming to an end, in this form at least.  I am no longer going to waste my time and talents on people who really do not deserve my time and talents.  I have far too many interests and subjects that I want to explore and discuss in greater depths, hopefully with others who are like minded.  I am a bit of an amateur historian and would have loved the opportunity to pick Shallis's brain I am sure there is so much she could have taught us.   
 
I’m afraid I am bored with the same arguments going around and around in the case of Madeleine McCann.  And the arguments never change because those will 100% faith in the parents, are unreasonable.  That is they cannot be reasoned with, they acknowledge no other arguments than their own.  It's like asking the Taliban to tone it down a bit.  They think if they bore people long enough they will say 'OK, ok, the McCanns are innocent'.
 
You know who I am most resentful of?  Ziggy's wife.  She is away enjoying herself while I am having to put up with all his shit.  She has skilfully avoided him for fuck knows how long now, so must be looking and feeling madeover, whilst I am on my second gin and contemplating roasting my head.  Good move Ziggy's wife, but I possess the ruby slippers and the power to return my blog to normality whenever I want.  A thug free zone.

Where are we now?  I suspect non believers vastly outnumber believers of the abduction story now, 12 years on.  Men who climb in bedroom windows are not supervillains in the Bond sense, they are caught within days, if not hours. Maybe it is finally beginning to dawn on all those who rushed to the parents’ aid, that there was no abductor.
 
Operation Grange goes on without any clues as to who they are investigating, while those who speculate will continue to speculate.  One day the truth will be revealed, too many people are involved for it to be buried. At the conclusion of the investigations, the dogs will have to be explained. They were either right or wrong. Proving they were wrong may present difficulties.

Meanwhile Ziggy et al will have to find somewhere else to publish their pro McCann propaganda, and vitriol against Goncalo Amaral.  They are parasites who are using the popularity of my writing  to promote their own sinister agenda, they can't get an audience of their own so they have set out to steal mine.  Unfortunately for them, I am the kid who owns the ball, and I can take it away whenever I want. 

 

279 comments:

  1. ''They don’t just want to stop discussion, they want to threaten and intimidate those who dare to question the abduction story.''

    That sounds a little paranoid, not to mention dishonest. I read your blog regularly. Can you show who made any threats, who the threats were made to and what the threat actually was please.One example would suffice. No list required.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm afraid many of us have become desensitized to the nastiness contained in so many of the pro McCann posts, that we don't even see it anymore.

      I won't be looking for examples for you, I would however, suggest you read the posts with your eyes open, hard I know, I've given up, try to see beyond the text, try to imagine what the poster is trying to communicate, the written word lacks the signals of body language and facial expressions, much is open to interpretation.

      I note, despite my polite request, you have posted without any indication as to who you are. Do you have any idea how bad mannered that is? You are being disrespectful, not only to me but to my readers.

      Delete
    2. Rosalinda Hutton14 May 2019 at 15:13

      ''I'm afraid many of us have become desensitized to the nastiness contained in so many of the pro McCann posts, that we don't even see it anymore. ''

      You mean you can't cite any examples of it because there aren't any.You made it up because they took the anti arguments apart and you can't handle it

      Delete
    3. ''I would however, suggest you read the posts with your eyes open, hard I know, I've given up, try to see beyond the text, try to imagine what the poster is trying to communicate, the written word lacks the signals of body language and facial expressions, much is open to interpretation. ''

      Great. You run a blog which can only display text and tell us to ignore everything if it isn't accompanied by body language and facial expressions.I think what you're really suggesting is that you are telling us all that you've been invaded by 'pros' who haven't threatened anyone or shown aggression or been insulting-that's all the antis work as usual- but if we 'imagine' what'#s 'really meant' etc. That's a new low.That's the kind of logic and thinking you apply to the Mccann case- 'imagine if' and 'read BETWEEN the lines, not the actual lines'. It's a really weak reason to allow everyone to quote what isn't real or truthful and has no evidence and get away with it.If that's how hard you have to work to sell your ideas, it's about time you looked at how valid your actual ideas really are.You can't blame any individuals or pros for the weakness or falseness of ideas they didn't post.

      Delete
    4. You took no time whatsoever to read my reply did you 16:10, again no id.

      It's not that I can't 'handle' Ziggy's posts 16:10, it's that I don't want to. There is quite a big distinction. I am asking myself why I am wasting so much of my precious time bickering with eejits. They are not even entertaining eejits, they are forcing me to read bilge that I have no interest in whatsoever - and calling me a liar at every opportunity.

      By the way, look at the hostility in your own post. I can almost see you wagging your angry finger in my face.

      Delete
    5. you 'don't want to' admit that his arguments make sense and yours are guesses.You're a poor man's Tony Bennett. Great role model btw.

      Delete
    6. Try saying that to my face and in your own name 17:17.

      Poor man's Tony Bennett? I'm nothing like Bennett, I am in fact the complete polar opposite of Bennett, so your comparison doesn't work on any level.

      I am not putting myself forward as a role model for anyone, so your sarcasm there was pointless. Unless of course you see Bennett as the role model, it wasn't clear.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous14 May 2019 at 16:10

      "You mean you can't cite any examples of it because there aren't any.You made it up because they took the anti arguments apart and you can't handle it".

      'They' = 'Ziggy'

      In your dreams, 'they', in your absolute dreams.

      Delete
    8. Anonymous 14 May 2019 at 18:32

      “…they [“…the pro McCann posts…]…”

      A ‘C’ for comprehention. An ’A’ for dreaming.

      You have horribly abused this blog by your omitting to leave any form of identification. Take note.

      Why should Rosalinda give you a voice and a wide audience?

      T

      Delete
    9. Anonymous15 May 2019 at 12:25

      And E- for your spelling, as in 'comprehention'

      "Horribly abusive”? I was replying to an unsigned post, I notice you did not censure them. Though they were being ‘horribly abusive', in a way that actually matters. What wasn’t comprehended? The point was that it is ridiculous and offensive to suggest that Ros has her arguments 'taken apart' by pros and can't handle it. It’s a good enough reason for her to close off comments or register commentators. You don't think butting in with empty replies is the ' horribly abusive' thing?

      Signed, also 'T'. Sorry for any confusion. ‘Take note’ yourself, one letter does not make you not ‘anonymous’ as Blogger makes clear themselves, so as you say yourself, "Why should Rosalinda give you a voice and a wide audience?'

      Delete
    10. Anonymous 15 May 2019 at 19:32

      And E- for your spelling, as in 'comprehention'

      You’ve noticed the ‘glass’. Very good. I say no more.

      “"Horribly abusive”? I was replying to an unsigned post, I notice you did not censure them.”

      “…post… them.”?

      The unsigned post you refer to is part of an exchange between two people I’m affection toward and loyal to, therefore, I avoid directly commenting when they discuss their differences. I have made it known that many of my views differ from Rosalinda’s, and that The Great Ziggmundo is my bro in Christ.

      “Though they were being ‘horribly abusive', in a way that actually matters. What wasn’t comprehended? The point was that it is ridiculous and offensive to suggest that Ros has her arguments 'taken apart' by pros and can't handle it.

      I’m unable to comment.

      “It’s a good enough reason for her to close off comments or register commentators.”

      This is Rosalinda’s blog. Its administration is not my business. If Rosalinda would like to hear my opinion, she would ask me.

      “You don't think butting in with empty replies is the ' horribly abusive' thing?”

      I don’t know what you mean. In general, any reply is fine by me. I try not to be abusive.

      “Signed, also 'T'. Sorry for any confusion.”

      That’s somewhat inconsiderate, I dare say: before you appeared, I had been signing off as T for a time. I don’t see why we shouldn’t be able to come to an understanding.

      ‘Take note’ yourself, one letter does not make you not ‘anonymous’ as Blogger makes clear themselves…) so as you say yourself.

      I do take note.

      http://cristobell.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-bizarro-world-of-mccanns-part-ii.html

      “Wednesday, 1 May 2019

      THE BIZARRO WORLD OF THE MCCANNS PART II



      And finally, please, please identify yourselves in some way, even if it is only a letter from the alphabet. It is simple courtesy and good manners, particularly if you are replying to one correspondent.”

      “…so as you say yourself, "Why should Rosalinda give you a voice and a wide audience?'”

      Rosalinda doesn’t have to, that’s the choice she makes, perhaps because I try to follow her rules.

      Peace.

      T

      PS I said unambiguously on Rosalinda’s that I’m illiterate and a lousy writer. I speak in tongues and write by ear. And, BTW, thank you for your comment, auld fella. :)

      How about a pecuniary contribution to Rosalinda’s blog, whatever you can afford as a sign of goodwill. Every little helps a writer.

      Delete
    11. Correction

      me @14:55

      ...affectionate…

      T

      Delete
    12. The great ’T’ but in actual fact, Anonymous16 May 2019 at 14:55

      (It should be noted the only person here with full personal disclosure, and therefore real accountability, is Rosalinda herself. Really everyone else, including you, is in hiding to a greater or lesser extent. This is the problem she must wrestle with. It’s a big one).


      “This is Rosalinda’s blog. Its administration is not my business."

      And yet you seem to think it is, like a playground snitch. Even, helpfully, waving the rules about, taking the time to scurry about to find, copy and paste, and emphasise bits. Your time is so well spent.

      Your apparent buddy, Ziggy, did not sign the post I was replying to either. That was the point. You seem to think it fine he ‘breaks the rules’ that you set yourself up policing. There is no ‘horrible abuse’ on his part, it would seem.

      The other point is unless Rosalinda only accepts comments from registered accounts (which you don’t have) they are all ‘Anonymous’, single letter person. Look up above your post, see it? This is what Rosalinda has come to realise is the big problem. Hence a dramatic change of blog that she announces here, and the last gasp of a broken system running below it, which we are all part of, hence no offence to her as it plays out and quietly splutters and dies, proving her right.

      Signed (very pointlessly, don’t you see?) ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSUVWXY (no ’T’ in deference to your bagging the letter, or ‘Z’ as taken by someone who occasionally signs his less insulting or self-aggrandising posts). I hope you appreciate ‘the simple courtesy’. Genuine ‘peace’ to you too.

      PS Only the very small minded actually care about slips of spelling or grammar, you at 16:13

      Delete
    13. @16:53

      Thank you for your comment. It’s incoherent and appears abusive. Your erupting eructation is not a substitute for coherently expressing your views. Make a donation, it will help.

      And please get your foot off my toes or you may lose a leg. I stay. If you go, I’ll follow (if you know what I mean). :)

      Peace.

      T

      Delete
    14. Anonymous16 May 2019 at 18:17

      Look in the mirror, person who hides behind 'T'.

      That is an offensive and vapid response to serious points being made about anonymity here.

      You came after and attacked me remember, is that all you mean to do? Your faux innocence 'standing on toes' is offensive.

      My post wasn't abusive. Yours is. And you abuse as Anonymous.

      Signing 'peace' does not make amends for rudeness. And I held out an olive branch which you ignored, which is noticeable.

      Pax

      ABC etc

      Delete
  2. "Seriously? Do they need actual written instructions on how not to be an arsehole?"

    Nobody would come to you for advice on how NOT to be an arsehole.

    "I’m running a forum where a clique of posters can drive away new posters..."

    You're not running a forum, it's a blog.

    And if it's been overrun, you're not even running your blog.

    "You know who I am most resentful of? Ziggy's wife."

    Well you will do, she'll be getting laid, whilst you spend your lonely nights begging for Gin.

    I look forward to your resurrection in a few days when you'll come back claiming to be a fighter etc etc. Bla bla bla

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. * cough cough*

      My wife is probably getting laid as it happens, she remarried.But It's not something I ever think about :/ But If she calls me any time soon, I'll inform her that her rampant ways are the stuff of internet legend now and that Ros is resentful of here because she got to be part of my life and not just somebody on the internet :)

      Z [ a former bachelor-now-divorcee and raconteur]

      Delete
    2. Again, another ignoramus posting without a name. I shall call you bla bla.

      What can I say other than yuck, yuck, yuck, almost as bad as Kate not being able to make love to Gerry. No one could. And I'm sure the same applies to Ziggy.

      Delete
    3. Really mature Rosalinda. Obsess much ?

      Delete
    4. Rosalinda Hutton14 May 2019 at 15:31

      ''almost as bad as Kate not being able to make love to Gerry. No one could. And I'm sure the same applies to Ziggy.''

      True, I prefer women. But only certain kinds of women.Sane with curves and who have had the nagging gene removed.That's a start...

      Ziggy

      Delete
    5. hate hate hate hate bla bla bla

      Delete
    6. ZiggyAnonymous14 May 2019 at 16:21

      "True, I prefer women. But only certain kinds of women.Sane with curves and who have had the nagging gene removed.That's a start..."

      Your vileness knows absolutely no bounds, does It?

      of your exwife"Ros is resentful of her because she got to be part of my life and not just somebody on the internet :)"

      What weird fantasy have you got going? Ros, have a shower immediately.

      People wonder about your mental health here, for a reason.

      You wonder why people don't like you? It has nothing to do with agreeing with you about the McCanns or not. This is an open discussion blog, so people who come here want an open discussion from different viewpoints. You are hiding behind the McCanns.

      Everyone here could think the MCanns actual saints but they would still think you despicable. Because you are.


      Delete
    7. @6:57

      Whose help? Please advise.

      Anyway, it seems ’22:59’ is from the land of the unclean. A colon cleansing and a shower… for starters. Vot d’ you think, Oscar?

      Oh yeah, please don’t remove you post.

      Sha la la la lee.

      T

      Delete
    8. Anonymous14 May 2019 at 22:59

      You have the stench of a real coward who lives out the hard man role from the safety of a lonely seat in front of a computer.Out there, your own shadow could knock you out.On here, big man.Stay on here.

      Delete
    9. Anonymous 15 May 2019 at 19:36

      Jesus suffering, Oscariot, yer aff yer heid an’ yer bum's oot the windae! I’m a mirror. I'm going ta skelp yer wee behind!

      T

      Delete
  3. This looks like a melodramatic exit stage left.It's like a drunken 6th form girl at the school dance who really just want's everyone giving her attention and telling her who or what ' isn't worth it'.

    Have the pros taken over or have the antis seen enough ?Have the antis seen their best theories exposed as unsupportable.Have they seen a new truth.A real one.

    Your observations about shallis are way off the mark.Although he /she is an obvious anti McCann with a very heavy bias( while insisting not to have any idea of what could have happened of course), the length of the posts were alarming.But, had they been coherent it would be worth it.But constant streams of abuse and insults merely because somebody has corrected an observation isn't good for any blog.I only see you supporting shallis.Like you do with jc, a toned down but equally biased observer of nothing important.Nobody else supports their ranting.

    You-or shallis( jc, bjorn etc ) have nothing to hide away from or no reason to retreat.If you have truth on your side it wins every debate.If all you have are allegations and spite, it will be exposed.Then it's understandable why the need to leave arises.

    ''These malevolents are acting in the same territorial way as they do in the cesspits''

    Speaking of cesspits.The cesspit referred to so negatively here has a reputation of pretending to be a justice for Madeleine discussion forum.But, unless you are prepared to accuse the parents, you get banned.Sound familiar ?

    You can't bear to read through 'ziggys 10,000 words a day'. Yes, you often say you don't even read him at all (or skim read at best).But you have plenty of observations to share and dedicate threads to him.Is it him- a complete stranger- who you can't bear to read, or what he says that stands up against opposition ? The opportunity is always there to take his views apart and silence him.But nobody seems able to. So you resort to childish insults and try to encourage others to join in.Then you end up having make new rules because it gets silly.The 'miserable reading' you refer to isn't miserable.What it exposes makes you feel miserable.Otherwise you could counter it.

    We can take your word about the complaints. They- if they exist- are probably from disgruntled antis who have their lies exposed and their theories shot to bits and have nothing left to say and can't win an argument. So want they ask for the naughty people to be banned.

    The same arguments will always go in circles.What was said in 2007 can't change as nothing else has happened.

    You call Ziggy a thug.You mean the truth hurts and it feels like you've been hit when he posts it.So, blame the messenger. Why not just take his arguments to pieces with evidence.Then he'd feel beaten up instead. Can you ?

    Your credibility is sliding without any assistance from Ziggy or pros.You talk about imaginary propaganda agents and anyone who doesn't blame the innocent-until-proven-guilty- parents as being shills and trolls.You can never acknowledge that there is a large percentage of 'neutrals' who don't side with pro or anti but just follow the case.That shows a lack of depth and breadth.It makes it look a tad obsessive with you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why not start your own blog then, 14:51?

      Delete
    2. Until someone has a good explanation of why the dogs made so many 'hits' on the McCann accommodation and hire car then I'm firmly with the McCann guilt. The thing that is more of a mystery is why they are so protected. GA hit the nail on the head and is to be commended.

      Delete
    3. Here here, or is it hear hear? Oscar.

      Ziggy's need to write, matches my own need to write, he should stop clinging onto my coat tails and start a blog of his own.

      Delete
    4. Ziggy is worth reading.You should cling on to his.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous14 May 2019 at 16:28

      ''Until someone has a good explanation of why the dogs made so many 'hits' on the McCann accommodation and hire car then I'm firmly with the McCann guilt. ''

      The dogs' handler explained why they're not evidence.Didn't you understand them ? Amaral can't receive a commendation now due to his criminal record

      Delete
    6. Won't be possible much longer though, will it 17:12?

      Delete
    7. Rosalinda Hutton14 May 2019 at 16:37

      Agree with you Ros. Ziggy should set up his own blog.

      Could you allow him to advertise his new blog here before you block comments for pastures new? So the adoring clones of himself can go and hang on his every word ? And antis flock there to be thoroughly put right about their flimsy arguments and mindless hatred? Can't wait.

      This would be a very generous gesture on your part as you have the very successful blog and who is he, exactly? so he will no doubt have your hand off. Who could pass up such an offer? We await him giving us a link. A 'Blogger' blog can be set up for free and very simply in 5 minutes...

      Delete
    8. No, I will not be offering him any publicity and I will delete any links that are put up. And if he thinks he can copy and paste my blogs onto his new site, he can think again. Using my blogs to attract hits was a common practice of the McCann supporters, so good for him to know now that I won't tolerate it.

      Delete
  4. You shouldn't concern yourself with nutters posting you private complaints, Rosalinda.You should worry more about the definition of 'hate speech' and defamation and the complaints the owners of the blog site might have received about this blog

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The complaints are on the blog 15:09, see post from Dave and others.

      Your accusations of 'hate speech' are pathetic. There is nothing I have ever written that could in any way be construed as hate speech. Your fantasies of seeing in me in the dock are just that, fantasies. My mantra throughout all these years is that my belief the parents were involved, goes beyond reasonable doubt. That 15:09 is free speech in action.

      Another ignoramus with no name. What are you afraid of?

      Delete
    2. You ban anyone who can show your lies for what they are and your horrible personality. What are you afraid of.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous15 May 2019 at 19:38

      "You ban anyone who can show your lies for what they are and your horrible personality. What are you afraid of?'

      Have you no self awareness at all? You accuse Ros of 'lying', which is slander, and 'having a horrible personality' which is a disgusting insult, and then think you will be booted off - because she is afraid of you?

      What human right of 'free speech' are you so miserably misunderstanding that makes you think you can turn up on someone else's blog as a guest and behave like this and expect to be given a red carpet of welcome? It seems you feel entitled to it. You are very wrong.

      Delete
    4. Many thanks 21:00, I'm publishing these comments so people can see why I have reached the end of my tether. They accuse me of lying (what do I have to lie about?), but they are projecting. The first thing a liar does when caught, is accuse other people of lying. See Trump, he does it all the time.

      A horrible personality! Maybe. I have throughout my life often been the target of women who have taken an intense dislike to me, it goes right back to the playground. But I can honestly say I have never felt inclined to change for their benefit or indeed for the benefit of anyone else. Happily for all those who intensely hate me, there are others who intensely love me so I can't be all bad.

      On a brighter note, unlike our friend at 19:38, I never, ever, have the need or desire to write poison pen posts to strangers online. Imagine being so small, so insignificant and so frightened that your only form of communication is anonymous spite filled texts? And they tell me I need help.

      Anyway, again, many thanks.

      Delete
  5. If you w4rote the first paragraph in an A-level essay I would have put 'lacks imagination' in the margin. Try to think outside of clichés.

    Have the antis given up? I'm not sure they have given up so much as they have been worn down. I can't speak for others but I feel as though I have been trapped in a crypt and forced to listen to the preachings of Ziggy for the rest of eternity. It's a circle of hell not mentioned by Dante, though it should be.

    You want me to take down your arguments, dismantle them, line by line, like it hasn't been done a zillion times before. But LOL, yeah, I bet you do. Your need for attention is so extreme you must force the discussion to continue long after every point has been exhausted.

    I call Ziggy a thug because Ziggy exhibits thuggish behaviour. And he is using that thuggish behaviour to dictate the tone of my blog. He is a control freak, it's either his way or there is something wrong you. The usual accusations being of the mental health, drug or alcohol addiction variety. You may think that is a good way to win an argument 14:51 (too ignorant to identify yourself), but it isn't, it's contemptible. Your above paragraph about Shallis is filled with contempt, how dare you! Her posts were interesting and informative, they offered new perspectives and were so well written they were a joy to read. Not for you malevolents though, you fear education and enlightenment as much as you fear the truth. You just didn't want the world to see that an intelligent, highly educated, woman did not believe the McCanns. You prefer to portray the non believers as ignorant, cider swilling chavs, who hate the parents for their success and good looks. An argument skilfully dismantled by Shallis.

    My credibility is sliding? Presumably because you see Ziggy (yourself) as having won this internet battle. As though he has proved, beyond doubt, the parents innocence and demonised Goncalo Amaral enough to take the blame for anything. I'm afraid you remain very much within the Bizarro world of the McCanns, where you are all completely deluded. You are objects of pity, not victors of a media war.

    And you haven't won anything. You have lost a popular place on which to post your obnoxious views. You will have to go elsewhere or start your own blog, your days of leeching here are over.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rosalinda Hutton14 May 2019 at 16:13

      '' post your obnoxious views. You will have to go elsewhere or start your own blog, your days of leeching here are over.''

      Can almost smell the hatred in that lol

      I'm afraid you are insulting the rest of us, Ros, with your angry crusade against Ziggy.It looks purely as if you are just taking the ''if you can't beat 'em, ban 'em'' stance.

      If what he says is so wrong and what you accuse him of is so right, you shouldn't need to ban him you can hold up all the examples of his so called trolling or obnoxious posting and we can make our own minds up. It looks like you fear his posts being read with any level of interest as you can't argue with what he says.Worse, he says it without insulting anyone.All you do is try to post one character assassination attempt after another and hope for the support to follow.You use terms like 'win' and 'lose'. Nobody else does as nobody else sees it as a battle. They see it as debating or discussing things.But this latest effort of yours reminds me of the kid in school who would walk off with his head down and the ball- ''it's my ball and we aren't playing until you all do what i want''

      Delete
    2. "I'm afraid you are insulting the rest of us, Ros, with your angry crusade against Ziggy.'

      Hi Ziggy we can seeeeeeeee you.

      And see you in 1000s of anonymous (or fake ID) posts often bigging yourself up in fake reviews for yourself etc. It's all you.

      Delete
    3. I already used the kid with the ball metaphor, shows you either do not read what I have written, or it doesn't register.

      I don't fear his posts one bit lol, they BORE me, can I make that any plainer? He has nothing beyond 'there's no evidence', '12 years = innocence' and no-one gives a toss about your opinion, they only want to read mine'.

      What he is doing to my blog is the height of bad manners. and there is no way I would tolerate such an uncouth bully in the real world, so why I am tolerating it here? He's a time waster, he needs to look around and find someone else to bore. He should open his own blog so you and your ilk can read him to your heart's content. I'm not going to be forced to read him any longer.

      Delete
    4. Rosalinda Hutton14 May 2019 at 17:42

      "these people" is "Ziggy", a deluded bit of internet riffraff that has fetched up and infested your blog. You have an infestation of "Ziggy". He's in a rage at being fumigated. He feeds his ego and hate here.

      He will try it on somewhere else, not necassarily McCann related, this is just a gift to abuse you in the name of 'free speech'. He berates you in a very ugly and unacceptable way, from a 'safe place'. as he does not supply any evidence of his own ever but just tears down everyone else with nothing. He gets off on trying to humiliate you, trying to "feel powerful" on nothing at your expense, as he is in real life he is small and powerless.

      Most wouldn't put up with his abuse for 5 minutes. He probably couldn't believe his luck that you continually put up with his horrible abuse. You are cutting off his blood supply and he will go balistic now. Sorry to be anonymous, most don't want to be randomly attacked by a nutter. Stay strong.

      Delete
    5. stay strong lmao its a blpg you fool...jeezuz aitch..your cry for attentions working Ros.How cheap's that

      Delete
    6. Anonymous14 May 2019 at 18:06

      ''"these people" is "Ziggy", a deluded bit of internet riffraff that has fetched up and infested your blog. You have an infestation of "Ziggy". He's in a rage at being fumigated. He feeds his ego and hate here.''

      Just because you're obsessed with 'ziggy' and his every word, it doesn't equate to an infestation.It's closer to you and others having an obsession.Accept responsibility.That , or try to back yourself up with a little evidence or take his arguments to pieces and make yourself look less like a schoolboy trying to act big in a virtual landscape.

      ''He berates you in a very ugly and unacceptable way, from a 'safe place'. as he does not supply any evidence of his own ever but just tears down everyone else with nothing''

      See..That's why you can only insult.Anything else you try is based on lies.Here's advice : If you or your friends don't like fighting, don't start fights.You get hurt and end up doing silly things like this.You're an anti I take it..

      '' He gets off on trying to humiliate you, trying to "feel powerful" on nothing at your expense, as he is in real life he is small and powerless.''

      Everyone's arguments speak for their author.You making guesses on how people you don't know 'get off' online is another dark area not worthy of space.

      ''Most wouldn't put up with his abuse for 5 minutes. He probably couldn't believe his luck that you continually put up with his horrible abuse.''

      Copy and paste three instances of horrible abuse.Take your time.

      '' Sorry to be anonymous, most don't want to be randomly attacked by a nutter. Stay strong.''

      I'm guessing you're anonymous in more ways you would even know.But, at least you have the internet.You're safe here.

      Z

      Delete
    7. Rosalinda Hutton14 May 2019 at 17:42

      I think the 12 years = innocence argument is quite strong, Ros.It's true too.And they haven't even been questioned since the PJ head said they are no longer suspects.Why is it so outrageous ? Just because ziggy says it doesn't mean it was his decision.Are you blaming him for the PJ or UK not arresting the McCanns due to the lack of evidence ?he's stating facts.But you go off on one and hurl abuse while calling anyone who agrees with the logic of being abusive or bad mannered .

      Delete
    8. Anonymous14 May 2019 at 17:34



      Hi Ziggy we can seeeeeeeee you.

      And see you in 1000s of anonymous (or fake ID) posts often bigging yourself up in fake reviews for yourself etc. It's all you.''

      Yes, that's right.Everyone you imagine is me is me.Nothing at all to do with nutty internet paranoia at all.Great post

      Z

      Delete
    9. Many thanks 18:06, and yes 'infestation' is exactly the right word. And you are right, no-one else would put up with that level of abuse for 5 minutes let alone as long as I have.

      And today they have gone into overdrive, the clock is ticking, they need a new venue, or perhaps they will just return to their old ones. It matters not to me. I remember watching a movie about Mark Zuckerberg where he paid his former partners exactly what they wanted without flinching. He knew that wherever he went and whatever he did, his talent went with him. I have felt much the same when I left forums, the loss is theirs.

      Many thanks for your support 18:06, they are indeed nutters, but they have driven me to reconsider the way in which I run my blog. It has presently become a chore, and that's really not what I was going for!

      Delete
    10. 'I'm guessing you are more anonymous than you will ever know' says Z, a man too scared to add the 'iggy' on the end. Who tf do you think you are speaking to my readers like that? This is not your blog, you don't get to bully people away from here. You truly are a nasty piece of work, and feel the hatred in there mate, it's every bit as strong as you think it is.

      Why not start your own blog Ziggy? There you can write as much tedious shit as you like, and also reply to yourself in multiple forms. You are not welcome here anymore, the clock is ticking.

      Delete
    11. Rosalinda Hutton14 May 2019 at 20:03

      'they' is Ziggy. It is all one person, he hides just how much he is posting, which is a lot even just as Ziggy. Look here today. He plays with your mind to think he is a gang and has adoring admirers who write him reviews. Is that likely? If he is a 'gang' then he thinks he has more power to bully and his 'views' seem more justified. But in reality just one little man. Remember behind the curtain in "The Wizard of Oz"?

      Delete
    12. Shame it wasn't a Psychiatrist.You need to get out more.

      Delete
  6. Hi Rosalinda, If you do close your blog I will be sorry but not surprised and thank you for keeping it open for so long.
    This is obviously a blog for those of us who have problems in believing the McCanns' story of events over Madeleine's disappearance so I wonder why people who not only don't share those views but bitterly oppose them take the time and trouble to bother posting their views on your site.
    There are plenty of pro (if you like) McCann sites who I'm sure would be glad of their contributions and leave yours for like-minded people who have actually bothered to read the police files, viewed the McCann interviews and came to the conclusion that there is something fishy about this whole case (and I don't mean sea-bass).
    Anyway, Rosalinda many thanks for your time and effort over the years and I will be sorry to see the blog disappear. K

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for your kind words K. At the moment I am feeling like a human punch bag and wondering why on earth I am allowing these people to get away with it. Not only are they abusing me but they are driving genuine posters away.

      I'm looking for a new format K, I have never been able to figure out how to open new pages for new subjects, so it would be good to find a new outlet for my musings, sadly it may have to include a function where I can block disrupters.

      Delete
    2. see the top of the page Re drunken sixth form girl being dramatic so everyone gathers round to give her attention.Your lies have taken a kicking.Not you.( K is such a nice name btw)

      Delete
  7. Rosalinda Hutton14 May 2019 at 16:13

    ''If you w4rote the first paragraph in an A-level essay I would have put 'lacks imagination' in the margin. Try to think outside of clichés''

    ''l as though I have been trapped in a crypt and forced to listen to the preachings of Ziggy for the rest of eternity. It's a circle of hell not mentioned by Dante, though it should be.''

    You mean cliche's like that ? OK, I'll try.

    ''You want me to take down your arguments, dismantle them, line by line, like it hasn't been done a zillion times before''

    Yes. And they haven't been.

    ''Your need for attention is so extreme you must force the discussion to continue long after every point has been exhausted. ''

    If i was that bad, I'd run a blog.

    ''I call Ziggy a thug because Ziggy exhibits thuggish behaviour. And he is using that thuggish behaviour to dictate the tone of my blog. He is a control freak''

    Your understanding of Psychology could be written three times on the back of a postage stamp.There is nothing at all to support that silly idea.How can somebody who asks questions and challenges unfounded ideas for evidence be a control freak ? Liars that try to manipulate the thinking of others with lies that have no foundation are the ones trying to control.The tone keeps lapsing into juvenile insults from antis who can only call names at posters if they can't counter their points.

    '' The usual accusations being of the mental health, drug or alcohol addiction variety. You may think that is a good way to win an argument 14:51''

    See- lying again. There isn't a single comment about drink or drugs or mental health on the post.That's trying to control.For the record, do you EVER tell someone who disagrees with you that you fear for their 'mental health' ?

    ''Shallis is filled with contempt, how dare you! Her posts were interesting and informative, they offered new perspectives and were so well written they were a joy to read.''

    You should read them again and see the feedback they received- none.They made endless accusations and insults.You think that's a joy to read ?

    ''You prefer to portray the non believers as ignorant, cider swilling chavs, who hate the parents for their success and good looks. An argument skilfully dismantled by Shallis.''

    Also an argument that doesn't exist to be dismantled.

    ''. As though he has proved, beyond doubt, the parents innocence and demonised Goncalo Amaral enough to take the blame for anything''

    The parents are, according to the law, already innocent.That has nothing to do with Ziggy or anyone else.It stands as a law.It isn't Ziggy's or anyone else's fault if the police can't change that status.Amaral has a genuine criminal record- that isn't Ziggy's fault either.His mistakes and misinformation have been down to Amaral himself( ask Sandra).

    The staples of the antis have been crushed.They must have been really flimsy.


    Z

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL Why do you talk about yourself in third person Z? Did you slip up there and forget who you were posting as?

      'The staples of the antis have been crushed', good grief man get a hold of yourself. I'm sorry to be the one to inform you, but your contributions to the debates on here have achieved nothing. Zilch. OK, mine haven't either, but I am not trying to persuade or influence anybody. Matters not to me whether the McCanns are believed or disbelieved, I'm really way too self obsessed to give two hoots one way or the other.

      You can argue until you are blue in the face Z, and you do, but you won't change public perception one bit. People are openly questioning the McCanns bizarre behaviour and no evidence of an abductor. You can't stop that, you can't turn the tide back.

      Delete
    2. "LOL Why do you talk about yourself in third person Z? Did you slip up there and forget who you were posting as?"

      Hilarious.

      Delete
    3. '''The staples of the antis have been crushed', good grief man get a hold of yourself. I'm sorry to be the one to inform you, but your contributions to the debates on here have achieved nothing. Zilch''

      Apart from dedicating several threads with 'Ziggy' as the subject ( even though you don't read him).They have also achieved balance by explaining why the staples of the antis can never be anything more than suspicions guesses or lies.They have made people capable of thinking, think.The honesty in the posts are there to be read. Nobody challenges what is posted with anything more than an insult.If they're questioned, an explanation is given as a reply.

      The public perception doesn't matter does it.Social networks ? Stop being hilarious.

      They ( public) brought the myths of dogs finding evidence, of blood being visible on youtube, of dead bodies being buried and money laundering parents and DNA being incriminating. You forget that this isn't an online game. It's a police investigation into something that really happened.making silly stories up isn't clever is it.

      Z

      Delete
    4. Rosalinda Hutton14 May 2019 at 17:52

      ''LOL Why do you talk about yourself in third person Z? Did you slip up there and forget who you were posting as?''


      A capital 'lol'. That always means what and who your laughing at should be celebrated by others of equal shallowness and lack of intelligence.It worked. It didn't say anything, as ever, but it worked.

      I was quoting your unfounded drivel with regard to 'ziggy this..ziggy that..ziggy made me cry' and so on..was it difficult for you...sorry. I'll try lowering next time..

      Now. can we get back to why the two police forces are not seeing the behaviour of the McCanns as bizarre ? Or why they believe the abduction ? No ? Why not....;-)

      Z

      Delete
    5. And another capital LOL Ziggy, because you make the same error in the post that follows. Don't feel too bad, most people guessed you were praising yourself and defending yourself. The kind of obsession you have is rarely shared by two, though of course, it does happen.

      'Now, can we get back to......', LOL at your pathetic attempt to quick change the subject from your having been caught trolling. Pathetic.

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    7. It's the grandiosity that is the most pitiful aspect. Like a child in a policeman costume, trying to direct the traffic.

      Delete
    8. What exactly is grandiose about a policeman directing traffic, Oscar ?

      Delete
  8. '''There are plenty of pro (if you like) McCann sites who I'm sure would be glad of their contributions ''

    I think you'll find that Ros has always maintained that both anti as well as pro are welcome here.Or don't you believe her.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous14 May 2019 at 17:04 or Ziggy if he is prepared not to hide.

      "both anti as well as pro are welcome here. "

      But not arseholes who mistake freedom of speech for everyone having to put up with them droning on and saying nothing at all and just ... being an arsehole. They don't. Ros doesn't. You have no arguments.

      Delete
    2. Traditionally all have been welcome 17:04, but the system, such as it was, is being horribly abused. Including by yourself 17:04, as you have omitted to leave any form of identification.

      You, and many others as most of these front page posts illustrate, are filled with bad manners (no names), belligerence and contempt? Why should I give you a voice and a wide audience?

      Delete
    3. Would i be right in thinking that signatures such as 'jc' 'D', 'T' John 100, 'K' mean they are not 'horribly abusing' the system because of those credentials ?They're hardly birth certificates are they.You're being far too dramatic.You make accusations of belligerence and and bad manners all the time to anyone who doesn't hate the parents.The real abuse and stupid language is never picked up by you as those typing it are haters.They have great manners don't they.You are trying to make this blog all about just concentrating on what you can come up with from your imagination to accuse the parents of.These excuses are just to ban any other arguments, especially when they make more sense than guesswork. You aren't kidding anyone.

      Delete
    4. is 'shallis' a real name then

      Delete
    5. Anonymous14 May 2019 at 17:40

      ''But not arseholes who mistake freedom of speech for everyone having to put up with them droning on and saying nothing at all and just ... being an arsehole. ''

      I see you had no qualms about publishing this filth then, Ros. Is it because it isn't belligerent or ill mannered ?Or is it because it;s an anti getting the hate out ?

      ''Anonymous14 May 2019 at 17:04 or Ziggy if he is prepared not to hide.''

      Says 'anonymous'

      Delete
    6. No you would not be right 18:49 because you are a moron. Same applies to second 18:49 and 18:55.

      I am simply asking that you provide a means to identify yourself. You can use a name you make up, or simply just an initial. You are partaking in a discussion to which people may reply and which may develop into a long thread. It is polite, good manners, to identify yourself.

      Delete
    7. Rosalinda Hutton14 May 2019 at 19:01

      ''No you would not be right 18:49 because you are a moron. Same applies to second 18:49 and 18:55.''


      says the much put upon victim with the wonderful manners and intellect

      Delete
    8. Another moron at 19:05, (no id) or is it the same moron?

      Where did you get 'much put upon victim'? Even a day 1 psychology student which have picked up the positive notes. That is, I am looking for a newer, and better, format for my blog.

      And, as I have said many times recently, I am transitioning. I am undergoing a metamorphosis and I'm not quite sure what will come out at the other end. I have no fears though, going by past transitions, it's usually just another version of me, but stronger and more formidable. I will have to be careful with my stern looks, they can be devastating.

      But victim, no, not I, and I remain proud of my good manners, what a shame I have to deal with so many oiks, it means I don't get to use them as much as I would.

      Little tip. If you treat someone with disrespect, as you are by not even attempting to identify yourself, you will get disrespect back. Bear that in mind when you attempt to join a discussion, if you want to be treated with respect then you must show respect to others.

      It is pretty basic stuff, but another social grace you were not taught in childhood. You scorn good manners, but you would, wouldn't you.

      Delete
    9. Save it 18:49, go and ask somewhere else.

      Delete
    10. Someone ‘hiding’ 14 May 2019 at 17:40

      Good morning, ‘17:40’ and congratulations: You are a contender for the Third-rate Writer prize!

      However, you have horribly abused this blog by your omitting to leave any form of identification.

      You and many others, as most of these front page posts illustrate, are filled with bad manners (no names), belligerence and contempt. Why should Rosalinda give you a voice and a wide audience?

      T

      Delete
    11. @18:49

      “is 'shallis' a real name then”

      According to Shallis, it isn’t. And please don’t start any nonsense: – ‘Sha-llis’, ‘ Shal-lis – it’s fragrant and playful nevertheless, in my opinion.

      T

      Delete
    12. ''Save it 18:49, go and ask somewhere else.''

      lol Oscar's in his spaghetti western fantasy again.Or is it Dirty Harry. Go ahead, punk, make my fonts.

      Delete
  9. Hi Ros
    I can see you are not publishing any posts right now but that's ok as I just want to send you my best wishes.
    I've known you from Day 1 across the forums and your blog of course!
    This is sad for me, too. This blog was the last bastion of free speech, new theories, the Full Monty.
    And for me, a bloody good laugh with mine host.
    I do agree that your talents may be wasted on those disruptors. Pearls before swine.
    I hope you change your mind; but if not then please re-invent or re-launch yourself, keep up the writing and please stay as daft as me!
    xxx
    SixYearsInAComaMan

    ReplyDelete
  10. So good to see an old friendly face SYIACM :)

    I'm afraid I have hit a watershed SYIACM, seriously wondering why I am putting up with this daily barrage of abuse. I need to find another format where I have control. And yes, I shudder at the 'control' word, I have never sought power, the only (two times) I have been put 'in charge', myself and my chargees have ended up in the pub shooting pool and singing 'I've been a Wild Rover for many a year'. There was also a time when I started a revolution, strictly speaking, it was myself and my then paramour, who persuaded a whole team of Sky TV salespeople to walk off the job until we were paid.

    I'm not throwing in the towel SYIACM, I am looking for a new format, a Facebook page perhaps, or hopefully, a more updated google blogger. It would be good to have facilities for separate discussions on other topics, and a way in which to combat spam. I have been spammed up by people with way too much time on their hands!

    I'm afraid this place has been bereft of laughter for quite some time SYIACM, we are all, I think, wearied by the oppressing atmosphere created by the unrelenting negativity of their tedious posts.

    I think this place badly needs a makeover SYIACM and I need to do a lot of research into what formats are available. Sadly, I have proved, left to their own devices people will not behave decently and honourably. yourself excluded there, obviously. It is a sad realisation, similar to the sadness I felt when I realised the parents were not telling the truth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Ros
      You know, over the years I've run forums and they all end up self-destructing because some people have no manners and it seems to always turn into a bear pit.
      The thing is, I would then start afresh and blow me down the same would happen again.
      Now what you do is obviously up to you. I will say this, though. Your blog is a cornerstone, a fixture, to me and so many others somewhere we can go and talk to a real person, you, who always talks her mind. Like you would across a pub table. Invaluable. An oasis. Sanctuary.
      I understand the desire to lay waste and start anew. Yet you remain the only one who has made a blog their own, one everyone has heard of, one where everyone gravitates at some point. You are synonymous with the Mc case in a unique way and it grabs everyone who's ever set foot here. It speaks to us, rather YOU speak to us in such a freestyle way, always loading in personal insights, memories, likes, desires - it's how people interact normally, like ad lib, rather than when you write for a book you'd go over every line and hone it til it's right.
      It's human. A sort of common room for all souls doing what we do, shooting the breeze, having a laugh, going off topic - it resonates with so many which is why you have much more traffic than the forums, even Twitter.
      Anyway, you can't go because you've yet to get that sodding quiche right!
      Please don't yield to the negative buggers. Let 'em dig their own graves. It really upsets me to see your infinite good-will being abused. All of us have our limit, the end of our tether. You've endured more than anyone I know.
      As far as accepting all input from everyone I always did same as I am anti-censorship too. I can see how that can cause conflict, cleft sticks, rock and hard places.
      In all, you do what the hell you want. If you go there's many of these antagonists will have to go bait someone/somewhere else. The majority of us would love here to remain - but then it's easy for us.
      Whatever you do you have massive support. You have the gift of making text on a screen existential, sentient, alive. Quite a gift.
      SixYearsInaComaMan xxx

      Delete
    2. Bless you, bless you SYIACM, that was just the boost I needed (ran out of gin), I have read it twice, ok 3 times, lol. On the gin front, I blame Diane Abbot, she has unwittingly introduced me to the delights of cocktails in a can! I can waft away to somewhere exotic simply by pulling the ring tab on a can. I'm so loving new technology, first the internet, now this. Bliss. I started with a Mojito, obviously, but I'm not sure how I felt about liquor being mixed with mint. The pink gins however are divine! I drink them from a bowl glass filled with ice, I always stand on ceremony. Half the joy of food and drink is in the presentation. Happily for everyone, I have a 2 can limit. After that I begin to slur and slide off the chair.

      For me the perfect quiche remains elusive, actually I don't why you would bring up such a painful subject at a time like this! What I actually want to recreate is the good old bacon and egg pie from 1960s' school dinners. It was divine, and made I am sure with the cheapest of ingredients, definitely no cream. But I will never give up, one day, I will get there!

      I am back on 1200 calories a day, so not much cooking going on, though I have to make a coffee and walnut cake tomorrow for my friend's birthday. One slice of that I fear will eat up half my day's allowance, chuck in a G&T and tomorrow I am eating porridge made with water, which happily I love.

      Your kind words have mean't a lot SYIACM, and it is such a joy to speak to someone who is not demanding links, evidence and proof of (anecdote) claims, empty cans and pictures of cake crumbs perhaps.

      I was actually feeling quite bullied and overwhelmed with the daily onslaught of abuse. What is wrong with these people? Let's see how brave they are when they cant hide beyond anonymity.

      I will continue to write SYIACM, because it's beyond my control and because I could not bear to see the McCanns putting out phoney releases without being challenged. I don't think I can stop pointing out the obvious lies, I hate to see people being conned.


      Delete
    3. Hi Ros!
      Firstly, apologies for bringing up your quiche (lol!). I have similar problems with my chicken foo yung.
      It refuses to taste how I want it and I've been at it for 15 years! So I blame Dianne Abbott, too!
      I remember the bacon and egg pie at school. It had the consistency of concrete, only not as tasty lol!
      Back to you and the blog: Think of it as a book (which I reckon would make a great "Middle Life" biography btw)
      So, as a writer, you'd be eager to write a new one. Maybe think along the lines of your blog as a series.
      As a fellow non-censorship bod maybe you can allow up everything - but don't reply to the animals.
      I know I know! Not so easy is it, to restrain oneself. I get triggered. But...if you can muster the stoicism and not reply they will be really annoyed being ignored.
      I'm just thinking out loud as I type because I don't have THE answer. What I do know is you have a zillion times more support than the tiny wad of trolls.
      I just can't see this McCann case without you being in the thick of it.... and I know that all these years it has become more a chore than a desire. We are all so sodding fed up of hearing about the Mcs. Yet compelled to carry on, just in case we leave right at the denouement and miss it!
      I really do think your musings would make a great book when or if the case is concluded. I'd want my copy signed, please!
      Right, just to say, save me some coffee and walnut cake but you can have my porridge!

      SixYearsInAComaMan

      Delete
    4. 15 May 2019 at 16:34
      SixYearsInAComaMan and Rosalinda

      Great name 'Six Years...' This seems too personal a conversation to butt in on, but agree Rosalinda has a unique place in the McCann case that she should cherish and value and she should not throw the baby out with the bathwater (or leave the baby alone in a holiday apartment with two other babies ...). I don’t think the animals are going to go away if ignored, they are positively triumphant here. They have no place on her blog, sapping her energy as a writer.

      But just like in Rothley, a single candle should be left burning at least. Ready for the truth, whenever it comes. This blog is a candle, without the hypocrisy.

      A ‘careful’ book could be written now, Ros, chapter by chapter on this blog, many have done this. Not just an article which is then depressingly thrown to the swine below. Your writing has just become bait to them. If you write a book, it forces you to think who is your readership? And it’s not the trolls.

      C

      Delete
    5. it would be those who love to read wild fantasies about death and bitterness

      Delete
    6. Anonymous15 May 2019 at 19:43

      I think Ros is in the equivalent of an abusive marriage, where it is only when she gets away, and absents herself from her very own 'cesspit' that she will realise quite what a burden she has carried, quite what the toll of negative stress she has been withstanding has really been like.

      So yes, I wish her a comments section that actually supports her blog and her writing, with love and encouragement. Because writing is hard and lonely, too. And a blog community can actually be joyful and life-affirming even when the subject matter is tough. In fact, such is needed more then. Radical idea, yes?

      Even if you don't agree with any of her views, why would you not wish her that?

      C

      Delete
    7. I was saying yes, yes, yes, C as I read your above posts, that is exactly how I am feeling. Also really dumb, because I have spent a lifetime navel gazing and have no excuse for falling into the trap. Doh!

      I am looking for a new blog, and to be honest I feel as though I am house hunting lol. I bought this house (this one) without even looking at any others (if there were any), but now I feel I should be a bit more selective. Thee have been lots of things I have wanted to do, but haven't been able to on here, if that makes any sense. All the while wanting a system that can be operated by a 4 year old! lol

      I do agree a good blog community can be joyful and life affirming. I remember one time suffering terribly from insomnia and belonging to a forum where there was always someone to chat to. Aside from the horrendous McCann rows, there was a lot of laughter and a lot of friendship. Actually even the arguments were funny, I used to call one pretentious woman Mrs Bucket, she called me Waynetta.

      It was an unmoderated forum, a chatroom provided by AOL, it was the free for all nature of the board that I liked. There were of course, some who stepped forward to demand censors and moderators (themselves)while the rest of us took the pee.

      I look back on it as a learning curve, a period of enlightenment, like teaching and working with people with learning difficulties. I learned more about human behaviour on that board than almost anywhere else. And Yep. There are indeed maniacal psychopaths out there pretending to be normal people.

      Again, many thanks C, you have pretty much summed up how I am feeling just now, the unrelenting negativity is draining. I go out of my way to avoid negative people in the real world, what was I thinking?

      Delete
    8. Anonymous15 May 2019 at 21:18

      what does '' In fact, such is needed more then'' even mean . Drivel .

      Delete
    9. If a blog is 'life affirmimg' you really need to look at your life and what happened to it

      Delete
    10. Here you are on my blog telling another poster they have no life. Do you not see the irony?

      Yes blogs can be life affirming. Even talking to complete strangers online can be life affirming. You are affectively sneering at those you perceive to be alone and unloved for whatever reason. Your life, by contrast being one of happiness and fulfilment.

      Let me say first. There is nothing wrong with being lonely, there is nothing wrong with admitting to being lonely. At a single, working mother, I was often so lonely I would weep. I'm a chatterbox, I've always been a chatterbox, and not having anyone I could talk to drove me to disappear. I am eternally grateful to a woman who picked the phone up to me one night and listened to me for over half an hour before pointing out I had dialled the wrong number and she wasn't actually a Samaritan.

      People can feel lonely within a crowd, even if that crowd is their own family. Partners within marriages and relationships can feel lonely, unable to pursue their own interests because it isn't shared by their partner.

      It's all very well being married to man who can devour two yorkie bars and splash it down with diet coke but not if you want to spend the evening discussing a new art exhibition and the relationship between Plantagenets and the Tudors over a nice glass of Chablis. Btw, don't know why people call their kids Chardonnay, Chablis is far more chic.

      But behold, we have the internet. We are ALL free to discuss whatever topics take our interest, it matters not that the interest isn't shared by our loved ones and friends, on the internet there is always someone who wants to talk about what we want to talk about, that's mind blowing and wonderful.

      Sneer all you like 13:11, pretend you have a better life away from this forum as much as you like, but you are still here, posting. No-one's holding a gun to your head.

      Delete
  11. If there is to be no more christobell unbound,is Z going to step up to the plate and start his own blog?

    H.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hope so 18:51, but he will need to find somewhere else to vent his aggression and I hope he takes the whiny malevolents with him.

      Delete
    2. what a lovely attitude and sweet lady you are

      Delete
  12. Thanks for a great blog, i can 100% understand your rationale and I feel you have only ever asked sound reasonable questions and presented logical ideas. A minute amount of people 100% know what happened to that little girl. 100% of us do not, no matter which side of the room you sit. To be 100% on what happened, you have to excluded the possible and impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. The heart of this is due to so little being excluded. It is a sad fact in this day and age that we prioritize our own opinions above all others to the extent we will not acknowledge these sound view points - on both sides. All we can do is hope, together, that one day the real truth comes out, no matter what so we can all move on, at the very least experienced for when these awful things happen again. Which they sadly will.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. sjmort14 May 2019 at 19:45

      ''Thanks for a great blog, i can 100% understand your rationale and I feel you have only ever asked sound reasonable questions and presented logical ideas''

      By logical ideas i take it you mean suspicions after watching the parents in interviews or theories that the police say have no evidence to suggest anything.

      ''To be 100% on what happened, you have to excluded the possible and impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth''

      Said Sir Arthur Conan Doyle through Sherlock Holmes. Writer of fiction speaking through a fictional character about fictional investigations of fictional crimes.

      '' It is a sad fact in this day and age that we prioritize our own opinions above all others to the extent we will not acknowledge these sound view points - on both sides''

      You're right.Sad is being polite.

      As Murat said in one of his many interviews, 'when the truth comes out' ( not 'if', Robert ?)

      I agree, it will probably happen again.It probably is happening already, but from places where no legal guardians or parents are around to stop it.Children are always targets of sick creeps

      Delete
    2. I don't think we will ever see bribery, corruption and skulduggery on this scale ever again sjmort. This case is unique on so many levels, not least because it is the first time the British public have had access to the investigation files of the police, albeit the Portuguese police. The McCanns and their huge media entourage were telling a completely different story to the one told by the actual investigation. It could even be the turning point, the moment the McCanns fortunes took a distinct downward nosedive. Who knew the police would release their files? The McCanns didn't, despite all their lawyers and PR agency in Lisbon. It hit them like an express train.

      I am hoping to start a new blog, or look at ways to revamp this one. I haven't decided yet, but I am putting a lot of thought into it. As a temporary measure, I may restrict comments to google users only. I appreciate that may stop a lot of people from posting, but hopefully the benefits of the site being troll free will come to outweigh that. I doubt Ziggy et al would have the guts to say the things they do in their own names. Having said, I am not really sure what 'google users' means, but we shall see tomorrow.

      Delete
    3. So the police can't find anything in those files to arrest the parents for, but if they release the files to the public, they can.How does that work in the real world ?

      Delete
    4. Rosalinda Hutton15 May 2019 at 00:38

      ''I don't think we will ever see bribery, corruption and skulduggery on this scale ever again sjmort''

      Without sounding like a tin foil hat wearer, please give some examples of the bribery and corruption. Is it possible you are lying again ?

      Delete
  13. Hi Ros

    So disappointed that you feel you have to go, although it is understandable under the circumstances, the comments had become unreadable and I must say I for one found myself skipping through the dissertations and only reading certain replies.

    No matter what people say this was a blog that always published all comments regardless of personal beliefs and often biased views of the case.

    Rodalinda, even though I don't agree with yours or Goncalo Amaral's theories I still respect you for all your years of trying to get justice for a (not) lost child.

    Thank you & good luck with your future endeavours, and don't go too far away please.

    P xx

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous14 May 2019 at 20:56

      Definitely second that. I very much hope you will keep your blog open during your transition period, just with all of us tiny people inside your computer switched off.

      We should all be saluting you and thanking you for your hard and brilliant work here, it's a sign of the problem that this comment section too, has been horribly hijacked. Sadly, shows you are making the only, and right decision.

      Good luck and, yes, don't go far.






      Delete
    2. To be honest I have been thinking of shutting up shop for quite some time P and 22:09.

      To be honest though I hadn't thought out what my exit strategy would be, but I may have found a solution. I can actually use a setting that only allows Google members to post, or another harsher option, I can limit the comments to members of this blog. It may be a meantime solution until I find a new blog format that I like. I think however, much of the abuse will stop if they have to leave a cyber footprint.

      Delete
    3. Excellent suggestion. Now you're thinking!

      Delete
    4. I think you should be more concerned with your own cyber footprint before Google do the rounds and check their blogs for hate speech rosalinda

      Delete
    5. I suspect you have been complaining to Google for years 13:08 without success. This is not a 'hate blog' 13:08, there is nothing that could even vaguely be construed as 'hate speech'. There is no Law that states we have to believe Gerry and Kate McCann, and there is no Law that states we are not allowed to discuss this case.

      And seriously, do the McCanns really want to go for another attack on free speech? First Goncalo Amaral, then Brenda Leyland, now me?

      Delete
    6. Rosalinda Hutton16 May 2019 at 14:37

      ''And seriously, do the McCanns really want to go for another attack on free speech? First Goncalo Amaral, then Brenda Leyland, now me?''


      And you ban more than all of them put together. The irony.

      Delete
  14. @14.49
    Begging for gin?
    How dare you call Ros an old soak.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "They don’t just want to stop discussion, they want to threaten and intimidate those who dare to question the abduction story."

    Some time ago, Ros, the late John Blacksmith threatened me on your blog. In the same thread he also said that he'd like to see the McCanns swinging by their feet from a tower. But you never pulled him up.

    Gary (from Jersey)

    ReplyDelete
  16. And just how long have you been nursing that little grudge Gary? Not sure if you are whining about the deceased John Blacksmith, or my failure to tell him off. That it means so much to you after all this time is bizarre. Get over it, get on with your life, no-one gives a f*ck.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's just an example of your hypocrisy, as is your response

      Gary (from Jersey)

      Delete
    2. Gary 22:39, that is an example of what a small man you are.

      Delete
    3. Intelligent riposte, Oscar!!

      Gary (from Jersey)

      Delete
  17. Ros, thanks for hosting your blog and yes, any sensible forum discussions regarding the conspiracy to pervert the course of justice over the tragic death of Maddy McCann has been overwhelmed by a spiteful tirade from the ziggy sock accounts.
    For me. The only time ziggy displayed honesty was regarding his love for Liverpool FC.

    Ziggy lad; just to let you know they nearly won the league, but didn't. As Shankly once said; " If you are first you are first, if you are second you are nothing".

    Its time to start your own blog ziggy, regarding the Abduction myth. It seems that you spend a lot of time defending the undefendable and one assumes have been rewarded as such as a McCann mythologiser
    TiocFaidh Ar la.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What if one of the police forces have already started one on that subject. It's them who are being paid, not anyone on a blog.And they say the abduction happened.Do they have to put it on a blog before you understand the basics ?

      Delete
    2. Anonymous14 May 2019 at 23:41 TiocFaidh Ar la.

      You post regularly and only t ever try to ridicule Ziggy.You fail every time. You have yet to display any evidence that you have a word to say worth hearing and never contribute to any discussion about Madeleine. You just use the internet's safety curtain to be brave because you don't need to face consequences. The act of one of life's true cowards.You have nothing going for you do you. On or offline. You're a troll without the moves.

      Delete
    3. Pretty accurate but too polite @ 00:00

      Delete
    4. Oh the irony 00:00! You are using 'the internet's safety curtain to be brave', you don't even have the guts to identify yourself with an initial. You are one of life's true cowards, and given your bitterness and anger, you are the one with nothing for you on or offline. You're troll without the moves.

      Delete
  18. Some loony on the cesspit wants to sue Amazon for millions because they didn't sell many of his/her books.
    Only 46 apparently.
    And as usual that loon Verdi is on hand to offer advice and support.
    Can that place get any more barking mad?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Rosalinda, thank you for dedicating your time and energy into your interesting blog. Despite not sharing the same points of view, especially regarding the political angle, you have always published my comments and you allowed me to exchange information, ideas and off topic thingies. It is surprising, the things that have been brought about by the disappearance of a little girl.

    Anyway, good luck & best wishes, Rosalinda.

    NL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many thanks for sticking with me NL, and for your comments. I don't have a problem with alternate views, they usually lead to interesting discussions.

      Finding a new option is not proving easy, especially as I am not technically minded. It may even be that I revamp this one, restricting the comments to google users. Ideally I would like a new front page with new topics, but with this blog in the background, easy to revive should any real news break.

      My kindest wishes NL.

      Delete
    2. Dear NL

      I would like, if I may, to share with you my following observation.

      Ziggy has, allegedly, been trying to disrupt Rosalinda’s blog for about a couple of years, unsuccessfully, some might say.

      A few weeks ago, one ‘Shallis’, allegedly an academic, started commenting profusely, and then promptly left. Now, it seems, the fallout of her flying visit is a “dying ‘forum’”.

      Have you, perchance, an opinion about this that you could share? If you have, I would be most interested and grateful to hear it.

      I hope you appreciate that I have no hidden agenda and I speak as I find.

      Kind regards and good wishes to your good self and you country.

      T

      Delete
    3. Correction

      Me @20:27

      ...your country...

      Sorry, NL. As you may know, Heineken reaches the parts other bears/beers cannot reach.

      T

      Delete
  20. Sad to see the blog go, but completely understandable. I very much doubt the disruption is more than one person. I think that person has Borderline Personality Disorder, and will continue to disrupt as long as they are given the opportunity.

    As for the McCanns, they are not going to be arrested. Doctors will continue to cover up deaths; bankers will continue to rob with impunity; and politicians will continue to do what politicians do.

    Was it ever thus. Oscar Slater was framed for a crime he didn't do, by lying policemen. He did hard 20 years hard labour before he was finally released due to campaigning by, amongst others, Arthur Conan Doyle.

    Thirty years after Hillsborough we have seen one conviction. 47 years after Bloody Sunday, no one has been held to account. Those responsible for Aberfan lived normal lives, and "died in their beds".

    What chance that we will ever see that smug little rat and his enabling wife face any public condemnation?

    We know what has happened. We know what we know, and we know what will happen.

    Too many people have to hold their hands up to turning a blind eye. It's not going to happen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ''Was it ever thus. Oscar Slater was framed for a crime he didn't do, by lying policemen. He did hard 20 years hard labour before he was finally released due to campaigning by, amongst others, Arthur Conan Doyle.''


      Yes, Oscar Slater was wrongfully convicted of murder some say, including Conan Doyle.Sir Arthur took up his cause and worked tirelessly to have the verdict overturned.But it never was. Slater still pleaded with Conan Doyle from prison.Conan Doyle still fought for him but still failed.Slater was eventually release years later even though the verdict was never overturned.He sued for compensation and received £6,000 ( in todays money, around £300,000 ). Conan Doyle had contributed £1,000 of his own money in the fight for justice ( around £62,000 today). Slater never offered him a penny nor contacted him again.He may not have been a murderer, but he was a con artist of great note.How ironic.

      Delete
    2. I think the police can only arrest people for committing a crime, Oscar.You can't arrest anyone for being a doctor.

      Delete
    3. who are the too many people turning a blind eye ? And, if you're suggesting that includes the top ranking police chief or a politician or two, why would they if it was only the McCanns who had committed the crime ? And, how did they know either way so fast ?

      Delete
    4. Nobody is turning a blind eye. Take no heed to conspiracy nutters.

      Delete
  21. Hello Rosalinda

    It makes me sad to see that some posters here intentionally and unscrupulously keep on
    attacking you on a personal level (but not Ziggy, though you find him irritating and boring of course) and it has more or less been so all those years, that I’ve been reading and commenting here.

    I actually do not believe that it has so much to do with your take on the case, because there’re so many here who share your views Rosalinda, but since you’ve given away so much about your own life, not just by talking about your strengths but also about your weaknesses, some people take the opportunity to exploit the slightest weakness they can see in your personality, not just for their own gain, but for the pure joy of hurting you or whoever they see as vulnerable.

    Anyway, your blog would be readable without any comments from your readers, so whatever you decide to do Rosalinda; don’t Stop Writing, because your voice is needed in times when people in power try to silence those, who threatens their privileges.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Bjorn,

      Perhaps you could point out the 'personal' attacks on Rosalinda.All I see, as do many others, are disagreements with her points of view and responses to her rudeness.There's nothing about her as a person or her private life.

      Delete
    2. Looks like the ''woe is me'' dramatic tactic worked a treat, Rosalinda. All the zombies bought in.Finally, we can get back to the hate fest.

      Delete
    3. Err, it's the hate fest I want to get away from 13:28, do you struggle with English?

      There is no 'woe is me' anywhere in this blog, I haven't been weakened by the trolls, I have been empowered. Whatever I do, I will still have my audience, it is Ziggy et al who have had the rug pulled from under them.

      Delete
    4. I have had to ask myself a lot of questions of late Bjorn, among them, what is this daily barrage of abuse doing to my mental health? Tis true, as a writer I have had to develop a thick skin, but it is not thick enough yet. And it needs to because my views on most subjects are as controversial as my views on the Madeleine case.

      To be honest I have stopped reading most of it because I have lost interest. And of late, I have become resentful of those stealing my time and why I am allowing them to get away with it. And I ask myself why am I giving them a platform to abuse me?

      I will find a way forward Bjorn, I'm going to do a 'Madonna', I'm going to reinvent myself!

      Delete
  22. Oscar Slater15 May 2019 at 09:57

    'What chance that we will ever see that smug little rat and his enabling wife face any public condemnation?"

    They already face public condemnation, it will only get worse.

    Everyone knows. The police know, but don't have enough hard evidence, including a body. The MSM know, but fear Carter Ruck, not worth going there as journalists have no teeth anymore anyway and just put out silly press releases from the couple's camp or sentimental celebrity victims stuff. Millions of ordinary people know and won't be silenced or fobbed off.

    Remember their legacy is already decided, you can't libel the dead, they live with that knowledge.

    Hillsborough, Bloody Sunday and Aberfan never went away did they?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, they didn't. It's a frustrating time just now, as it looks like the whole circus is going to run a bit longer, that's all.

      Delete
    2. I'm not sure if looking smug is an offence or if it makes you guilty of killing anyone, but the McCanns, both of them, have faced public condemnation by tens of thousands ever since the crime took place.Only on the internet ( mainly), but that's public enough isn't it.Have you any real reason to refer to anyone as a rat though ? A little angry isn't it ? That's usually held back until sentence is passed and the van drives away from the court. Nobody's even been arrested yet.

      You tell us the police and the MSM 'know'. So, you're saying that the police and the MSM are lying to us and we sit by and smile as they keep receiving funding. That's real power isn't it.The public domain turning angry by posting on blogs.Why not use the 'knowledge' and get a petition sent to Westminster ? It's your right.

      I think you need to re-write your post and substitute 'know' with 'suspect'. Or do you 'know' something that you are too shy to share.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous15 May 2019 at 19:53

      "Why not use the 'knowledge' and get a petition sent to Westminster ?"

      Because that isn't how justice works, my friend.

      The post made it very clear this is not about unfounded 'internet hunches' or mass 'hate'.

      The police and MSM all 'know', and you are only postulating they 'don't know'. It is your opinion. you have no proof of it at all, either. So just your view, and I strongly support a different one, that is all.

      Time will tell, and you can't change that. You'll have to live with the fact that a great many people disagree with you for good and thought out reasons. What is your problem with that?

      Delete
    4. Nobody suggested justice worked that way, but if a tax paying public wants answers it can gather enough signatures that an MP would have to raise the question in the house.That's closer to justice working than police doing and saying nothing for 12 years apart from ,please sir, can i have some more'.

      You imply that the MSm 'know'. Why don't they make a killing and print it.You say the police 'know'.If they 'know' it must be factual. If it's factual it goes to court and wins a case.Because facts can be proven.If they can't, they were never facts were they ? They were guessing. The police daren't take a case to the prosecutor if it's all guesswork.They cant tell the prosecutor that thousands of amateur online sleuths believe it to as though it carries any more guarantee.That's not how justice works, my friend.That's how Instagram works.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous15 May 2019 at 22:23

      Your questions are already answered in the first post:

      "The police know, but don't have enough hard evidence, including a body. The MSM know, but fear Carter Ruck, not worth going there as journalists have no teeth anymore anyway and just put out silly press releases from the couple's camp or sentimental celebrity victims stuff."

      You do not know what the police are doing, neither do any of us, there is a separation of justice and politics for good reasons. It's a live investigation. It's a police matter.

      There is a difference between 'knowing' (from establishing facts and reasoning, and particularly here, elimination of other possibilities) and the evidence required to prosecute, not quite the same thing.

      If MSM is too bold in what it publishes they fear it will not be them who will be making 'a killing' but Carter Ruck and client. That makes them cowards.

      "The police daren't take a case to the prosecutor if it's all guesswork." The CPS have the responsibility for cases meeting the criteria for prosecution, not the police.

      Of course it is not 'guesswork', that is your very peculiar choice of word. The police 'know' not 'guess', nor do they follow 'the internet'. You can disagree, but trying to make a mockery of what was written isn't a counter-argument.

      Just agree to disagree, your opinion might be right, though I don't think so.

      Delete
    6. I believe the post to which I was replying made no mention of the CPS.It stated that 'the police know'. I suggested that it be re-written and 'know' should be substituted with 'suspect'.In other words, they can't 'know' anything or the investigation would have passed the arrest /charge/try stages. Therefore, the police can only guess-as can anyone else who has no knowledge of what happened and no clues at their disposal to assist.My point, therefore, was that the police would only be making arrests- in reality- based on guesswork, not what they 'know'.It's easy enough to understand.It isn't a 'peculiar choice of words at all', it's the correct choice.I didn't say the police follow the internet amateurs either.That's another basic point you've missed.When you pay attention to basic points you can then think about commenting about what constitutes a counter argument.

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Panda15 May 2019 at 17:06

      A very convincing post, Panda. You kept control for a long time. There wasn't 14 paragraphs and 12,000 words. You managed to bite your virtual tongue too and keep it profanity-free.Even an over use of CAPS was fairly controlled. The 'neutral position' between Ros and Z was almost convincing too.Almost completely fooled everyone that did. Keep it up , if you can ;-) lol

      Delete
    2. This comment has been published by the administrator as it doesn't need to run away :)

      Delete
    3. Hello Panda15 May 2019 at 17:06

      ”Bjorn paedophilia is NOT a sexuality!”

      It seems we're worlds apart, and you must've misunderstood me completely.

      Talking about our prejudiced view on sexuality in the context of children's lives without vigorously condemning and rejecting all kinds of photos or films that depict lightly dressed children in the most natural context, is quite enough to become labelled as a sexually deviant person, at least in the UK, it seems.

      I grew up when the sexual revolution was at his height in Sweden. Nudity and sexuality became completely natural things to talk about, not just between teenagers, but also between grown-ups and children. People of different genders and ages could sweat together in our Swedish Sauna and afterwards jump into a lake or into deep snow. Naked of course.

      In our kindergarten the nurses set up small role-plays in which some children got the role of sperms, who were supposed to swim around looking for eggs in the wombs to fertilize, which were roles played by other small children.

      However, today even an intimate relationship between a 14-year-old girl and a 15, 16.17-year old boy is now regarded as rape, which is due to a legislation towards the Anglo-Saxon fear of sexuality, which I personally experienced in England in the 60s. Moreover, if an adult, a man, spontaneously hugs a child, without being his or her parent or a close person to that child’s family and without being authorized in any way, regardless of sexual orientation, he runs the risk of being seen as a paedophile. I’ve experienced a dramatic change to the worse in recent years.

      Dear Panda I’ve never said that sexual intercourse between adults and children should be allowed and legalized, but the example here above illustrates that we’re about to stigmatize quite natural intimate relations between teenager. What’s next? Naturally any sexual activity which implicates a person/victim, who isn’t able to understand the consequences of what he/she agrees to, is of course a crime in any society. So it’s not just children who need protection, but any person in a vulnerable situation.

      What people abroad called the Swedish SIN in the 60s was in fact artistic and beautiful love scenes in a literary/artistic context, performed in a natural way by our most loved actors and actresses of that time. Thus light years away from the superficial and goofy American style of film making nowadays.

      Moreover, naked children in our films in those days were also a part of the Swedish film industry, as naked children, have always been the most natural thing to relate to in our lives and this of course reflected in our films, in paintings and in our arts. Our Swedish matchbox (security matches) is adorned by the image of a naked boy. This should be classified as child pornography if we are to strictly apply the new legislation to those images, which has come about due to pressure from moralists.

      The harder sex legislation, the more perverted the society becomes with regards to sexual crimes and I’ve seen it with my own eyes dear Mrs Panda.



      Delete
    4. Apologies for deleting Panda's post Bjorn. Panda was deliberately misinterpreting what you and I said, to portray us paedophiles or paedophile sympathisers. He, like the rest of his ilk, those obsessed with child sexual abuse as opposed to any other form of child abuse, is sexually repressed himself.

      The thing is most adults do not see children as sexual in any way. Not even if they are naked, scantily clad or wearing make up. The idea that there are multiple people throughout society who are driven into a frenzy by the sight of toddler in a bathing suit is just plain weird. These people claim they are pointing out how paedophiles feel about scantily clad children, as though they have a direct insight into their brains. Mark Williams-Thomas for example, saw the dressing up pictures of little Madeleine as a 'nod to paedophiles', who else did?

      I think it is sickening Bjorn, it is seeping into our society like a virulent disease. Even regular people are seeing paedophiles everywhere, our schools for example forbid parents to take photographs of their kids in plays and pageants. You know, my dear old dad when he first came to England, made a living by taking pictures of people on the beach at Folkestone. Now if a man walked around a beach with a camera, he would be strung up from the nearest pole.

      Men dare not show kindness or affection to a child that is not their own. That is where we are now, and it is tragic. As a small precocious child, I counted several adult men as dear friends and mentors. My beloved Irish uncles and my own special friend Tom, a complete stranger I took a liking to around the age of 4, when my older brother (by 11 months) went off to school. He became my new best friend and I hung out with him every day thereafter. Tom was an amateur photographer who took a pictorial record of my childhood, even writing on the back of the photographs what was happening at the time the picture was taken. It was an amazing gift that I received when I was 21. It was a wonderful relationship that I have written about on my blog before, he had all the time in the world for my non stop chatter (my family didn't, lol) and I enjoyed helping him find beautiful locations to take his photographs, we were in Virginia Water, so beautiful locations were plentiful.

      There are some people now I'm sure, who describe the relationship as sick, they would probably try to probe my head so that I would see it as sick too. Poor Tom, I shudder, when I think what would have been done to him.

      You have made so many good points in your post Bjorn. Yes, yes, what about vulnerable people? Why don't the vigilantes and CEOP take any measures to protect them? Those with learning difficulties, the elderly and the confused?

      I am not sure what the laws are in the UK right now Bjorn, but I fear hundreds of thousands of teenagers could be prosecuted for doing what teenagers do. 19 year old Romeo would certainly be put on the Sex Offenders Register for pursuing (grooming?), 13 year old Juliet.

      As for your final paragraph, I had the misfortune to spend several of my formative years in a convent. Probably the most sexually repressed environment you could find. 'Uncle Peter, a former Jesuit monk who thrashed himself daily for Opus Dei, was held up as our role model. The psychotic behaviour of those who took vows of chastity should be held up as a model of what happens when you deny yourself sex and intimate relationships.

      Delete
    5. Nobody has posted as much as you, Rosalinda, on paedophillia and child pornography. You can't stop yourself preaching about how it's all down to interpretation and talk rubbish about art.Nobody is saying that paedophiles are everywhere, they're clearly not.But they are still dangerous and so is the problem.You always try to make light of the issue and play it down.That's no better than exaggerating it.Try being realistic instead of just coming up with your own percentages of the problem to suit your point.To try and talk about Shakespeare and Romeo and Juliet doesn't make you sound scholarly it makes you sound twisted. Some parents out there whose children have suffered would be sickened by your attitude.You and bjorn should keep this kind of discussion to emails, it's far too offensive.You get away with too much. As does bjorn. It matters not what he plasters on the blog he can do it with impunity just because of mutual interests.

      Delete
    6. Bjorn agrees with every letter posted by Ros, no matter how mad. Panda disagrees with bjorn for good reason and posts sound reasons why.Ros removes Panda's post. But she's 'against censorship', and for 'free speech'. How does that work, Ros ?

      Delete
    7. It's my blog 15:06. If I find something offensive, I will remove it.

      Delete
    8. I weep at your ignorance 15:04. Summed in just a few words 'talk rubbish about art'. You are completely oblivious to your cultural heritance, a true ignoramus.

      Err, yes, somebody is saying paodophiles are everywhere, Jim Gamble, they are disguised as normal people in every walk of life.

      Let me tell you again, the biggest threat to children comes from within the home, from people known to the child. Try to let that sink in because if you really want to help children, you should begin there. And while you are at it, take a look at physical, emotional and financial abuse, each far more prevalent that sexual abuse.

      You think the Romeo and Juliet analogy sick? Who is sick, myself or Shakespeare? Or is it more 'art rubbish? I think it is pretty sick to turn exchanges between teenagers into heinous sexual crimes.

      Why on earth should Bjorn and I keep our discussions private? Are you a relic from the Puritan age who needs his reading material censored for fear it might spark a coronary? You remind me of a religious student from one of my A-level classes who objected to reading Lord Byron on the ground that he led a life of drugs, alcohol and general debaucher. Byron that is, not the religious student. I put the question to the whole class, should we read Byron and the works of his equally debauched friends (Percy and Mary Shelly), or shouldn't we? In turned into a long and memorable debate, and I never felt prouder of those I taught. The 'Romantics' won overwhelmingly, the character of the author merely adds to the richness of their texts.

      Finally 'your mutual interests', Yuck at what you are trying to imply. If you mean by mutual interests, society, art and culture, then fair enough, but you didn't did you. Art to you is rubbish, culture a word you have no understanding of. Your ignorance is astounding, I am bemused that you are proud of it.

      Delete
    9. Rosalinda Hutton16 May 2019 at 15:19

      ''It's my blog 15:06. If I find something offensive, I will remove it.''

      you missed out 'so there anyway'

      Delete
    10. The 'P' subject is always emotive isn't it.It brings out the 'angry' inside us because we live in a world where it seems do prevalent.There's countless documentaries and news items. It's hard to avoid.It's natural to get angry when reminded of the suffering of innocent children.You don't need to be a parent, you just need to be a normal human being.

      It may well be the case that there isn't a paedophile on every corner.But they are in a lot of places, hence the growing amount of arrests, documentaries and news headlines.So, to try to play it down is dangerous.We are warned online, on TV and in the newspapers to be vigilant now more than ever before.So we do it.Is it fair to point at those who fear the dangers to children as 'obsessed with child abuse' is to criticise unfairly. It's also wrong.

      The trafficking of children has been like an epidemic world wide in the last 15 years.The smallest amount of research will show that fact.It's horrendous.It isn't sensible to put your head in the sand and pretend it isn't there.It is.And the children who vanish are real.

      This blog, like many, claims to be set up for the discussion of the Madeleine McCann case.It claims that.But reading through, it's clearly set up to discuss how Madeleine died in an apartment and the guilt of the parents for killing her then burying her in PDL.Anyone who doesn't agree is seen as poisonous( including the media and police).

      The probability of Madeleine being alive is low, obviously.Especially after all this time.The likelihood that she was abducted by a weirdo or for a weirdo are high.Who else would steal a child.And why would they need them for very long ? They wouldn't.So it would be remiss of any police force to ignore the possibilities of the worst case scenarios.With so little evidence they have to.

      But, to discuss the child's death as being caused by an abductor implies the parents' innocence.The same applies to any discussion about child trafficking.Both scenarios preclude parental involvement.Even though they are realistic in today's world.So how are such things dealt with here ? By criticising the figures and claims that talk about child trafficking without actually citing anything.And to criticise the CEOP for trying to cause hysteria over nothing.In other words, let's accept how tiny the percentage of paedophiles are out there( and concentrate on the parents) and let's talk about the CEOP being unnecessary ( and get back to the parents).It's a process of elimination to always lead back to the parents.Yet they have been declared as no longer suspects by the police.

      Llota

      Delete
    11. 'Panda' Anonymous16 May 2019 at 15:06

      For someone who has just turned up here there seems to be quite a longterm beef going on (and some ugly slander), and a massive sense of entitlement which rests on an inability to read and understand, and accept the consequences of Rosalinda's blog post for certain posters. Which is a red flag. Quite the stirrer upper is 'Panda'.

      Delete
    12. Rosalinda Hutton16 May 2019 at 15:58

      ''You think the Romeo and Juliet analogy sick? Who is sick, myself or Shakespeare? Or is it more 'art rubbish? I think it is pretty sick to turn exchanges between teenagers into heinous sexual crimes. '''

      Who is sick you ask. OK. let's narrow it down.Shakespeare composed a tragedy about two 'star-crossed lovers' . Two teens who had fallen in love but ultimately died young.You have referred to it on a blog 500 years later to support some scatty theory about paedophilia.Take a guess who's sick

      Delete
  24. @17:06
    Ok Ziggy

    ReplyDelete
  25. Hi Ros,
    I just wanted to say, I have followed your blog from the start as you know and I think its a great shame if you stop. I have enjoyed your writing and am always reading as soon as you publish, its like a good book you cant put down, and I believe the ending has not been written yet!
    Keep up your faith in grange, for I have little myself.
    This story is the mystery that just keeps on giving.
    I hope you will find the new format that you need to be able to carry on, and just remember the line "NO SOUP FOR YOU" when admonishing the naughty children on here.
    Put your own health and peace of mind first.
    Warmest wishes for whatever the future may bring Ros
    Very sincerely
    AFAN XXX

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bless you AFAN, and I have always been so grateful for your kind support.

      I could ever stop writing AFAN, but the old place needs refurbishing! I did at one time write a weekly column for a local newspaper which was quite fun, but I got terribly upset when I was criticised, actually more traumatised than very upset I was devastated! I learned very quickly that if you put your head above the parapet, complete strangers will take pot shots at you. I was actually quite relived to learn that the divine Harper Lee also received hate mail. How could anyone be evil to Harper Lee ffs! It was a learning curve, ie. not to take 'the hate' personally.

      Delete
  26. There was a sigh of relief, Rosalind, when I read this, your most recent blog. At last, I thought, she is getting rid of all the egoistical braggardo wafflers. But no, it seems you have given in to them again. A pity, I used to love it before you allowed this lot on.

    CherryB.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. the angry trolls are back in control now Cherry

      Delete
  27. I used to think the parents were guilty after i saw videos of the dogs.But I couldn't figure out where they could have hidden the body before the police turned up especially as they couldn't have known about the area they were staying.If they'd have buried her within half a mile there would be a good chance of the local residents running around and finding the body.If the child died by accident, as many on blogs have said, because of sleeping pills, then the parents probably wouldn't have been done for murder so why hide a body ? Why would anyone abduct a dead child after all.Then the police dog experts said there wasn't any evidence that the child was even dead anyway.Which leaves the abduction again.But what were the dogs barking for ?The case for an abduction is that the child was gone when they returned and has never been seen since.The case for a death is gard if the police say there isn't evidennce of it.What are the police playing at.There must have been some evidence of something.It's the 21st century, they can find microscopic evidence these days if it's there.Could it all have evaporated ?Or do you think the police are corrupt and aren't admitting what they really found. And if the internet's right and it's either an abduction or the parents killing the child, why did the police bring in Robert Murat not once but twice ? Why would they suspect him more than the parents ? People say there's no evidence of an abduction. But what would be evidence of an abduction anyway ? If there was no fingerprints there still could have been one.And if there was a death or a murder, then there's the same amount of evidence for that too. I can't believe that both possibilities left no evidence at all.The two countries had police looking and they found nothing. They're either really garbage policemen or they're being paid to not find something.Why would they do that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stop making sense 19:25. Here's what happened.There was an abduction but no evidence left behind.Not a single clue as to who could have done it.Thee was no evidence that the child was murdered either.Nut a few hints of evidence. They came to nothing.Nothing has happened since that year( 2007). How come hundreds or even thousands can still have heated debates about a boring abduction that didn't leave any clues ? Easy. We pretend it wasn't an abduction and it was a murder or 'accident' and two respectable English people and their posh friends came up with a big conspiracy to hide it. Ok, it's silly I know.But it leaves a hell of a lot to talk about and to imagine and that's never boring is it.If you doubt this theory, check out what the police have done in all of this time.

      Delete
    2. @ Anon 12.18




      You see me as trolling for putting my thoughts that's fine, I have no problem with that. I think both Bjorn and Rosalinda ( if you are not her as I don't know if blog host can comment in anon too) are more than capable enough to discuss or respond to my comments, they don't need sidekicks really. I am not blind I have seen here Bjorn is very polite, I have relpied to him in the same polite manner but for some reason my comment hasn't been published. I don't know who you are, what you are to me is nobody except an Anon and anon you remain to me, not interested :-)

      Don't give a Flying F who Z is, its you who's obsessed with him bringing him up. Since yesterday I have left 5 comments and only 3 being published, it's time consuming, arguing how do you all manage it? So it will be my last response to you. Bye

      Delete
    3. I feel your anguish Panda.Have a cup of Earl Grey and a poached egg.


      Llota

      Delete
    4. @13:20

      Feel my anguish. May I have the same, please?

      T

      Delete
    5. You'll have to share, I'm afraid.Too short notice ;-)

      Delete
    6. @19:09

      That’s fine. Thanks. I’m good with animals. :)

      T

      Delete
    7. OK, T, i'll see what i can do

      Llota

      Delete
  28. @ Anon 18.03

    The paranoia and hysteria in this blog is amazing, so any new contributor is automatically Ziggy? Keep pointing fingers at each other and assuming things, no wonder new readers don't participate much in the discussion here it's always the same handful of people repeating themselves and 'arguing'.

    @ Rosalinds

    Thanks for publishing my comment, that was fair as I wasn't sure you would. I did say a thing or two about you but that's just from few of your posts and comments, I am a stranger so don't take it too hard. I won't comment anymore as I am not keen on the shenanigans of some people accusing new contributors.

    All the best

    PS... Panda was my first Tibetan Mastiff :-))

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well said Panda, I hate haters and their paranoid schizphrenia.Let's just watch through the bars ;-)

      Delete
    2. Welcome, Panda.

      1. "no wonder new readers don't participate much in the discussion here". How would you know? 2. You are a stranger, yet you quote 'same old, same old' knowledge. 3. You praise Ziggy for his posts??? (Most of all). 4. You arrive in quite a confrontational mode. 5. You arrive when the blog is about to change and Ziggy is about to be aborted.

      It adds up to suspicion I'm afraid. Surely you can see that? The dog sounds lovely.

      Delete
    3. @00.21

      How do I know? And the same old same old? because I have gone through the posts and comments here, easy no rocket science there. I have not praised ziggy, what I said was I found some of his points valid and interesting, did you not read I even said he has an ego and his recent copy post was becoming boring, so how am I praising him! But you like to pick and choose, never mind. If it was my blog and I didn't like him or thought he was hijacking my blog I would have easily solved the problem by kicking him out long ago!no drama needed. I arrived here a week back, did enjoy reading blog too although I didn't have to agree until this last post made me comment, I was like 'oh not again'

      You are free to think I am ziggy or whoever, its irrelevant. As I said earlier paranoia and suspicion will only eat you. That's all cheers

      Yes Panda was a lovely dog. Loyal and dogs don't like unlike the dodgy mccanns

      Delete
    4. Panda16 May 2019 at 01:06

      "paranoia and suspicion will only eat you" for someone who has never posted anywhere before you sure have the hyperbole of the trolling style off pat. Well done.

      You have fetched up on a dying 'forum' in the middle of heated argument, in carefully metered praise of a crotchety old mega-bore, whose unreadability is notorious. You diligently trawl back through the back through reams of old blog posts comments 'in a few days' - pages which are stale and wasted to everyone else. You 'research' Bjorn's 'view' on paedophilia, which hasn't been the subject of debate here for a very long time. And which he, as an ever polite and scrupulous man, replies to extensively and eloquently but, of course, you ignore that totally.

      And you painfully patronise your hostess with "so don't take it too hard."

      But you did get a favourable review from Ziggy himself. So another well done for that, a great feather in your cap.

      Delete
    5. That was so well written and so perfectly measured, I almost didn't notice that it is 95% paranoid.It offers nothing to any debated topic at all.But, then again, some folk can't hold their opinions about everything inside for five minutes can they.The world is constantly having to hold it's breath with eager anticipation of your next lecture. Where would the internet be without your shared innermost thoughts about nothing of any importance. Were social networks not the culmination of the finest IT gurus who needed large enough platforms from which to spread your gospel ? Of course they were. We thank them. We thank you.I feel wiser already having read but one post.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous16 May 2019 at 00:21

      ''Welcome, Panda...
      You praise Ziggy for his posts??? (Most of all). 4. You arrive in quite a confrontational mode. 5. You arrive when the blog is about to change and Ziggy is about to be aborted.
      It adds up to suspicion I'm afraid. ''

      Yes, Panda, you add to suspicion( of what ? lol). You don't add to anyone's paranoia though.The see people who aren't anywhere.they invent ghosts.lol

      Delete
    7. Anonymous16 May 2019 at 12:51

      "But, then again, some folk can't hold their opinions about everything inside for five minutes can they."?

      Seems not.

      Delete
  29. Ros - just remove any posts that are not signed. You keep replying to them for some reason. Problem 1) solved.

    Dave

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is the final showdown Dave, the last dance. Their comments stand. A last testament to the Mccanns propaganda campaign. This is how they work folks, so why would innocent people behave so despicably?

      Delete
    2. @ Rosalinda Hutton15 May 2019 at 22:43

      If you set rules which you did, then just enforce them.

      Dave

      Delete
    3. Rosalinda Hutton15 May 2019 at 22:43

      '' This is how they work folks, so why would innocent people behave so despicably?''

      Ros, Perhaps you could help me out here.

      You( and most bloggers) protest vehemently when anybody argues that the parents of Madeleine are entitled to be considered innocent until proven guilty.If anyone should point out that there has never been anything the police could use to charge them with anything-which is their official line-you, and the others who hold the same views, become angry and pretty aggressive. Your conclusion is that anyone who doesn't go along with the suspicious line ( the parents are guilty) but goes along with the official line of the police ( there isn't any evidence one way or another) is a 'pro'.Despite this case being so old now and having so many grey areas, you see it all as black and white and see all who follow the case the same way.There isn't any middle ground for you.Not in the investigation or the commentary of it.You criticise the 'pros' all the time, and never talk about the 'undecideds' and are proud that you are one of many who call themselves 'antis'.So, my question is this :

      How do you reconcile your accusations of two people who have never been charged with a crime due to a lack of evidence, with your supposed support of the police investigating the same crime that you suggest could be easily solved ? Where are they going wrong and where are you going right ?Doesn't the position that the police have taken ever tell you that you're probably wrong after all this time ? Surely the police can't hide a lie this long. Why do you think they haven't acted on all the things the antis say are smoking guns ? Or do you think they won't see these guns ?

      Llota

      Delete
    4. Innocent until proven guilty might be the letter of the law Llota, but people will make up their own minds regardless. The topic comes up now and then but I haven't seen anyone protesting vehemently about it.

      Neither I, nor others with the same views, are angry and aggressive. I have excellent communication skills Llota, anger and aggression are usually borne out of a person's inability to explain themselves. You see it in 2 year olds. Those who have the vocabulary get they want, those who don't kick and scream.

      As far as this case goes, I have no reason for anger or aggression. I have always looked on it as an academic study, ergo I am emotionally detached from it. It matters not to me one way or the other. Naturally, I would like the truth to be told, but it doesn't affect my life.

      How do I reconcile my actions....? I don't have to, my conscience is quite clear. As I have said many times, I write under the principles of honesty and integrity, I don't write anything that I would later be ashamed of.

      Thousands of people are interested in the Madeleine case Llota but the mainstream media are not telling the truth. Had it not been for crusading people in Portugal, the British public would never have heard about the discrepancies in the statements of the parents and their friends. The public are being deceived and I am one of the few commentators willing to speak out about it. You must be gutted that people like me have a voice, and an eloquent voice at that! And there's nothing you can do about it.

      Finally, you see lack of action on the part of the police as vindication of the parents. I see it as determination on the part of the police to get to the truth. And I always will as long as the two investigations remain open.

      LOL, there is nothing you or any one of the McCann fans who post here, has ever said has led me to believe I am wrong. In fact, the more firmly they protest and demand I believe them, the more convinced of the parents' guilt I become.

      Delete

    5. Rosalinda Hutton16 May 2019 at 20:21

      You haven't seen anyone protest vehemently against someone who posts about the official line being more important than the suspicious minds ? You can see it on any single page of your blog.All you need to do is look.When i mention anger and aggression i have only the specific words to read and the tone in which they are written.Again, all you need to do is look ( honestly).

      I wasn't suggesting that you or the others like you were angry about the case.Frustrated, maybe.But isn't everyone, regardless of their guesses ? It's been twelve years but it feels like about 25 when you think back to when you first heard the news.The anger seems to be directed against opposing views online. That's not just this blog, it's all blogs about the subject.

      I think you misunderstood my initial question about reconciling two seemingly contradictory points.On the one hand you can't be budged away from your total conviction that the parents are guilty.You'll argue it with or without evidence.The police have said the complete opposite of you.How can you relentlessly post about the obvious guilt of the McCanns without offering an explanation as to why the police are seeing things completely different to you.You stand by the police and their investigation and determination and their integrity.Yet they have missed what's right under their noses, evidence and proof that you and the other antis can see from the internet information.How do you reconcile those positions in your own mind ?

      I don't consider the media as a source of anything. It's just another branch of entertainment and has been for years.They report what they are allowed to report or wish to promote.It's the editor who makes the final decision.They probably know people are interested and they can make money from it.But they can't know any more than the police anyway so they don't really matter.If you think the public are being deceived you can't blame the media.If they report that the McCanns are innocent it's because the police have said so.They can't say they're guilty before that or they could be rightfully sued for libel. So the public are being fooled by the police if anyone.Why blame the media ?

      I don't see how, over twelve years, the lack of action can be interpreted as determination.How can it be the same thing ?

      I know you can't be persuaded that you know less than the police and i acknowledged that.But to say the more that people point it out to you then the more you dig your heels in doesn't strengthen an argument one way or another, it just shows that you can be stubborn for stubborn's sake.Anyone can do that can't they.

      Llota

      Delete
    6. @ Llota

      You should ask why 'antis' are so proud to be antis.It means 'anti two people who lost a child and have never been charged with a crime by about 30 investigating officers'.Imagine being proud of having a mentality like that

      Delete
  30. please keep us posted on a new site, new rules etc - this blog is too valuable to lose

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hear, hear! It's the only blog on the internet centred around the Madeleine subject matter that allows full freedom of expression.

      It will be really sad for Rosalinda to leave the scene altogether, I hope the new format will be a solution suitable to all genuine researches.

      Best wishes regarding whatever your next move may be Rosalinda, and no matter what happens keep on writing.



      Grace

      Delete
    2. Freedom of expression, Grace ? Have you actually read anything above your post ? It's all about what Ros will be censoring.Freedom of expression doesn't work under those circumstances. Only prejudice does.

      Delete
    3. Point taken, but I'm only talking about my personal experience so far. Regardless of differing views, I'm still allowed to wish the host best wishes for whatever her future holds.

      Delete
  31. Ziggy's Left Sock16 May 2019 at 08:03

    The answer to all the problems here is to ban all the people who cause trouble.
    That would include Shillis, 6 Years In A Trance Man,The bear hunter from up yonder in the wilderness (ie Luton),JC (who ever she is) and of course Ros and T after they have been on the sauce.

    The Wrong'uns!

    That would leave Ziggy,Gary,Mark,Panda,,Anonymous,Soredust,Zigmeister,Zigmundo,Zigster,Z,ZS and any other name that you can think of that believes the unbelievable.

    The Good'uns!

    There;problem solved.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Reverend T. Ben. Nit16 May 2019 at 11:54

      08:03

      You forgot Zesus my child

      Delete
    2. Hello Ziggy's Left Sock 16 May 2019 at 08:03

      I must admit that I really appreciate your sense of humour, but we should also keep in mind that there’s always some truth in what we joke about.

      So in a way you’re right about me and Luton, inasmuch that I’d sincerely wish that I were from some other place on earth, if I actually happened to be living in that dull city. Not meant to offend any Luton citizens, just a feeling I’ve had since I was young.Don't know why.

      Anyway, ZLS you cheered me up a bit. Thanks, and let's hope that Rosalinda decides to keep her blog up in some shape and form!

      Delete
  32. @ 12:18

    Crotchety old mega-bore?
    Do you mean Ziggy or Ros (or both?)

    ReplyDelete
  33. Ros

    I've been wondering for a very long time as to whether the PJ and SY have been waiting for Brexit to happen which would mean that the UK is out of the hands of the ECJ and the McCanns can be extradited from the UK without them running and screaming to the ECJ for help. It's as it SY have been kicking the can down the road for a long time without much to show for it, but it's only a guess on my part. That's the only reason I can think of that SY keep asking for more funds on the pretense it is waiting for Brexit, although I doubt they are using the funds it's just a holding pattern to pretend they're doing something.

    Just a thought really.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If the PJ had any evidence against the McCanns strong enough there is nothing at all to prevent them seeking an extradition order right now . What difference does the EU make ? Brexit wasn't even a concept in 2007.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 17:58 and Anonymous 18:07

      In my opinion, extradition is out of the question. I believe the deal has been signed, sealed, and delivered in 2007.

      NL

      ----------

      https://www.politics.co.uk/news/2007/7/9/brown-thanks-portugal-over-madeleine-mccann

      'Prime minister Gordon Brown has thanked the Portuguese authorities for their efforts in trying to find missing British toddler Madeleine McCann.

      Mr Brown said it was a highly detailed investigation and he was "grateful to the Portuguese authorities for the time and effort that is being put into the investigation".

      He said Gerry and Kate McCann appreciated the work being done to find their daughter.

      "Obviously there are issues they want to be assured about and I have raised these with the Portuguese prime minister," Mr Brown continued.'

      (...)

      'Mr Brown and Mr Socrates discussed the recent terror threat and the Portuguese prime minister said he would make it top of his agenda during his presidency.

      Mr Socrates later told reporters all European governments feel solidarity with the UK following the failed terror attacks. He unreservedly condemned the attacks and congratulated the UK government on its response.

      The commitment to an EU-wide counter terrorism strategy came as the head of Interpol said the UK was not doing enough to protect itself against terror attacks.

      Interpol chief Ronald Noble said the UK must introduce tougher checks on new migrants and make greater use of international databases.'

      Delete
    3. I think that's a tad fanciful 17:58, I can't see Brexit having any influence on either investigation. Promises made must be kept. That is whatever agreement there is between the Portuguese Judiciary and The CPS must be honoured.

      I'm not sure I agree the police are 'doing nothing' while building up a stash of cash. The police must be doing something in order to be given more money. Who knows what is holding everything up, it might just be that the police have to make sure their case is rock tight.

      Delete
  34. Ros

    Following on from my post of 17.58 why did Shallis disappear? Yes, people knew him/her by the user name and subjected him/her to abuse but why not change the user name or not give any name or an initial.

    I'm not on Facebook or Twitter so perhaps I'm behind the times as to how these things work but I was just wondering why Shallis couldn't post under another name.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfortunately she probably can, all she has to do is sign shallis

      Delete
  35. Hi Ros,

    I had to post as I have been an avid reader of your blog for years now and would hate to see you leave without telling you how much I've enjoyed your writing. I haven't always agreed with your opinion but have always thoroughly enjoyed your style, wit and attitude. For what it's worth, I hope you don't leave your blog. I have to admit, I used to quite enjoy some of Ziggys comments,partly because he was so predictable but also because he made me think about this sad subject in ways I hadn't considered before. I still have the same opinion but now get so irritated by him and his pedantic and pig headed stance. I would not miss him or his copy and paste. So annoying in itself. You also referenced John Blacksmith as recently deceased? I do so hope that's not true as I've loved his writings too. So clever and insightful. I hope he's still with us...
    Rosa

    ReplyDelete
  36. Ros,

    I also meant to say (got all excited , being my first post and all) wouldn't it be great if different aspects of this case could be discussed without being pounced on by the usual suspects? No doubt I'll get some flack for posting, but perversely I'm kinda looking forward to it. Got my big girl pants on ��
    Rosa

    ReplyDelete
  37. Thank you Rosa, your lovely post is the cyber equivalent of a sparkly glass of champagne :)

    It would indeed be nice to be able to post without fear of being attacked by trolls, and I think that has been happening here. These ghastly parasites are driving decent folk away!

    I am toying with several options at the moment, including revamping this blog (and it's large back library', or starting totally anew. I'm leaning towards the former at the moment, I'm sure there are a lot more gadgets I could use to make it more reader and poster friendly. One option is to restrict posts to google users only. I don't know how that works, whether people have to use their personal accounts, or if they can use a pseudonym. The latter would be better, I understand why people don't want to be identified, it's not all sinister, and it allows them to speak freely. As for trolls, if they have names, real or otherwise, I can ban or block them. And yes, I shudder at the use of the word ban, but with some people reason and logic just doesn't work.

    Thanks for being brave enough to post Rosa, look forward to hearing more from you in the future :)

    ReplyDelete
  38. Hi Ros,
    Maybe you should get in touch with the Bizzies about that soft lad Ziggy's behaviour here.
    It might be worth mentioning too that he enjoys the odd bifter from time to time.
    I seem to remember a post a couple of years back from him where he admitted taking the wacky stuff during his student days.Ziggy likes his bevvies too down the offie.Apparently he also has a penchant for singing old sea shanties at the top of his voice in the Kenny Dalglish stand.

    I'm sure a solid case can be made for getting him banged up in Ashworth and out of our hair.

    Good luck

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @20:57

      Fab! Yes, yes and yes! :) Mind you, what I have isn’t hair…

      T

      Delete