I have lost interest in the Madeleine case, it would be true to say, but it is not a forbidden topic. I happen to think most people would understand the 'McCann Syndrome' reference quite easily. Gerry and Kate have not quite got off scot free, they have become almost an urban legend for child neglect, and offloading responsibility. In many people's eyes they will never be cleared, and I guess they will just have to live with it.
I think all hope I had that Operation Grange would clear this matter up once and for all, is gone. Not that I particularly wanted to see retribution against the McCanns, but I did want all those who interfered with the course of justice brought to account. Unfortunately, as Goncalo Amaral once said, it will only be solved when the political will is there. I am not so bothered that the parents will never be charged, in all sorts of ways, they have suffered so much more than if they had, for example, just 'fessed up' to an accident. I doubt any one of us would want to be in their shoes. I personally, could not live one day without the freedom to be myself. That is the freedom to say, do and write whatever I want. If you are trying to deceive people, you do not have that freedom. For my sins, I spent my formative years in a convent where lying was essential in order to survive, not just to protect yourself, but to protect your friends. I remember lying in my bed at night trembling in fear that my 'lies' would be found out. It scarred me mentally, I never wanted to feel like that again.
My honesty has got me into trouble my entire life, see my McCann blogs, lol, but of course, it far precedes the Madeleine case. Not that I am ever blunt or coarse, heaven forbid, but I would rather be alone and ostracised than join a herd. But forgive me, I have gone back to my favourite subject, me, ha ha, but only to accentuate how imprisoning it can be having skeletons in the cupboard. I am of course speaking metaphorically and generically here should Carter Ruck still be looking in.
I did however take a quick peek at 'latest Madeleine news' as I saw the subject revived in a few posts, and there isn't any. It would seem all those I spent so many years arguing with, were right, Doh! That is, this case will never be solved. Irks a bit, as it means handing victory to those ghouls in the cesspit, but ce la vie, I'll get over it.
My interest in the Madeleine case, stemmed from my interest in human behaviour, and with Gerry and Kate McCann, and several characters within their inner circle, there are endless resources. It almost never happens that you have a subject who has given so many videoed interviews plus a blog and a book!. Like many students of psychology, I am interested in spotting deception. I speak as one who often has been, and occasionally still is, deceived. Again doh! Probably because I prefer to look for the good in people, even if they are lying to me. I feel pity for them if they have to lie, and I take no pleasure in seeing them squirm. That's what I mean about freedom, it means you never have to squirm.
When people lie on a national and global scale however, the sympathy comes to an abrupt end. It is one thing to save your own skin, another thing altogether to make a profit out of your own irresponsibility. Every parent who loses a child blames his or herself, even when it is obvious they are completely blameless. The McCanns have always done the opposite, they blamed everyone else from start, beginning with the Portuguese police. I don't know what alerted everyone else, but for me it was the uncomfortable feeling of being manipulated, not only by the parents, but by every 'get rich quick conman', and indeed, news agency, out there.
My eyes were opened by going into higher education, but my mind was blown when I started to look deeper into this case. That quaint English sense of justice and fair play was, to my disgust, long gone, that lovely 1960's world of the Carry Ons, was some kind of mythology that I was carrying around in my head. 'I say old chap that's just not cricket' no longer applied. The Madeleine case was as a much a learning curve and water shed, as my quest for a degree. It gave me deep, deep, insight, not into into psychopathy, narcissism, forensic linguistics, but also micro-expressions and of course duping delight! But more, it also led me delve much deeper into the dark side of corruption within our so called respected public agencies, institutions and charities. All a tad too dark for me, but plenty there for the young and enthusiastic journalists and psychologists who still want to put the world rights.
Sadly though, all blockbuster, film or book, potential in the Madeleine case is now gone - the interest simply isn't there, the world has moved on. Students of psychopathy, narcissism, sociopathy, media manipulation, conspiracies, etc, etc, have the far more entertaining (and terrifying) antics of the US President and the UK Prime Minister. Madeleine would literally have to turn up 'Anastasia' style and be recognised and blood tested to grab the front pages. Sightings and ex detectives opinions just aint gonna cut it.
For now, in the spirit of Maya Angelou, when someone tells you how this will end, believe them. Ok, not verbatim, but when a police commissioner and an ex police commissioner suggest the case may never be solved, that's the option they want to stick. Maybe too many reputations are on the line, on both sides of the aisle, too many big names who would be humiliated if the parents turned out to be involved. VIPs who pulled strings here and there to help the parents and their friends avoid justice?
It is not a proud moment for the UK, but in an era where we have a corrupt far right government leading us all towards the cliff at Beachy Head, it is the least of our worries.
'Judge Ivo Rosa has scheduled questioning in the Central Criminal Investigation Court of former Prime Minister José Sócrates, accused in the “Operation Marquês” case, for 28 October.'
ReplyDeletehttps://www.theportugalnews.com/news/ex-prime-minister-socrates-in-court/51151
Some background.
ReplyDelete“The public prosecutor’s office said on Wednesday that Mr Sócrates, prime minister from 2005-11, had been formally charged with 31 counts of receiving bribes, money laundering, falsifying documents and tax fraud.
The formal charges come almost three years after Mr Sócrates was named as an arguido, or formal suspect, in the case.
Mr Sócrates, who denies any wrongdoing, is among 19 individuals and nine companies charged on Wednesday as part of Operation Marquês, the biggest corruption case in Portugal’s modern history.
…
After being named a suspect in the case in November 2014, Mr Sócrates was held in jail for nine months under laws that enable investigators to detain suspects in serious cases for long periods without bringing formal charges while they pursue their inquiries. He was released from detention two years ago, but formally charged on Wednesday.
…
Prosecutors said the facts of the case relate to 2005-15.
Lawyers acting for Mr Sócrates described the charges against him as “unfounded, foolish and unsubstantiated”.”
https://www.ft.com/content/ca71ca96-ae89-11e7-aab9-abaa44b1e130
BB
9 July 2007
ReplyDelete'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.
"He has assured me that everything that can be done will be done."'
...
'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.'
https://www.politics.co.uk/news/2007/07/09/brown-thanks-portugal-over-madeleine-mccann
"when a police commissioner and an ex police commissioner suggest the case may never be solved, that's the option they want to stick. Maybe too many reputations are on the line, on both sides of the aisle, too many big names who would be humiliated if the parents turned out to be involved. VIPs who pulled strings here and there to help the parents and their friends avoid justice?"
ReplyDeleteYou now seem to be in full conspiracy mode Ros because your years of accusations that the Mccanns did it/covered something up have not been proven to be true.
---------------------------------
"In many people's eyes they will never be cleared, and I guess they will just have to live with it."
Let me correct that to "In the eye's of internet fanatics with nothing better to do they will never be cleared."
------------------------------------------------
"I would rather be alone and ostracised than join a herd"
How would you describe internet forums Ros - AOL boards, Cesspit forum and MMM forum - you were part of a herd there - noticeably herds that were negative to the Mccanns.
I'm not sure I would call it full conspiracy mode Z, more don't really care. As I have mentioned elsewhere, punishment is not my thing, I don't have the character for it.
DeleteMy interest in the Madeleine case was borne out of my interest in human behaviour - a lifelong thing btw, it's part of being a writer, and like thousands of others I wanted to discuss it. There are many ways and means to detect if someone is lying, but the greatest of these is our own natural instincts. Long before anyone even knew Goncalo Amaral's name, thousands were flocking to social media sites, most notably, the Mirror Forum, but there were hundreds. When I first went on social media I thought I was alone in thinking there was something very strange about Madeleine's parents, but I soon discovered it was the hot topic everywhere. It was a kind of a phew, so it's not just me.
I first dipped a toe in the Mirror Forum, but was scared away by the sheer thuggery of the main posters - the forum was shut down by Clarence, then reborn as the Three Arguidos. Again I dipped a toe, but they were all such angry and psychotic individuals, so I didn't stay. As I used AOL for everything at the time, I followed their 'discussion of the Madeleine case' on the Europe board pointers. I arrived around September 2007, but it was already established, most had been there since May/June and were divided into 'pro' and anti-mccann'. I liked that both sides could put forward their arguments, though I wasn't quite anticipating the bloodbath it often became.
As for joining a herd, all the forums you mention are discussion forums, all of which I was thrown out of. I refused to be tied to any forum's rules - ergo, I started my own blog. As Groucho once said, I wouldn't want to be part of any herd that would have me.
* cough cough*
DeleteHello Ros you ol' sausage..x
I haven't posted for a few months.Had a bit too much on.Life eh...
It's me by the way, your dream lover 'Z' Ziggy Sawdust.I just happened to pop back to see where it was all going.My, my you have diversified haven't you.I like it.I knew you'd eventually free yourself from the bonds that tied your creative wings.
I happened to see this post addressed to a 'Z' . I thought perhaps you thought it was my good self.I', just clearing that up.
I'll try and catch up over the next day or two as there seems to be a lot to look at.
You're excited now aren't you.I can sense it. ;0 )
Z
Ahh Ziggy, strangely I am delighted to see you and even delighted to be called an ol' sausage lol. I do hope you are keeping well, you certainly appear to be in fine fettle :) I've had a bit of a transformation myself, and am now a blonde bombshell! The objective was to minimize the amount of time/money I spent on my hair, cosmetics etc, but instead I have quadrupled it all. Doh! On the plus side, I am having so much fun, I have reverted to the 15 year old me who used to run down to Woolies every Saturday morning to spend my pocket money on make up. I actually got my first (dream job) working on the makeup counter in Woolworths! I was paid £1.49 for a full Saturday, or £1.97, if I did the late Friday shift as well. I loved the makeup counter, but it was the record counter which offered more opportunity to meet boys! wink, wink, ha ha.
DeleteI am cheered by your presence Z, in fact, I waited until I had done all my chores before pouring a glass of wine and settling down to write a reply.
Zadok
DeleteI had to kick my rabbi in the nuts on Erev Yom Kippur to make him pray for your safe return, caballero. Just imagine that. It seems to have worked.
Ros...
DeleteThank you for that warm welcome back x
I missed the transformation then.Damn. The last time i posted here you had a gallery of the Mallen Streak that you were rocking.If i remember rightly i ordered the second from bottom and then the box set.I noted you had a little Stephanie Beacham thing going on which is always a good thing in my book( she still looks stunning at 106 or however old she is).
So you went for the Marilyn Monroe, Diana Dors, Vera Day ( i'll have here please) and Jean Harlow look.I'm intrigued.I'm also quite imaginative in case you hadn't noticed, so i best turn my attention elsewhere before i get us all banned from the web..
Was great to read 'Woolies'. A greatly missed institution.Part of everyone's childhood and teen years wherever you lived in England.While you were saving your pocket money for trivial nonsense like make up, i was going through the pick 'n' mix like a plague of locusts when i should have been in a maths or history lesson.That made me wise.Who enjoys History or maths ? Odd people, that's who. Who enjoys sherbet fruits, jelly beans and dolly mixtures ? Everyone worth knowing, that's who. Apart from that I'd cause trouble in the toy department. We had another shop well known in Liverpool and a couple of other places called T J Hughes. It;s still standing. You name it-they have it in abundance.I had a bedroom full of exotic 70s after shaves even though i wasn't shaving yet . I just wanted to drive Valerie Leon crazy with my Hai Karate, or be a legend like Kevin 'Brut' Keegan. I smelt like a Moroccan sauna.But it came in handy in my awkward teen years as i was about to leave school and knock the women bandy with my fragrances and charm.OK, maybe it hasn't worked just yet.It's not my fault the ladies have no sense of subtlety or sense of smell...
So..my after shaves could set my back the best part of £2.50 back in the day.And you were throwing the best part of £2.00 about for your war paint.And here we are . Scarred after all of our skirmishes in love's battlefields and looking for ways to paint over the cracks and scars without having to starve for a fortnight.That's spirit, that is..
They don't know they're born these days ( mutter mutter)
Z :)
“Ahh Ziggy, strangely I am delighted to see you and even delighted to be called an ol' sausage lol.”
DeleteOh bless… Sweet… This’s what love is like, Rosalinda dear… :) Lucky you: he’s good looking and not stupid.
T
Apologies, I tend to apply, or Ziggy to any post that tries to imply I am a psychotic hater. Oops, further apologies for the overtly hostile language there, I'm on my second glass, hic, and my vocabulary is diminishing. The, let's just call him 'pro' there, reminded me of you in the days you thought of me as a mad haired old witch, who practices the dark arts and has a sideline in off the peg pitchforks.
DeleteI get passionate about stuff, sure. I am also a finisher. Once I become fixated on a subject, I will not stop until I know all there is to know. One night it was 'getting to know' all about Marlon Brando. I fell in love with him in Streetcar Named Desire. I watched all his interviews, blimey he was a slow talker, lol. But he was mesmerising, his answers were worth the wait, full of wisdom and compassion. I was still watching him as the sun came up and the birds began to tweet (v.slow talker), and loved him even more.
But I digress, lol, as usual. The world has moved on, in the whole scheme of things, pointing the finger at the McCanns right now would be churlish and in poor taste. As I get older, I am leaning more and more towards Karma - you reap what you sow. I'm hoping to come back as a very spoilt cat, with devoted owners who will pamper me 24/7, failing that, as an all powerful empress who could rule pretty much as I like.
A little too much information there, ha ha, I used to frighten the bejesus out of you by telling you I could analyse your words (I can) but now tis I, who am baring all (3rd glass), ha ha. I'm kind of teaching again, something I was kind of bamboozled into (I know, how'd I let that happen?), and as usually happens when you bond with a class, I am now committed. I am teaching ESOL, English as a second language - something I have never trained in, multiple languages and multiple levels. I am trying to get hints by watching old episodes of 'Mind Your Language' - a racist BBC series from the 70's lol. I was used to and most enjoyed, teaching A and degree level, so I became a bit of an academic snob, teaching basic English is a challenge.
I am of course loving it, as you can probably tell. I have on my 'things to do before I die' a box for learn another language. I have already embarked on learning Spanish! I was torn, tis true, between French, in which I already have a few foundation words, and the even sexier Latino sound of Senor and Senorita! On my tick list is dancing the salsa in Havana and being able to speak the lingo. All my cars carried a backsticker of Che Guevera, so how I have never made it to Cuba I will never know, I will get there, once I've done with riding horses (not camels) out to a night time camp by the pyramids. It would probably be the one and only occasion I would agree to sleep on an inflatable bed under canvas.
But I have lots of things on my tick list, losing 48 hrs with Jack Nicholson in New Orleans, hell yeah, if it kills me, what a way to go. Less dangerous, a few days of leisurely strolling around the palace and gardens and Versailles. I have watched all the dramas and documentaries, including the French ones, I am, what is the word, enchanted.
Bless you, in your own (mostly annoying) way, you are quite inspiring :)
Major T from ground control...
DeleteComrade.Can I assume you've kept the rabble in good order in my absence ?I sincerely hope so.I have faith you see.I know an old soldier when i see one.Have you been wooing lady Rosalinda with your impudence and gallantry again ?You could give lessons you rogue.No wonder you have her all of a dither and painting herself and her lush hair so many different colours.Which colour goes best with 'blushing' i wonder..
Should your dalliance spin off the road and end in marriage I think you should ask me to be your best man.We both know I am.
Good to see you, comrade.I raise my glass..
Zigmeister
Ahh, nice to see you two gents have gone for bonshomme rather than pistols at dawn - very gentile, though the pair of you might ride off into the sunset together leaving moi screaming 'I'm ready for my closeup Mr. De'Ville'.
DeleteI am of course a confirmed bacheloress, (dreadful word, but can't think of alternative, spinster doesn't quite fit. But I do on occasion miss male company. Men bless 'em, tend to show a lot more interest in obscure subjects than female friends (or they pretend to, which I think is awfully chivalrous), and aw shucks, who doesn't love the opportunity to flirt.
It is only now that I have had a complete refurbishment that I have even felt like dipping a toe. I am empowered by my ice blonde new do, my tough as old boots, paddy hair has not let me down, it's full on Marilyn Monroe, lol, but an updated version! It now takes me at least two hours to get ready to go anywhere, even to the local shop, but I am loving it. I was traumatized around the age of 4/5, when I went to Christmas pantomime. Every child got a present, and I wishing and wishing (like the lion in Wizard of Oz) for a post office set. I didn't get one and it was the biggest disappointment in my life. Now I have it, but it isn't a post office set, it's a large dressing table filled with gorgeous smelling perfumes and cosmetics.
I feel horribly shallow for spending so much time on trying to look like Donatella Versace (just kidding), but seriously, you shouldn't try 'baking' over the age of 45. I digress, I have done a lot of experimenting, 'how to' videos are everywhere, there is a lot more to putting on make up these days than spitting on a bedraggled brush and loading it up with blackening.
I don't have much of a natural blush these days Zigmeister, more a streak of contouring, a dab of highlighter, and an ever so soft, kiss from a rose on each cheek. I delight every day in the fact that I am girl (albeit an old one) and often toy with the idea of writing a blog about political correctness and the lunacy around being gender assigned. Vive la difference say I, heaven forbid we should all be compelled to be gender neutral. I don't have any problem whatsoever in how people want to live, but I fear political correctness has waged war on all differences, maybe in the long term hope of making us all the same, clone like in our deference to their higher power.
I say Vive la difference, not just in our gender, but in our culture and heritage. Britain became a super power, because for decades, all the 'top brains' in the world headed here. They were not turned away by bigoted quota counters who pandered to the prejudices of the ignorant. There is no reason why we each should not respect the culture of our neighbours, they are always welcoming to those who want to learn more. But I don't want to set off on another 'immigrant' rant.
Where were we. Aah yes. This time round, ha ha, I have a tickbox list, that would be pushing it if I were a 20 year old supermodel, but my expectations are high, and deserve a new post, watch this space!
Tick List
Delete1, Must own castle, with at least two wings. North and South I would suggest.
2. Must be keen on cooking and experimenting (nothing from the first aid kit or drug stash, well maybe on a pizza ;)), failing which, must be profuse in praise and admiration for every delectable dish I produce. Also, willingness to try, until the end of days, to recreate the bacon and egg pie I had at primary school. Still searching :(
3. The ability to speak another language. Chinese would be cool, but Russian would be 'A Fish Called Wanda' all over again. Spanish would be a major advantage, I am presently learning it myself. I used to swoon over the French accent of the 'oranges ripened under a tropical sun' Cointreau guy, but these days I have Coooba on my mind.
4. Interests of his own. I would need the 'he' in my life to have goals and aims of his, as well as support mine, lol. The most interesting men I have ever known have introduced me to new subjects and new ideas and broadened my horizon. I don't want to be the teacher all the time! There is so much I want to learn, and it always seems there is so little time.
5. A man of honour. One of the first times I fell in love, it was with a young lawyer, who always walked on the outside of the pavement, pulled a chair out when I wanted to sit down, and kept riff raff and sweary people away from me. I was enamoured, of course, but from then on I was bitterly disappointed with anything less. Not sure why I put this under honour, maybe because I consider honour covers honesty and integrity. It is a rarity in men, women too I am sure, but when you've got it, it's the 'x' factor.
6. Looks strangely, are not a big factor. Some of the best people I have met in my life have not been conventionally good looking. Attractiveness, I think, comes from within, even a plain face will light up when it becomes animated and friendly. At the age of 15 I was smitten by then 55 year old Anthony Quinn, at 22 it was Roy Kinnear, not to mention my crush on Galen from the Planet of the Apes. At this stage it may be helpful if I list my crushes (in no particular order)
Galen (as mentioned)
Lanky fella who played for Leeds (wrote him a letter, blushing smiley)
David Bowie
David Cassidy (briefly)
Hans Solo (Harrison Ford, now hate him, fecking Trump supporter)
Niles Crane
Sheldon Cooper
Anthony Boudain (still mourning)
John McDonnell
The ones I can remember off the top of my head, lol. The other men I was crazy about were fictional, Heathcliffe and Mork (as in Mork and Mindy), not sure what a psychiatrist would make of that, the nice way to put it would be dysfunctional. One guy once told me I didn't want a boyfriend I wanted a pet rabbit. He was pissed off because I wasn't impressed with the flowers he had carefully pressed into a poetry book to represent each day we were apart. Romantic some might say, to me it said psycho.
7. I used to say 2 A levels, but I now I must insist on at least 1 degree. I am desperately in need of someone more educated than myself to talk to. It would be nice to speak to someone to whom I do not have to explain everything.
There may be an 8 and 9, lol, while I am on a roll, but I must give this a break, ha ha.
My word, Ros. That's a wish list and a half.How long were you exposed to the fumes of your magical peroxide.I know variety is the spice of life but wow..
DeleteThe only 'lanky fella' I can think of who played for Leeds is Jackie Charlton ( 60s) or Lee Chapman ( Mr Leslie Ash ) in the 90s. Then you go to OCD lunatic genius Sheldon Cooper.Talk about hedging you bets...
You any good at poaching salmon or simmering a Bolognese ? If so I might send an application form in..and does 'in tongues' count as a second language ..?
I'd say I was a man of honour.Not as posh and showy as your young solicitor obviously.But where I come from, if he pushed sweaty people away from his girlfriend he'd be in the Mersey before the coffee was served.However,I'd happily light your cigar for you and let you chew on any of the chicken bones id' left on the side of my plate.A sort of Scouse Lady And The Tramp.Should we encounter any deep puddles Id let you throw your legs round me and i'd piggy back you across as you covered your newly acquired Blonde locks beneath my cap.
I'd share my interests with you too.My plans for world domination for one.That and running my own private branch of the Liverpool mafia that specializes in the removal of political nuiscances. You could help me start the revolution . A sort of Maude Gonne to my Billy Yeats.I'd change the course of history with a stroke of a pen as you scrapped in the street like an Irish romantic full of Guinness and poetry.I'd be supportive of your interests too.Such as your plans to seduce me with your culinary expertise and array of hypnotic stinks that you hide on your dressing table..
I could always learn to try to look more plain.It would take some work.I hope you're worth it.I've heard some of you refurbed spinsters( lol i said it) can be fickle with your affections..And, while I'm not the great Mr Bowie himself..I'm sure Ziggy's pretty close..
Oh yes..the A level thing.I have my degree in tow..and i've learned far more since..i didn't go for the PhD as the lads would be merciless..But, on the bright side, whatever our history in Britain and the new arrivals,I'm born and bred.A Liverpool gentleman with only the occasional bout of mindless violence and expressive dance in my chequered past.I take some understanding it has to be said.But to know me is to love me.True story. I should know- I wrote it..;-)
Zig
Well, the pressure's down, Zvon is here, he's been North, for a while. They say that vanity got the best of him, but he sure is back in style!
DeleteAn on the wing incantation [04:26], masterfully infused with delicate smudges of an ephemeral mixture of sublime tenderness and hints at measured violence. A self-alienating Van der Waals poltergeist, aligned with the benevolent Casimir watercourse of the Mersey, fills a cultural vacuum. What a treat! A short flight for Zvon, a giant step for you, Rosalinda dear… Take your pick. Is Zvon in the bush worth two bears in the forest, princess?
You know, I once knew a woman who looked like you
She wanted a whole man, not just a half
She used to call me sweet daddy when I was only a child
You kind of remind me of her when you laugh
In the best possible taste, W Butler Y Bob D raises his glass to dear comrade Zvon [Звон]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkqxagJglaI
To be a winner, what you need is belligerence, arrogance, looks, and lasting superiority.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1I0cd1bqVSI
Milord
DeleteDare I say your rouge goes very well with you tan, and the lipstick marks on your neck remind me of our post- Huck-Finn days…
In your absence, there has been no rabble to speak of. I have been cutting the grass and doing some weeding. I always appreciate Milord’s faith in me.
Milord knows my impudence and gallantry are all-embracing, but, with utmost respect, Milord, wooing is not what I do, it’s what I am. Lady Rosalinda has been in a contemplative mood due to Milord’s sudden and inexplicable absence, I guess.
The only lessons I can give are those I have learnt from you, Milord. I appreciate the kindness of your suggestion nevertheless. Lady Rosalinda, as Milord has gathered, has indeed been paying due attention to her appearance in anticipation of Milord’s second coming.
Milord knows that the spin of my dalliance is zero and that I am on the road to Jerusalem. Milord IS my best man, in Christ and in Tao.
I did raise my glass yesterday. Unfortunately, Milord’s half full Haut Brion Blanc bottle I filled my glass from contained something other than wine. I spent the night in my own bed. Milord knows what I mean. :)
Salute
Tom S
Well thank you for your kind and loyal service Tom. I did think of adding a Title and maybe a yacht, to my list of demands, but it might have been a bit much, what with the castle. Your care of the old place has been magnificent, if I could knight you I would. My commiserations over the wine, I would have happily shared a bottle of Chablis with you, but it gets me way too tipsy, or maybe next week's (?) Beaujolais nouveau.
DeleteMy current obsession, as they all do, has taken over my life. It is not quite as all consuming as the baking, the knitting and the Walking Dead (seriously, I lost days, if not weeks, and where's Rick? :(). I digress, this one is so much fun, for me, maybe not so much for anyone who doesn't want to talk about makeup 24/7. This is probably one of the shallowest obsessions I have ever had, but it has lifted my spirits more than anything else in years. My dear old dad, bless him, whenever I was down, would put his hand in his pocket and say 'go get your hair done', it seems to have the same effect even now. And to top it off, I bumped into someone today that I have seen for a while, and she immediately said I looked 20 years younger! I have been walking on cloud 9 ever since:)
But back to your wonderful service, do help yourself to a bottle of something decent from the cellar :)
Mr Tom S...
DeleteMy Huckleberry friend..
There has been no rabble to speak of in my absence.Damn you and your rapier subtlety.I could take that personally you know.I could have my staff remove you from this Riverboat.The very thought of me being rabble..
I thought the lip[stick marks on my neck had been washed away from your memory.So much for bootleg Gin.We'll never speak of it again in polite company.Or here..
I always had you down as a rogue, a cad, a bounder and a philanderer, Tom.I thought sacks full of woo would be the better part of your arsenal.Yet you claim to be love itself.is that a cover I ask myself.Are you, in actual fact, the international man of mystery Rosalinda has long craved; the gadabout of Monte Cristo. It would go some way in explaining her sudden changes, her new image, her giddiness.It has your touches all over it.I know your handywork too well. I might require the finger prints of the finger prince at some stage.Surrender your passport forthwith.
So, you wager that our hostess has been polishing her wares in anticipation of my second coming. I should have guessed she was in denial all along.I knew she was licking her lips in between her lines of anger.It was intense for foreplay even by my own standards.And I know I don't have to remind you about your penchant for exotic oils and German poetry..Or have i walked into your trap again.Are you in this together.Is this how it all ends.My good self hoisted on my own doo dah..damn you
The raised glass is all I asked my friend.The contents are no more than an intrusion.It's the empty glass that delivers more.But I'm sure you knew that..
Zig-Zen-Zarathustra, Of the north..
Rosalinda Hutton 25 October 2019 at 20:59
DeleteThanks for nothing, my dear. All I’ve found in your seller is a sleeping bag, a stub of a Romeo & Juliet cigar, half a bottle of smelly yellow liquid and a huge graffiti in high visibility red PROLETARIER ALLER LÄNDER, VEREINIGT EUCH! You vintage port ain’t there no more. Don’t tell me you had a gueZt… Did you?
Doubting Thomas
https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/10/14/exposecnnpart1/
ReplyDeletehttps://972mag.com/antisemitism-israel-jews-ihra/142622/
https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/world/2019/10/14/barnaby-joyce-julian-assange/
BB
Not sure I've made your aquaintance here before BB
DeleteKudos on posting the antisemitism stuff...
It really sticks in my craw.Israel and the whole Ashkanazi jews ( Cameron) and anti- Palestine thing.The whole ADL makes me sick. The contrivances of the Zionists since the you-know-what- in the second world war..stinks.Question the maths and you're a terrorist and antisemite..
Israel pull every string that matters on this planet.UK,Germany,US. You name it they move it's puppets.They own their banks.If they say it happened it happened; if they say it didn't, it didn't. They have the banks, the media and they're slowly removing the alt and replacing it with crap that looks like alt.Global Dystopia is the wet dream of Benny and his jets.In the meantime, the masses shrug their shoulders with that 'nothing i can do' passion but get hysterical if someone criticizes their latest selfie..
Z
Anonymous 23 October 2019 at 19:22
DeleteCompañero, you are in error. Smell my L'Eau D'Issey and taste my honey, honey. You should’ve come to Cuba to Zee me when I called you. No need to pretend now. It’s too late. Carry on cygneting over Rosalinda and let me deal with my sorrow. :(
http://cristobell.blogspot.com/2019/09/im-delighted-libdems-have-decided-on.html?showComment=1571235358114#c3090724933671074724
Comité de Santa María de Cygnet
Labour MEP: I represent 500,000 Jews in North West of England
DeleteA Labour MEP is facing ridicule after claiming to represent half a million Jews in the north west of England – despite there only being around 270,000 in the United Kingdom.
Julie Ward made the claim during a debate in the European Parliament entitled ‘The danger of violent right-wing extremism (in the light of the recent events in Halle, Germany).’
She said during the debate: “I represent more than 500,000 Jewish constituents in the North West of England, and I know we cannot be complacent.”
The best way to tackle antisemitism is through intercultural dialogue, education, and a zero tolerance policy regarding antisemitic acts and use of language.”
The MEP has since said it was a “straightforward administrative mistake” after the remarks were highlighted in a clip on Twitter shared by Sussex Friends of Israel (SFOI).
On Twitter, SFOI said Ward, who represents the North West of England including Merseyside and Greater Manchester, was either “ignorant about the size of our community or you simply don’t care enough to check, either one is not great”.
…
According to the Board of Deputies of British Jews’ website, there are 263,346 Jews in England and Wales in the last census, while the Institute for Jewish Policy Research estimates that the actual figure is closer to 284,000.
…
https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/labour-mep-i-represent-500000-jews-in-nw-of-england/
BB
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1VTt_THL4A
DeleteBB
https://www.jewishcommunitywatch.org/wall-of-shame/
Delete-----
Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv A Question in the Matter of Informing the Government Concerning the Abuse of a Boy or a Girl
“Accordingly, it is my determination that one should report [an abuser] to the secular government authorities [police, etc.]; and in this there is benefit to society...
[Rabbi] Yosef Shalom Elyashiv”
https://www.jewishcommunitywatch.org/blog/halacha/Yeshurun-Rav%20Elyashiv%20Letter%20on%20Reporting%20Abuse-English-Psak%20Summary.pdf
-----
Jailing a Jewish Criminal Helps Prevent Chilul HaShem
http://www.survivorsforjustice.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1737:jailing-a-jewish-criminal-helps-prevent-chilul-hashem&catid=2:news&Itemid=57
----
The author of the book “Nishmat Avraham,” Rabbi Dr. A. Avraham, relates that he asked the illustrious rabbis of our generation, Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg and Rabbi Shalom Elyashiv about this, and all of them said that it is a mitzvah to report the abuse, and the person who does so is no “mosser.” Quite the contrary, the parents or family members or the teacher who commits the abuse, whether physical or sexual, is to be categorized as a “rodef,” an attacker, and one who reports a “rodef” is not to be classed as a “moser."
https://www.jewishcommunitywatch.org/blog/halacha/Rabbi_Shlomo_Aviner.pdf
BB
Hi Rosalinda and BB
ReplyDeleteThe McCanns will eventually reappear in the lime light again, trying to make a growing number of sceptics believe in their innocence, even if they don’t have to do so. Their madness of greatness will eventually compel them to make a final attempt to take control over the Internet, even though they’ve kept a rather low profile for some time.
If they really are innocent and feel that they’re being persecuted by ”internet trolls”, who are telling lies, the best thing they could do would be to start a blog in order to personally and without any interference by CM or by their lawyers, answer all questions they certainly will be asked by many a non-believer, who cannot see that there’s ever been the slightest evidence of an abduction. Gerry once had a blog, hadn’t he? Why not start one again? I’d indeed appreciate that. I’m sure it would lead somewhere. However, right now I don't want to dwell too much on it.
I think Gerry and Kate have given up on trying to get support from the public Bjorn. Their last major push to silence online critics ended in disaster (Brenda Leyland). There is no support for their proposed appeal to the ECHRs, are they still going through with that? Perhaps they have realised it will cost them a lot more money (and no financial backers) and the exercise would be completely pointless. GA didn't let slip anything that is now public knowledge, it all became public knowledge when the PJ released their files.
ReplyDeleteGerry's blog which started with so much enthusiasm, also spectacularly backfired. It was downright weird that the father of a missing child was writing such an upbeat blog about daily life (mince & tatties and afternoons by the pool) while his young daughter was potentially in the hands of a monster! He pulled the plug on it eventually, but Pamalam already had it stored. I think she got a letter from Carter Ruck, but it is still there.
The McCanns would never agree to be interviewed in an uncontrolled environment where they might be asked awkward questions. Even with Clarence staging and directing the questions, there were still slip ups. Usually during the foreign press conferences, where journalists went off script - Gerry getting up and taking is microphone off when asked about the blood found in the apartment, and the flashes of anger from both of them when a journalists throws them a curved ball.
I very much they want to be making waves Bjorn. This is probably the first chance they have had for many years to have some sort of normal life and I hope they are. I have never had interest in the Punishment side of Crime and Punishment, I'm too much of a wuss to punish anyone and way too forgiving. If anything, I feel sadness for the parents and their friends, they have to live with whatever guilt they have forever more. As a former Catholic, I still enjoy the uplifting effects of having a clear conscience. Anyone who has ever walked out of a confessional box will know exactly what I mean. Your slate has been wiped clean, you are in a state of grace. Of course, it doesn't generally last very long, you only have to say 'feck it' as you slip on a prayer mat and you are back to square one.
I think as you get older (and wiser), those niggling pangs of guilt that used to hound you at 4 in the morning, become less important - they have been replaced with a whole load of new stuff to feel guilty about. I am presently wracked with guilt over my use of disposable gloves (but still using them - I hate anything icky). Smart Arse Son torments me over it, said it was probably one my gloves that blinded that poor whale who washed up on an English beach :( But like most people, my conscience is largely clean, or at least nothing that can't be put right by ten 'Hail Marys' and two 'Our Fathers'. We are not tormented by sleepless nights, living in fear that we might one day be exposed. For many involved in the Madeleine case, that's not just Catholic guilt, it's a very real possibility. But as I said previously, we have reached the very sad stage where the fate of little Madeleine remains unknown, which really isn't good for the parents.
Hello Rosalinda
DeleteThanks for comment. Columbo has just one more question to ask before leaving the scene.
Some pages from GM's blog have apparently been saved here. I haven't seen this one before.
”Contrary to some other reports Kate and I do accept that Madeleine is ‘probably’ dead.”
(Gerry McCann’s blogs Tuesday, 16th October, 2007)
After the pj-files had been released in 2008, they spent 11 bloody years reviving the same child, who they, just a few months after her disappearance, thought was ”probably” dead. For more than a decade they’ve vehemently refused to talk about Madeleine as a dead child, despite the fact that there hasn’t been anything at all to support their actual “conviction” about Madeleine being somehow kept alive.
This case could have done with a Columbo asking just one more question Bjorn. I presume you are referring to the Pamalam site Bjorn. Pamalam has managed to save and put into library form, all the Madeleine information. She has incorporated, I believe, the very helpful McCann files, which has every news story, every article, every interview etc. Pamalam has, an easily accessible form, of all of Gerry's (once public) blogs. I think there was a bit of a legal battle, but the blogs are still there. They are endlessly enlightening Bjorn, as we continue to discover. They are equally guilty, Gerry with his blogs, Kate with her book/diary, both of them with their interviews, of putting themselves out there for intense scrutiny. Intense scrutiny is great, until it's not.
DeleteI'm not really surprised Bjorn, that the parents accepted and acknowledged that Madeleine was probably dead in October of 2007. They would have been driven insane by now if they believed she were still alive. Too much time has passed for there to be any happy endings, even fake ones. If they were genuine parents Bjorn, the idea that Madeleine were still alive would have driven them insane. They would be banging on the doors of the PJ and OG every day of the week. No parent could live with the idea that their child was in the hands of a monster.
Their very strange behaviour Bjorn, will always stand against them. Ok, who can rule what is normal and what is not, but each of us are genetically programmed to 'spot the psycho', it is all part of our survival instincts. That is how the situation arose where the news broadcasters, government agencies, establishments, etc, were telling us one thing, while our genes were screaming the opposite!
Sadly I hate to imagine what is going on in the heads of Gerry and Kate, I could take it a shot, but it would cruel. I have never reached a level of stress where a lie could mean so much Bjorn, I mean I have on occasion obviously, but it has not gone on for years and decades. To me that would be like liking your own 4' by 4' prison out of bricks. Why would anyone willingly do that to themselves? Silly question, because people can and do. I lost my faith in human nature somewhere around May, 2007.
But I am a believer in karma Bjorn, and a believer in the laws of attraction, that is, if you put out good vibes, you get good vibes back. My biggest pleasure in life these days, is having a cup of Ovaltine and going off to sleep with a clear conscience. I'm definitely coming back as a spoilt cat (maybe Nefertiti) ha ha.
Hello Rosalinda 22 October 2019 at 20:58
DeleteJust like you Rosalinda, I’ve no interest in the McCanns’ being punished, but I wish they would at least come forward and admit that all the lines of inquiries that have been pursued by
themselves, by their own private detectives and by Scotland Yard with all its expertise have led absolutely nowhere, while the Portuguese investigation before the case was shelved in 2008 described quite well what may’ve happened to Madeleine, which of course they’re never going to do.
Anyway, whoever in the future decides to look a little deeper into the Madeleine case will soon see that the official British narrative (Netflix latest documentary included) is quite different from what is documented in the released Portuguese PJ-files, which in itself ought to make the Madeleine case an interesting case for scientific forensic research at some point of time in the future, when it has gone cold. Otherwise Rosalinda, I have very little hope that the case will be resolved in modern times.
I think should the truth ever come out Bjorn, it will be hugely embarrassing for the UK, perhaps even for Portugal too. The incumbent Labour (New Labour) government sullied the original investigation with their interference and it is probably because heads, much higher up than Gerry and Kates, would roll if the truth were known.
DeleteTony Blair's government was embroiled in a multitude of corruption allegations, most relating to the Iraq War, and most of which were far more serious than dabbling in a criminal investigation in Portugal. They gambled, quite rightly, it appears, that no-one would ever be brought to account for screwing up the original Portuguese investigation. And the McCanns, were never, ever, going down on their own.
My curiosity about this case began to wane a long time ago Bjorn. I felt I kind of knew what had happened, as though I reached the end of a book. And ultimately, it was only my own curiosity that I needed to satisfy. I can't say I wish the McCanns well, because they have been so awful to so many people, but their consciences are in their own hands, they must live with them.
Sean and Amelie will grow up soon and then the questions will really start. If so many members of the public don't believe the silly excuses for why Madeleine disappeared then why should the offspring of two intelligent people? A couple who can't hide their deception even under the controlled conditions of TV studio interviews with carefully crafted scripts.
ReplyDeleteGoodness only knows what their verbal and physical body language says at close proximity. If anyone figures out where Madeleine is it will be MBM's siblings in my opinion, probably after they've completed their education would be my best guess.
As for OG, they're either incompetent or corrupt, what else can it be after nearly 8.5 years and £12 million spent with not the slightest clue?
Anonymous 21 October 2019 at 18:45
DeleteI think your guess is good.
“As for OG, they're either incompetent or corrupt, what else can it be after nearly 8.5 years and £12 million spent with not the slightest clue?”
Can it be both?
T
Sean and Amelie will be what- 14 soon ?They've become sort of celebrities by proxy through Madeleine's fate in an age that's media and celebrity obsessed.The days of children being children until they're 16 died 30 years ago.They live on the internet; their friends do; they obsess about celebrity. Given that they are probably household names in their village and in the UK i think it's a sure thing that they have been told chapter and verse about the way things have happened.Kids- especially teens- can be sick and twisted when they smell blood.The twins need to be armed against hate and spite and endless questions.
DeleteYou say the parents can't hide their deception under controlled conditions even with carefully crafted scripts.Fair enough.That's your suspicion.Your opinion; your view.But after 12 years, no policemen or detective or Psychologist brought in has spotted what you imagine you have.Nobody has found the discarded scripts either.That's why the 'deception' is hard to prove.And why it's impossible to use as a reason to arrest them.Because they 'look dodgy'.If you don't know what their 'verbal and physical body language says at close proximity' there's a good chance it's because they aren't saying anything.But those desperate for that new angle have got little else.So they'll dig out the old 'how to read what he means' books that sold do well in the 90s.You won't find a single case in the history of crime in the modern world where body language was offered as evidence to a jury.There's a reason for that...
OG were put in place ostensibly to specialize in this case alone; to review and investigate it.Those of us who think objectively wondered what they could be investigating as the police of two countries had already informed the world for a long time that there was nothing to see.No one to question; no suspects and no physical evidence.So we believed it was all PR to sustain the illusion that had begun soon after the event itself.That is Operation Find Nobody.So, in a way it can be argued that it was corrupt.Even if we only make the accusations that it was fraudulently obtaining large amounts of money under false pretenses.The record shows a pattern; approaching an anniversary; media leaks;public reaction;application for funding;funding received;'new suspect' used to obtain funding comes to nothing.You can't argue with facts.They're facts.But don't assume they have / had no clue.OG were put in place as the brainchild of other people.They, in many ways, went in blind.Those who built them and sent them in had seen all there was to see from day one. OG took the flak for them and still are taking it.My personal opinion is that we should work backwards to make progress, not forwards.Forwards has led us all away like the Pied Piper did once upon a time . Clever stuff.
Zig
Ros, I think you needed to 'cold turkey' the McCann case.It had become all- consuming.It was eating too much of your time, emotion and energy.That's when a passion cane become detrimental.You came through the other side reflective and wiser.
ReplyDeleteFor my part i was always cynical( yes, you're shocked aren't you).I have little or no faith in the police force, less in politicians and less again in the media.I would often lay odds surrounding the case and the annual dances of the Met and OG were doing the integrity of any investigation no good at all.It also served to accentuate how poor and predictable -and dishonest- the media can be .
There are too many loose ends left in this case.The month of the event reads like today, all these years later.In between all we had were rumours and lies and misinformation.Was there any truth buried in the pile ? Hard to know.If anyone pulls what they believe is the truth from the pile it will be contaminated by the rubbish it was buried in and lose credibility on sight.
The case reminds us how our imaginations can be ignited.We call it our instinctive need to see justice.And it may well be.But our imagination tries too hard to achieve it.As such, the amateur sleuth and novelists come out fighting.When all that is needed is concrete evidence and reliable witness testimony and forensics.Evidence needs no imagination; evidence has no agenda; evidence just tells you truth.
And that's it, really.What was needed was never found.Or if it was, it was 'lost' or destroyed.All that was left was a shadow of the truth; a shadow of a perpetrator on an already dark night.
The case will be remembered for the impish little face of a beautiful little girl. An arrogant, elitist PR controller; The passionate but confused former lead detective of the PJ.The distraught and sometimes angry parents.The confusing and questionable interest and open ended funding of so many British PMs. The scrutiny of British Military Intelligence.The predictability of annual press releases.The seagulls hovering over the whole sorry voyage looking for scraps to feed on.And an endless list of blogs, forums, ebooks and youtube videos that are 90% rage and knee-jerk reaction and 10% objective thinking.
I always suggested the case was closed within a few weeks of it opening.And that OG would come up with absolutely nothing more than provocative press releases prior to funding being released.And that I'd be the first to say sorry and admit defeat if that proved to be wrong.
I'll always hold to my preferred hypothesis.The one that also supports Amaral's assertion that only the political will of two countries have prevented the truth of the truth being released.Not the lack of evidence and forensics.Rather the lack of honesty agreed upon by those who rule countries.And they aren't doctors. I think it will close on the 13th anniversary.An apt number, considering.
Zig
Ziggy 22 October 2019 at 04:59
DeleteWell said I can't argue against that.
Have a nice day Ziggy
Thanks Bjorn..you too ;)
DeleteAssange Case
ReplyDeletehttps://www.craigmurray. Assange Caseorg.uk/archives/2019/10/assange-case/
Assange in Court
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/10/assange-in-court/
BB
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/10/assange-in-court/comment-page-1/#comments
DeleteJane
October 22, 2019 at 08:46
I just glanced at the Guardian’s front page. Not a word about Julian Assange. We are however being asked to feel sympathy for Meghan Markle’s treatment by the tabloids.
So at least they’re bringing us the important news.
Well said, Jane. I’m proud of you, sista!
T
'[John] Pilger described how Julian Assange’s “voice was so weak we could barely hear it. He almost sounded like a changed man and that is what the years of detention and the months of incarceration in Belmarsh have done to him.”
DeleteThe proceedings were “a grotesque absurdity” since the extradition law between the UK and US supposedly precludes extradition “if the offences are political.” In the case of Assange, “the offences are political in law–it is not a bit of agitprop. It is not an opinion—they are political.”
Assange’s treatment in Belmarsh high security prison was “worse than that of a murderer. Murderers can fraternise. Julian is not allowed to.” The authorities were keeping him in virtual solitary confinement. “This is a deliberate action–and the source of this is a rogue state—a state that ignores its own laws and international laws.”'
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/10/23/assa-o23.html
@ 08:05
DeleteMany thanks for the link.
T
Why is Julian Assange Being Tortured to Death?
Deletehttps://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/09/karen-kwiatkowski/why-is-julian-assange-being-tortured-to-death/
BB
United Kingdom makes it difficult for a Spanish judge to interrogate Assange for espionage suffered in London
Deletehttps://translate.google.com/translate?sl=es&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Felpais.com%2Finternacional%2F2019%2F10%2F18%2Factualidad%2F1571413462_324840.html
BB
Assange is a martyr to the cause whether or not he lives or.He is the new icon. What's happened and continuing to happen to him is all the evidence you need to understand that those who rule the world and own us view free speech and truth the same way as they view terrorism; it's a threat.Not to 'national security'( yawn) but to their tyranny and hate.
DeleteWhat Assange has done in the 21st century is braver than what ML King Jr, Gandhi ,John Lennon,JFK, Bobby K, Malcolm X did in the 20th century.He didn't just want to wake the world up to truth and to end war, he wanted to alert us to the evil that men do and how to arm ourselves against them.To expose the evil for what it is. To show is that democracy is little more than a word used to keep us quiet. Calling him a hero doesn't cover it.
Z
Ziggy 23 October 2019 at 20:02
DeleteI agree wholeheartedly!
John Pilger - Julian Assange’s Extradition Case is a SHOW TRIAL!
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQEri7m1ZaM
BB (aka Butler Bob)
Stockholm Syndrome – Julian Assange and the Limits of Guardian Dissent
Deletehttps://www.globalresearch.ca/stockholm-syndrome-julian-assange-limits-guardian-dissent/5689559
BB
Australian investigative journalist exposes Guardian/New York Times betrayal of Assange
Deletehttps://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/08/10/assa-a10.html
BB
https://reason.com/2019/10/21/nick-cave-slams-woke-culture-as-self-righteous-and-suppresive/
ReplyDeleteBB
Hi BB 22 October 2019 at 15:41
DeleteUnfortunately, the Assange case is very sparsely covered by Swedish media, but I do the best I can to keep myself informed about it. We could have granted Assange asylum here in Sweden, but we did not want to risk our relationship with Big Brother. So much for our independence.
What is now going on in Westminster Magistrates' Court and in Belmarsh prison is nothing but a parody of the North Korean legal process against Otto Warmbier and other Westerners. The whole farce is actually reminiscent of Roland Freissler's one-man show in "Volksgerichthof" 1944, when the rebels against ”das deutsche Reich” were arbitrarily sentenced to death.
We could easily laugh at and make fun of Donald Trump, Theresa May and her successor, forgetting that they’re in the process of demolishing the democratic institutions in our modern societies, which have been the very guarantee of our universal rights and our freedom. Craig Murray, to whom you refer, and also John Pilger have understood this and before them the linguistic Noam Chomsky. So there may still be hope, but judging from what I’ve seen and read about the Assange case, the treatment of him is unbelievably inhuman.
Thanks for the link BB.
DeleteNick Cave:
"I tend to become uncomfortable around all ideologies that brand themselves as 'the truth' or 'the way'. This not only includes most religions, but also atheism, radical bi-partisan politics or any system of thought, including 'woke' culture, that finds its energy in self-righteous belief and the suppression of contrary systems of thought. Regardless of the virtuous intentions of many woke issues, it is its lack of humility and the paternalistic and doctrinal sureness of its claims that repel me.
Antifa and the Far Right, for example, with their routine street fights, role-playing and dress-ups are participants in a weirdly erotic, violent and mutually self-sustaining marriage, propped up entirely by the blind, inflexible convictions of each other's belief systems. It is good for nothing, except inflaming their own self-righteousness."
Ain't it the truth? :)
NL
It sure ain’t no lie, methinks, my dear NL. :)
DeleteMet vriendelijke groet.
Butler Bob
Björn 22 October 2019 at 20:33
DeleteThank you, Björn.
BB
The jocular Nick pouring another barrel of misery onto a page.Lets' hope he doesn't add music to this lot.I think I'd prefer a sleeping pill.Less depressing.
ReplyDeleteSo, he's against conventional and bi-partisan politics ; he sees through it all.He's against those who see through it all as they claim to have woken up to the BS; he sees them as self righteous.
''it is its lack of humility and the paternalistic and doctrinal sureness of its claims that repel me.''
So, regardless of the many branches of alternative thinking and thinkers and commentators, he can brand them all under one banner.How does he feel about those who choose to over- generalize about things that require some in depth consideration before the commentary is spewed out.
Everyone's wrong and self righteous regardless of their convictions and Nick is right.We know this because Nick told us so.Just before he was 'repelled' by everyone straight after the press attention :)
It's Pound Shop Bono. Just what we needed..
Zig
If the McCanns aren't liars, why do they tell lies? Anybody seen the Oprah Winfrey interview? Gerry tells the most blatant lie - that Jane Tanner described independently the pyjamas worn by the child being carried away by 'Tannerman' as being similar to Madeleine's pyjamas. Jane Tanner thought at first that the man was carrying a bundle. He was originally described in the press as 'Bundleman' It took quite some time for Jane Tanner to 'remember' he was carrying a child and 'remember' what the child's pyjamas looked like.
ReplyDeleteWho needs 12 million, two forces, OG and MI5 when you have Oprah.So all we need now is for just one or two investigating officers to be sent the interview and we're on our way. Or, at the very least, the parents can be pressed on their blatant lie can't they.And when that's done, their could be an arrest or two using their needless lies as the reason.Or- shot in the dark- the lies aren't there.Hence nobody doing it..
DeleteThis epitomizes the core problems of trying to debate the case on the internet. It's a case of a missing ( assumed deceased by most) little girl.Not a game of Cluedo or an excuse to let off steam.
DeleteMuch is talked about regarding the funding.The number goes up annually, obviously.Much is discussed about the book of claims made by the former PJ co-ordinator, Amaral. Much is made about the amount of time it has taken two police forces to get nowhere, the unprecedented involvement of several of the highest ranking UK Politicians and much is debated and theorized with regard to what the dogs indicated to, what the DNA revealed( or failed to).Then, all of those points, that whole cast of characters and list of hypotheses, are put too one side and it's claimed that the key to cracking the case was on a daytime TV interview with Oprah.Unintentionally setting the cause of one camp back years..
Zig
Hi, Jane
DeleteI appreciate your concerns. I’m not free from many similar concerns myself. I think the problem here is that when you say “they tell lies”, you express an opinion. I have no problem with opinions, but to be able to get from your having an opinion to being able to show beyond reasonable doubt that your opinion fits the known reality is what ultimately counts. I know the interview you speak of. Imagine putting what you’ve said to Gerry and getting the answer ‘Sorry, my mistake etc.’ End of story?
For instance, you may ask if what I’ve just said is my opinion. I’d answer ‘Yes, it is.’ Can I show beyond reasonable doubt that this my opinion fits the known reality? I think I can.
Most of the witnesses in this case tell contradictory stories. Does that mean that they all are lying? I don’t think so.
Please don’t think I believe they all are entirely truthful.
Regards and good wishes.
T
Here's the video. He tells a very big lie at 13.45 minutes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=&list=PL4uHD3UrFU26YYq8LKDho6m2S9OQMNVo9&index=84&t=822s
DeleteHe says that Jane tanner reported seeing a man carrying a girl who looked like Madeleine and was wearing pyjamas like Madeleine;s pyjamas.That's not a lie.Jane Tanner did say that.Or are you suggesting Jane Tanner was lying ? If so, that would make her the liar wouldn't it.
Delete@03:31
DeleteMr Zurricane
Oprah interview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS9NH5azgWY at 13:45
GM: “And it was at that point she was just passed us going up to the corner and she saw a man carrying a young girl with almou.. you know she described independently [stressed by GM] the pyjamas that Madeleine had on.”
I think that is what Jane considers to be a lie, and I think I can see why. What convinces you that Jane “described independently the pyjamas that Madeleine had on”? How strong is your conviction?
Crying Tom
Mr Sawyer...
DeleteYou ask me what convinces me that Jane described - independently- the pyjamas that Madeleine had on..
I didn't say I was convinced.She may have described it, she may not have.I was discussing the Oprah interview and the alleged 'big lie' GM is supposed to have told.My point being that he was reporting something Jane T had said and included in her statement to the police.So that's on paper; she did say it.Is it a lie to say she said it ?If Jane T was lying in the first place , be it to GM and KM or the PJ, that's another area altogether.But does that make the GM statement a 'big lie' ? He stresses- you believe- the word independently. Has he stressed that to make the point that the parents had not tried to influence Jane Tanner ? Or has he stressed it as he's heard, seen and read accusations suggesting that all the parents were guilty of covering up their guilt.Was it stressed merely in anticipation of more of the same.
Sometimes all we need is Occam's razor.I'd say that we would need a few of them to start from the beginning and walk through.It's the only tool that's never been really tried on this investigation.Thanks to the internet..
Zig..
With O’s razor
Delete26 Oct at 03:31
The Rt Hon Zig-Zen-Zar: ”Tanner did say that.”
Onus probandi
(Bare bones)
Delete“Jane Tanner did say that.”
?
I’m off to the House of Fun now, bruv, to confess and taste some flesh and blood, and then off to the beach with the priest and a couple on nuns to pray, play some poker and drink ourselves silly. I’ll reply to your other epistles tomorrow. Brush your teeth, polish you toenails and get ready!
DeleteBlessings
The Rt Hon T
With Occam's Razor, microscope and fluorescent dye stain and finest finger print powder...
DeleteI think we can all safely deduce that GM was talking about Madeleine's PJs being pink, therefore, the statement of JT given to the PJ suggesting that a small girl with light hair and light coloured ''possibly pink'' PJs was and is relevant.It is relevant because of the resemblance of the child to Madeleine and the similarity of the child's PJs to those worn by Madeleine ( Pink).Gm would therefore point out that JT volunteered that evidence independently, not after being prompted to incriminate herself for perjury.It can be concluded that he's stressing that it's too much of a coincidence.Whether JT seen anyone at all, or whether she saw someone carrying their own child isn't important in the context of the point being talked about here.That she said it to the PJ is true, regardless of the merit of her statement- she still made it.So, for GM to refer to it isn't him telling a big lie ..
''4078 “And the description of the child, ‘A Caucasian child. About the ages of three to four. Was seen to lie motionless, limp in the man’s arms, with her sleeping or possibly drugged. She didn’t seem to be wrapped up well for the time of night, wearing only pyjamas...The top was not seen well enough, although there was thought to be another colour involved, possibly pink. She was not wearing shoes.''
The 'possibly pink' is an understandable speculation on JT's part.Light colours from White, Beige, or Pastel are hard to distinguish in a sodium glare..
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
Chief Inspector Zigmund Of T'yard..
What about Kate McCann?
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS9NH5azgWY&start=854
Kate McCann: “The child was barefoot and bare armed and he had a quite heavy jacket on so I think it was one of those things that just seemed a little bit odd but obviously it’s not until later on that you realise.”
Jane Tanner didn’t say the child was bare armed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zqoj-pfBUnY&start=667
Richard Bilton: “Describe exactly what he's carrying, what you could see.”
Jane Tanner: “Well I could see.. I could tell it was a child, and I could see the feet and... the feet and the bottom of the pyjamas, and I just thought that child's not got any shoes on because you could see the feet...”
Anonymous 27 October 2019 at 16:22
DeleteChief Inspector Zeus
Is that all you have to say? Had I been minded to mimic you, I could say ‘The jocular Zee pouring another barrel of textbook errors onto a page. Lets' hope he doesn't add music to this lot. I think I'd prefer a sleeping pill. Less depressing.’ You are lucky to benefit on this occasion from my aversion to undressing you in public.
Now, let me smell your breath and show me you toenails. Gooood… Back to the beach for me, back to the drawing board for you, inspector And please don’t call me ‘all’. Dismissed.
It is my judgment that insofar as there have come to light no facts capable of, on the balance of probabilities, undermining the validity of Jane’s opinion (@25 October 2019 at 17:42), the opinion still stands valid, and the question ‘Where did Jane Tanner described independently the pyjamas that Madeleine had on?’ remains unanswered.
Major Tom.
Anonymous 27 October 2019 at 21:22
DeleteGood grief! Kate can’t keep schtum, again. Sound like it’s another gotcha… Can she be making it up as she goes?... She is a mother in a state of immense distress, you’ll be told. But then the fault lies with Jane Tanner. It may actually be a double fault. And on, and on, and on…
Thank you. I owe you a lollypop. No, a box of lollypops. Trust me you deserve it.
Let’s hear Inspector Zilch’s opinion on this, shall we?
Can you explain what a TV interview of Km has to do with GM telling a lie on Oprah ? If the allegation is that GM 'told a big lie' about the sighting and the statement given to the PJ explains that he was quoting what JT had said, it shows he wasn't lying.That's been explained here.Whether or not JT was lying about the sighting is a whole different area.That's a question about her integrity and honesty regarding her co-operation with the PJ.Not what GM said much later in a TV interview.
DeleteThe angle JT was supposedly viewing the sighting would mean there was little chance of seeing the child's arms.But , in the dark night, lit only by sodium lamps, she managed to describe the size of the child and likely age and what she was wearing.She wasn't studying the man or the child,Why would she be ?She saw them passing in the dark and didn't know at that time that Madeleine was even missing.Does that make her an unreliable witness or a liar ?There;s two teams of detectives who can test both.
Richard Bilton is a journalist. He interviewed her for a documentary.He isn't a detective.
The investigation relies upon police statements and witness testimony if no forensic evidence exists.The case isn't going to be solved by scrutinizing interviews on television, whether they're documentaries or chat shows.Like it or not, they are both categorized under 'entertainment' and are about viewing figures.Nobody was ever arrested, charged then prosecuted because something that the police missed was spotted and caught on camera by a chat show host or documentary maker.And it definitely won't be spotted by someone using Youtube as a primary source of anything more than entertainment...
Zig
Anonymous27 October 2019 at 11:53
DeleteHonourable T...
You know how to celebrate the sabbath still.It's been a long time since i last tasted flesh or blood.But If I ever make good my escape from this castle, you best lock up the Nuns, And definitely the mother superior.I never come in peace.I spread my good word and scatter..so to speak. I hope you weren't too rough with the Priest.They're delicate souls at the best of times, even in their rare moments of sobriety and violence.I'll leave the door to my confessional ajar...
Padre Zig
14:59
DeleteJane Tanner is not a liar, she's an eyewitness. Kate McCann is an unreliable informant.
Anonymous28 October 2019 at 11:19
Delete''Anonymous 27 October 2019 at 16:22
Chief Inspector Zeus
Is that all you have to say? ''
That's the beauty of Occam, Major T. No need to throw so many eggs into the pudding.
The point in discussion was singular and clear : GM stood(here) accused of 'telling a big lie''. Not to any detectives, but to Oprah on her show( heaven forbid you lie to the mighty one).
The 'big lie' was concerning the claim made by Jane Tanner that described a child that looked similar to Madeleine and who was dressed similar to her and was being carried away in a man's arms.
I questioned why it could be called a lie.It could only be called a lie had she not made such a statement.If she hadn't made such a statement then GM would be citing her and her claim falsely-ergo telling a big lie.Her statement was made to the PJ in May, shortly after Madeleine went missing.I supplied the link to that statement.I asked, again. what was the 'big lie' told by GM given that source being provided here.In response i received no answer, but a reference to what KM said in ( yet another) TV interview( which has nothing to do with GM telling his ' big lie' and a reference to Jane Tanner talking in ( yet another) TV interview.That too has little or nothing to do with the original accusation in discussion- that GM 'told a big lie'.
Is there more than that to say ? There was a clearly stated opinion voiced about GM claiming he was lying on TV. All I did was question it's validity and remind readers that it can't be considered a fact as the actual evidence( JT's statement to the PJ) supported GM's assertion that JT had made an eye witness statement to the PJ.So, by referencing that, and JT, he wasn't lying.I re-iterate, the accusation wasn't that JT had lied to the PJ or TV but that GM had lied on the Oprah show.I countered the unsupported opinion that somebody had reached by someone after watching a chat show, with a fact that exists in the PJ files in a police station in Prai Da Luz.
Zig the clarifier..
Anonymous 28 October 2019 at 14:59
DeleteZig dear
“Can you explain what a TV interview of Km has to do with GM telling a lie on Oprah?”
Both GM and KM, unreliable witnesses, clearly refer to something which Tanner, an unreliable witness in her own right, has certainly never said she’d seen. Don’t you think it reasonable to ask why three intelligent, educated people talking about something ostensibly very important to them make very simple statements that contradict each other? The only answer I can think of is that something doesn’t smell good as far as these three are concerned. Never mind Oprah and Bilton, I’m puzzled that even someone as bright as you, comrade, refuses to see this.
We are discussing our opinions here, not their impact or absence thereof on the investigation.
Furthermore, on the one hand you believe in the existence of a conspiracy of some kind, while on the other, you argue as if the conspiracy does not extend to PJ and OG. Would you care to share your thought on this?
I’m not Anonymous 27 October 2019 at 21:22
T
Anonymous 28 October 2019 at 20:42
DeleteComrade Clari
Proper application of O’s R results in the remaining unanswered question:
Where did Jane Tanner described independently the pyjamas that Madeleine had on?
-----
Actually, forget ‘independently’ for now.
Since we are comrades, a couple of clues., Jane inferred that she saw a ‘girl’ whose pyjama bottoms had a particular finish at the bottom and possibly a pink aspect. She said nothing about the top of the garment. Is it your opinion that Jane described the pyjamaS Madeleine allegedly had on? It certainly isn’t mine, comrade.
By the way, the pyjama bottoms Madeleine was allegedly wearing at the time of the alleged abduction were “white with a small floral pattern” according to Kate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ3ForLXJT0 at 1:28
“…and the bottoms as you can see are white with a small floral pattern…”
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/crimewatchappeal.jpg
I’ve got more but can’t tell you while shaving if you know what I mean. ;)
Namaste.
Yours affectionately
Tom
Certainly, Comrade..
Deleteregardless of opinions regarding the reliability of KM, GM and JT as witnesses, the allegation made here was that GM was 'telling a big lie'. That's it.Top and bottom.As I epmhasised( or attempted to), I wasn't discussing how reliable any of them are as witnesses or if i think any of them were lying in their statements.I was stating that what GM stated on TV was referring to JT's statement and recollections of the night in question.had she not made such statements and signed her PJ statement to that effect, then GM would definitely be lying.But, as the link i provided suggests, JT did describe a child who looked like Madeleine and who was dressed like Madeleine and who was being carried away from the relevant area.So, Gm referring to that isn't him lying.Even if JT was found to have perjured herself by making a false statement and perverting the course of justice, it still doesn't mean GM was lying.He can say he had no reason to disbelieve her as the PJ and SY seemed happy to believe her.
You can no more arrest or finger- point at people because you think something doesn't 'smell good'.If you smell something and you're a detective, or part of a very large team of detective, you shpuld locate the source and identify the smell.Othewise we're in 'their eyes are too close together' country.I think there are several areas that smell wrong in the case. It's easy to go for the obvious( it was the respectable middle class doctors wot did it) and it confirms all our expertise that we gleaned from years of murder mysteries, Sherlock Holmes, and Poirot series.Too easy.I 'alerted' or 'indicated' smells around Murat and his mother, 3 PMs, MI6, a few home secretaries,Mitchell and all involved with any Murdoch professionally or socially.So, yes, I buy the conspiracy.But they're a tight knit group with too much power.The culprits are worth the expense and time to maintain the illusion of a big 'mystery'.If the parents and JY and Co are so 'obviously' involved in something and covering for each other, they would all have been prosecuted.If it's as clear and obvious as internet coppers think- it would have happened.None of these doctors have the power or influence to hold 3 PMs and two governments over a barrel in the UK or Portugal.If that was true, all the intel community and Politicians as well as police of two countries have colluded to make themselves look incompetent, corrupt and reckless with public money in a time of severe austerity.No.I'm afraid logic suggests a cover up far higher than the parents and friends.Unless someone somewhere can explain the unprecedented political interest and interference and continued expense of flogging a horse everyone knows has been dead for 11 plus years.
Zig
Anonymous28 October 2019 at 18:31
Delete14:59
''Jane Tanner is not a liar, she's an eyewitness. Kate McCann is an unreliable informant.''
And that's opinion not fact.But, that aside, it matters not what KM or JT is or might be.The allegation was that GM 'told a big lie' on the Oprah show.Not JT or KM.
Zig
Anonymous 27 October 2019 at 16:22
Delete“That's the beauty of Occam, Major T. No need to throw so many eggs into the pudding.”
I beg to differ, comrade. The beauty of O’s R is that it reminds one not to litter one’s argument with that which is unnecessary/irrelevant. I know you know that.
“The point in discussion was singular and clear : GM stood(here) accused of 'telling a big lie''. Not to any detectives, but to Oprah on her show( heaven forbid you lie to the mighty one).”
A lie is a lie.
“The 'big lie' was concerning the claim made by Jane Tanner that described a child that looked similar to Madeleine and who was dressed similar to her and was being carried away in a man's arms.”
You seem to be making it up as you go. Jane Tanner didn’t claim what you say she did. Please check her statements. You misrepresent the point of our discussion – “The big lie” (Jane 25 October 2019 at 17:42 Here's the video. He tells a very big lie at 13.45 minutes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=&list=PL4uHD3UrFU26YYq8LKDho6m2S9OQMNVo9&index=84&t=822s )
“I questioned why it could be called a lie.It could only be called a lie had she not made such a statement.”
Congratulations! You got it in one! J Tanner had not made such a statement.
“If she hadn't made such a statement then GM would be citing her and her claim falsely-ergo telling a big lie.Her statement was made to the PJ in May, shortly after Madeleine went missing.I supplied the link to that statement.”
You gave a link to Jane Tanner’s rogatory interview with DC Ferguson of Leicestershire Constabulary, conducted on 8 April 2008. That might’ve been a genuine error. However, the two previous interviews conducted by PJ in early May 2007 also contain nothing to support your side of the argument.
I hate to rub it in, comrade, but if you carry on the way you have done so far, not only will you lose the argument, but you will lose it BIG. Keep despair at bay, there will be another day, another argument for you to win, I’m sure. ;)
Affectionately argumentative T
Re my Anonymous 30 October 2019 at 10:44 comment
DeleteThe first line should’ve been Anonymous 28 October 2019 at 20:42, not Anonymous 27 October 2019 at 16:22
T
Anonymous30 October 2019 at 10:44
Delete''The beauty of O’s R is that it reminds one not to litter one’s argument with that which is unnecessary/irrelevant. I know you know that.''
Indeed I do.My idea of hat is relevant and irrelevant is clear.If you accuse somebody of lying, you need to demonstrate how they are lying.if you can't you're just an accuser.If you don't like or believe what you hear, that doesn't make it lie. To demonstrate the lie as a lie, you show proof.The lie in question here is the one Gm allegedly told on Oprah.He made reference to JT's claim that she had seen a man in the are carrying what appeared to be a small girls asleep in his arms who was dressed in what appeared to be light coloured, possibly pink( it was dark and under a sodium glare) pyjamas.If JT had never made such a claim or statement, then GM would indeed be guilty of lying.But she had made such a statement.
''I hate to rub it in, comrade, but if you carry on the way you have done so far, not only will you lose the argument, but you will lose it BIG. ''
If I'm wrong in my claim that nothing was stated in the Oprah interview that can be rightfully called a lie, then somebody should email the police forces of two countries with the link and the incriminating line.It would be a relevant area of investigation.
If we continue to exclude the detective and actual investigation in favour of an online debate using only TV interviews and youtube as our star witnesses then can we remind ourselves that Oprah interviewed the McCanns two long years after the events in PDl. Jane Tanner was interviewed on Panorama only 6 months after them in 2007.
"Only because the pyjamas had a pinky aspect to them so you presume a girl...I knew what I'd seen. I gave that information to the police and because of the pyjamas I'm absolutely convinced that is what I saw."
two years later ( Oprah)
GM : ''"During that time, [a friend from dinner] went to check on her children, and it was at that point - she was just past us - she saw a man carrying a young girl...She saw me there - she'd seen that I'd just been in the apartment - so at the time she thought it was something off, but it didn't raise enough alarm bells to challenge the person with anything.''
So, why would JT study the man or child at length.She had no reason to.She could see GM and as far as anyone knew at that time, Madeleine was in bed asleep.Bottom line, if JT was /is lying about the sighting, does that make GM a liar or JT ? To say it's GM is to accuse him of covering up the fate of his child and coercing a friend into perverting the course of justice. Are we going for that with no evidence as well ? Or are we just whispering it through a hole in the fence..
Namsate..
Zigmund
https://news.sky.com/story/madeleine-mccann-what-the-tapas-seven-knew-saw-and-said-10860209
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/may/05/madeleinemccann
Talking O’s R, Ziggmund. Just quote Jane Tanner describing the pyjamas that Madeleine had on. It’s that simple. Surely you know on what you argument is based. Just quote, that will do for me. I enjoy talking with you, but I’ve got many adoring admirers who also need my attention, you know.
DeleteT
Zig @29 October 2019 at 18:43
Delete“And that's opinion not fact”
In your opinion.
Re Anonymous 26 October 2019 at 17:38
DeleteI don’t think there has been a misunderstanding caused by my saying “What convinces you that Jane “described independently the pyjamas that Madeleine had on”?” I was referring to Jane Tanner in that instance, not to our ‘Jane’
Crying Tom
Anonymous30 October 2019 at 10:44
Delete''I beg to differ, comrade. The beauty of O’s R is that it reminds one not to litter one’s argument with that which is unnecessary/irrelevant. I know you know that.''
I do indeed, T.That's what I mean't by over-egging a pudding.Perhaps we have a different idea of what's relevant and irrelevant.
''A lie is a lie.''
Astute as ever, T.But the question in discussion is whether or not the remark made by GM is one.I believe if you accuse somebody of a lie, it's your duty to point out why it's a lie.Give evidence.Just because it's a remark you may not like or that you disagree with, isn't sufficient reason to call it a lie or the the source of it a liar.
''You seem to be making it up as you go. Jane Tanner didn’t claim what you say she did. Please check her statements. You misrepresent the point of our discussion ''
I was discussing how GM was or wasn't lying when referencing the incident in PDL as JT remembered it.But, if you would rather discuss comments made to reporters and on chat shows as though they have equal importance as statements made to the police, that's fine.Let's keep the police out of this child's disappearance and get back into the theatre of the imagination where everything's always so obvious and evidence and facts can be dismissed if they spoil the game..
The Oprah show was aired on the 2nd anniversary of the event.That's two long years and several thousand internet investigations and much funding of the case later.I'm not saying memories would be blurred.It was too traumatic an event for that.But let's stay within 6 months of the event.Novemebr 2007 :
''"Only because the pyjamas had a pinky aspect to them so you presume a girl. ..I knew what I'd seen. I gave that information to the police and because of the pyjamas I'm absolutely convinced that is what I saw."
All light colours look similar under a sodium glare at night time.Why would she have scrutinised the man or the child at that point anyway ?Nobody knew then what had taken place.It just looked like a man talking a sleepy child home.When GM referenced the sighting as reported by JT how could he be lying ? If JT is or was lying, then that's her lying, not him.For all the evidence and suspicion that exists, we could say she was lying to the parnts too as she knew the kidnapper.Why not- that can't be proven either.
''but if you carry on the way you have done so far, not only will you lose the argument, but you will lose it BIG''
That couldn't happen given all of the above.You have used Occam's razor to split hairs.I've examined said hairs and delivered my point.I thank you.
Namaste
Professor Zigmund
https://news.sky.com/story/madeleine-mccann-what-the-tapas-seven-knew-saw-and-said-10860209
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/may/05/madeleinemccann
Anonymous30 October 2019 at 21:06
Delete''Talking O’s R, Ziggmund. Just quote Jane Tanner describing the pyjamas that Madeleine had on... Surely you know on what you argument is based...Just quote, that will do for me... I’ve got many adoring admirers who also need my attention, you know.''
I don't doubt it, Major.And between your good selves, I fear you have moved from using Occam's razor to split the atom.The hairs showed nothing of worth...
Before i explain- again- what my argument is based on, I'll remind you and your adoring fans what it actually is first.My argument is that GM did NOT knowingly tell '' a big lie'' ob the Oprah show.As far as he knew and as far as the case is the investigation is concerned, JT told the police and, later a reporter, that she had seen a man carrying chat appeared to be a sleeping child in his arms close to where the apartments are.She said she assumed that it was a little girl by what she thought were pyjamas that appeared pinkish.It's fair to assume a small child in pyjamas that are pink is likely to be a girl.It is fair to assume they were pyjamas as it was bed time for small children and she wasn't awake.
Seeing that is likely to make a holidaymaker assume that a Dad was carrying his sleeping child home, or to an apartment or hotel .There was no reason to have any suspicions as , at that time, nobody had seen that Madeleine had vanished.So, JT or anyone else, had no reason to follow the man, get closer to the man or study him or his child.It's also fair to allow a slight margin for error given that it was dark and the sodium glare of the PDL street lights would give all light coloured clothing a certain hue that would prevent an accurate description of the colours.
On discovering that Madeleine had gone it is suggested that JT put 2 and 2 together and remembered that sighting and thought it could have been a kidnapper.It cold have been.Or, it could have been another parent with another child.But in 2007 and 2009 that sighting was( and is still) on record.When GM was explaining that JT had sighted it, he was quoting her description and what she claims she saw.I repeat, even if JT was lying, that doesn't mean GM was lying on the Oprah show.To suggest he was, is to insinuate that JT was /is lying and he is supporting it ; that they have colluded to pervert the course of justice.My argument isn't about whether JT was lying or not.It's that GM can't be called a liar by reminding Oprah and viewers what JT claims she saw.
JT 2007
''"Only because the pyjamas had a pinky aspect to them so you presume a girl. ..I gave that information to the police and because of the pyjamas I'm absolutely convinced that is what I saw."
GM 2009 ( Oprah)
"[Our friend] described independently the pyjamas that Madeleine had on, [but] she didn't see the child's face," .
That clearly means that JT described a small girl wearing pyjamas that were pink and that Madeleine had been wearing pink pyjamas.So she described the coincidence independently of being told about the pyjamas Madeleine wore.
"She saw me there - she'd seen that I'd just been in the apartment ..but it didn't raise enough alarm bells to challenge the person with anything.'' ( as nobody realised Madeleine had gone at that time..
Link provided for both quotes above..
Zig Holmes
Anonymous31 October 2019 at 15:05
DeleteZig @29 October 2019 at 18:43
“And that's opinion not fact”
In your opinion.'
Very true. Another one of my opinions is that you need to show proof to be able to call something a fact.If you can't, it's an opinion.
Zig
Professor Gizmund
Delete27 October 2019 at 16:22
“I think we can all safely deduce that GM was talking about Madeleine's PJs being pink…”
I am afraid I can’t unless I hear/see GM say that.
“…therefore, the statement of JT given to the PJ suggesting that a small girl with light hair and light coloured ''possibly pink'' PJs was and is relevant.”
It was and is relevant. In JT’s statements, there is no mention the child she saw was a girl. She didn’t see the child’s hair. All she described were the child’s legs from the knees down and what she allegedly thought were “possibly pink” pyjama bottoms. Nothing in her statements amounts exclusively to GM’s “she described … the pyjamas that Madeleine had on.
“It is relevant because of the resemblance of the child to Madeleine and the similarity of the child's PJs to those worn by Madeleine ( Pink).”
With respect, you seem to be putting words into JT’s mouth, and/or into GM’s head. She didn’t independently tell the police the child resembled Madeleine. She didn’t describe the child’s PJs. According to her parents, Madeleine’s pyjama bottoms were white.
In my opinion, the similarity you speak of almost certainly was on the tip of GM’s tongue when he started with “…a young girl with almou…” , self-edited and, instead of saying something that could’ve been at least partly true, continued with “you know she described independently the pyjamas that Madeleine had on.”
As I’ve already said, all you need to do is quote JT’s words which can be understood as meaning, exclusively, that she saw “the pyjamas that Madeleine had on.” Ziimples, Prof.
It causes me great discomfort that after days of discussion and several hundreds of words from you, Professor, no asked-for quotation capable of giving substance to your argument has been put forth. Dear old Occam must be rolling in his grave, doncha fink? I did advise you to completed the trivium, remember?
I’m not prepared to accept your substituting your celebrated pertinaciousness and magniloquence for the long-waited-for quote, comrade. I’m sorry.
Yours lovingly
Augmentatively argumentative T
I'm crying.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaLZ6vf0Ybc Pat Brown Intervew
DeleteI wouldn’t normally accept MSM references, I mentioned this to you in the past, but since we are comrades and I feel generous like… what the hell!
https://news.sky.com/story/madeleine-mccann-what-the-tapas-seven-knew-saw-and-said-10860209
“Asked if she could tell if it was a boy or a girl, she continued: "Only because the pyjamas had a pinky aspect to them so you presume a girl.”
“And asked if she was absolutely certain of what she saw, she replied: "I knew what I'd seen. I gave that information to the police and because of the pyjamas I'm absolutely convinced that is what I saw."”
Ok. So what did JT say she had seen (PJ) in the only, according to JT, independent statement of hers?
4 May
“(**) About the child whom appeared to be sleeping, she only saw her legs. The child appeared to be older than a baby. She was barefoot and was wearing what appeared to be cotton pyjamas of a light colour (possibly white or light pink). She is not certain, but has the impression a design on the pyjamas, possibly a floral pattern, but she is not certain.
As regards these details, she does not know what Madeleine was wearing at the moment of her disappearance, because she did not talk to anyone about this.”
Namaste
T
Re me at 1 November 2019 at 15:22
DeleteThe link at the top of the page is not relevant. My fault. Sorry.
T
Anonymous 30 October 2019 at 20:06
DeleteO’s R in action again:
Milord: “The lie in question here is the one Gm allegedly told on Oprah.He made reference to JT's claim that she had seen a man in the are carrying what appeared to be a small girls asleep in his arms who was dressed in what appeared to be light coloured, possibly pink( it was dark and under a sodium glare) pyjamas.”
GM: “…she saw a man carrying a young girl with almou.. you know she described independently the pyjamas that Madeleine had on.”
I is bleck, ilitirit an has veri littl brein, I knos. I relies on people of superior intelligence and knowledge to tell I, for definiteness, whether or not ‘appeared to be’, ‘appeared to be… possibly’ carry the same meaning as ’was’.
I awaits Milord’s opinion upon which I relies.
Anonymous 31 October 2019 at 21:39
Delete“Another one of my opinions is that you need to show proof to be able to call something a fact.If you can't, it's an opinion.”
In this discussion, showing ‘on the balance of probabilities’ should suffice.
T
T for two....
DeleteI can't believe I'm about to type this again but it seems I have to...
Somebody way up there^^^ referenced a line spoken by GM in an interview on the Oprah Show.She referenced it as him 'telling a big lie''. All I have asked is for the accuser to prove it's a lie and not a fact.I didn't invite a debate about JT's sighting.She had made it public that she made that sighting and described what she saw.GM was reminding Oprah and viewers of that.So- how was GM lying.See ?
But, as you seem to have developed a taste for splitting hairs and composing rain dances with your reasoning..I'll play...
JT claims to have seen a child.OK we know that she was small enough for an adult to be carrying that child.She didn't say she saw the face.As my link above points out- she said the pyjamas appeared to be pinkish and that pink pyjamas on small children often or always indicates that the child will be a girl.Not long after that sighting of the child and GM on the corner, they discovered Madeleine had disappeared.Suddenly that sighting takes on new relevance.When she made the sighting there was no reason to suspect anything or anyone of anything.So she had no reason to approach the man and scrutinize him and the child.GMs statement ( as quoted above) supports the logic of this.When GM says that JT 'independently' described Madeleine's pyjamas we have to consider first that it was a TV interview and not A-level English Language Exam day.I read that as amounting to JT -without realisng it- was describing Madeleine's pyjamas.Or, at a stretch ' as 'unknowingly' describing them.
So, if JT saw a small child asleep or unconscious being carried away from the area of the apartments and the light pyjamas appeared pink then it could be assumed pink= girls pyjamas.As Madeleine had disappeared it would be a short leap to assume that she was the child that was being carried away unconscious.
So, T, what you are and aren't prepared to accept is of secondary importance here.You are grabbing the spotlight and shining it at JT and her credibility as a witness when all i asked for from question 1 was proof that GM was telling a big lie.When you or your client can do that, we have a case to put before the prosecution service in PDL if they have one now..
Any conclusion based on the balance of probabilities where neither side has proof can only be decided by a neutral unbiased body.So it won't happen here.The argument is whether GM lied on TV or not.is their proof of it.Or is it an opinion.The argument is not about the credibility of JT.Unless it can be shown and supported by proof that JTs sighting was a lie and that she perverted the course of justice then the argument is over the credibility of GM's referencing of it...
Ziggermundo King of Semantia
Ziggermundo King of Semantia November 2019 at 00:31
DeleteYour Semantic Majesty
“I can't believe I'm about to type this again but it seems I have to...”
Sincerely, neither can I. You had a choice, you didn’t have to, I swear…
“Jane 25 October 2019 at 17:42
Here's the video. He tells a very big lie at 13.45 minutes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=&list=PL4uHD3UrFU26YYq8LKDho6m2S9OQMNVo9&index=84&t=822s”
Seems clear enough.
Anonymous 26 October 2019 at 03:31
“He says that Jane tanner reported seeing a man carrying a girl who looked like Madeleine and was wearing pyjamas like Madeleine;s pyjamas.That's not a lie.Jane Tanner did say that.Or are you suggesting Jane Tanner was lying ? If so, that would make her the liar wouldn't it.”
Crying Tom 26 October 2019 at 17:38
“@03:31
Mr Zurricane
Oprah interview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS9NH5azgWY at 13:45
GM: “And it was at that point she was just passed us going up to the corner and she saw a man carrying a young girl with almou.. you know she described independently [stressed by GM] the pyjamas that Madeleine had on.”
I think that is what Jane considers to be a lie, and I think I can see why. What convinces you that Jane “described independently the pyjamas that Madeleine had on”? How strong is your conviction?”
Zig 26 October 2019 at 18:58
“Mr Sawyer...
You ask me what convinces me that Jane described - independently- the pyjamas that Madeleine had on..
I didn't say I was convinced.”
I didn’t say you did, I asked a question.
“She may have described it, she may not have.”
So you are not convinced. You don’t know. If JT hadn’t described what JM said she had, then GM was telling porkies, right?
“I was discussing the Oprah interview and the alleged 'big lie' GM is supposed to have told.My point being that he was reporting something Jane T had said and included in her statement to the police.So that's on paper; she did say it.Is it a lie to say she said it ?”
You seem to have regained your composure and contradicted your ”…she may not have”. That’s’ ok, happens to the best of us.
However, if GM reported, as you have been insisting, something JT had independently said and included in her statement to the police, GM would’ve indeed been reporting the truth. That is why my salient question to you has been and still is ‘Where did JT say that which GM faithfully reported to Oprah? “That’s on paper…” Your answering my question would unambiguously reconcile our differences. It’s that simple. I still hope. No need for blinding me with your splendid rhetoric, comrade, instead of answering my question.
Unfailingly yours
Argumentatively dancing T, Citizen of Semantia
(You are being disingenuous: you have yet to let me get close to your hair, da’ling. :( What‘s an atom?)
Anonymous4 November 2019 at 12:54
Delete''So you are not convinced. You don’t know. If JT hadn’t described what JM said she had, then GM was telling porkies, right?''
Blimey daze..I see what you tried to do there.Scandalous.Approach the bench..
When i said I'm not convinced, i was referring to the fact that I wasn't convinced of the merit of JT actually seeing anyone.We only have her word for it.It could be 100% genuine or 100% false.I made that point to explain that i wasn't discussing the veracity of her sighting as it was the veracity of GM's referring it that was in discussion.had she said nothing, or something different, then GM would indeed have been 'telling porkies'.But he was only stating that she had reported seeing a man carrying a child earlier and that it was likely a girl in pyjamas.And she had said as much.Hence he isn't telling porkies- and definitely not a BIG porky.
''That is why my salient question to you has been and still is ‘Where did JT say that which GM faithfully reported to Oprah? “That’s on paper…” Your answering my question would unambiguously reconcile our differences. It’s that simple. I still hope. ''
OK...one more throw at the board- don't duck..
May 04 2007 11:30 ( day after the disappearance)
'' The child appeared to be older than a baby. She was barefoot and was wearing what appeared to be cotton pyjamas of a light colour (possibly white or light pink). She is not certain, but has the impression a design on the pyjamas, possibly a floral pattern, but she is not certain.''
Her 'independent' claim :
''As regards these details, she does not know what Madeleine was wearing at the moment of her disappearance, because she did not talk to anyone about this.''
PJ files
Now can you or your client demonstrate the BIG lie told by GM 2 years later on television....
I remain yours truly, His Highness The King Of All Semantia ( MBE)
Zurricane
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER.htm
Anonymous 5 November 2019 at 05:52
DeleteYour Zophistic Majesty
You @26 October 2019 at 03:31
“He says that Jane tanner reported seeing a man carrying a girl who looked like Madeleine and was wearing pyjamas like Madeleine;s pyjamas.That's not a lie.Jane Tanner did say that.”
Your “That” in “That's not a lie” clearly refers to what “He [GM] says…”. So what does he actually say? He says, according to you, “… that Jane tanner reported seeing a man carrying a girl who looked like Madeleine, and was wearing pyjamas like Madeleine’s pyjamas.”, when, in fact, he says that Tanner “described independently the pyjamas that Madeleine had on”. Jane Tanner didn’t say she’d seen “a girl who looked like Madeleine.” In her statement/s, she had unambiguously expressed her uncertainty about what she had seen. GM avers, substituting certainty for a possibility/likelihood, that Jane Tanner described having seen the pyjamas that Madeleine had on, thus knowingly giving his listeners a false impression of Tanner’s reported observations. Had GM said that Jane Tanner had independently described pyjama bottoms that looked like/similar to/almost like Madeleine’s, then most likely we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Elementary, my dear Zatson.
Twice before, you and I had similar exchanges in which you failed to substantiate your assertions. You’ve failed again. Unnecessarily long and tedious it’s been, but that’s the price one has to pay for loving you, I suppose. Love is most nearly itself when here and now cease to matter. However, you again get top marks for your tenacity, rhetoric and sophistry, comrade Zurricane.
Keep despair at bay. Relax, don’t do it when you want to go to it.
Regard the moon, it hangs above the lawn;
Regard the lawn, it lies beneath the moon.
Encouragingly yours
Notoriously excruciatingly humble T
I’ve been re-reading Thomas Merton’s interpretation of Chuang Tzu. Wisdom’s gonna flow your way presently, Zlato. If you gotta few coins, I fancy a drink, bruv. I’m worth it, doncha think? ;)
A litigant in person has a fool for a client.
Dear oh dear and blimey daze squared, (an) T (honyhony)...
DeleteI wish this was all about semantics.I wish it was about anything of import.But it isn't..
let us ( again) remember that it was Oprah.Queen of all TV.It wasn't an English lesson.So the 'had' have' might'have' can be placed happily into the room 101 next to Donald Rumsfeld's ludicrous ''there are known knowns and known unknowns'' speech he delivered before not knowing where the ''missing trillions'' had gone to.Turns out they were in the WTC.Who knew( everyone, that's who ).
I say with confidence that the reference to the person in pyjamas JT referred to was a child she was describing.The man carrying her had dark hair you see.Further, she didn't mention Madeleine by name she said small child and that she inferred ( like you and I would have) that the pink in the pyjamas and possible floral deign suggested that it was a girl small enough to be carried in the way she was being carried.Given the context of the Madeleine McCann disappearance, anyone not seeing the importance of the sighting is failing to see it deliberately as it challenges a bias they have little else to use as crutches to support it.I fear you, and the accuser who made the allegation, are in that camp.This argument is yet another example of the anti-McCann camp pulling a few hamstrings trying to touch a star..
GM was referring to the sighting. He pointed to the coincidence of the child wearing pyjamas like the ones Madeleine had been wearing.Why ? Because the sighting was made minutes before it was discovered that Madeleine had gone.It was mad yards from where she had just been.It was a child about the same size as Madeleine and that the possible pink colouring and floral design suggested a girl. This doesn't prove that it wasn't a 7 year old small dark Spanish boy with a liking for pink, of course.But I think Amaral and his boys would have spotted a flaw to exploit in JTs statement and later used the Oprah show to test GM's '' big lie''. It matters not that he didn't say JT said she saw Madeleine and named her. Look at the bigger picture.And accept the relevance.
I accept that you see the discussion as tedious.I do too.I see about 85% of 'observations' from 'commentators' on the case as tedious and mind numbing . And that's the more readable ones. And, while i may have failed to answer questions in the past I can assure you it would have been an accident or oversight.I think I've answered almost as many questions as Ros.I enjoy standing my argument sup and testing opposition. It's a bit like a long time ago when I asked you to answer my question.I reminded you that you were fastidious in your analysis of any argument that didn't frame the McCanns as guilty of playing a major part in the disappearance of their daughter.You were thankful to those more lucid few who would argue their guilt despite the absence of anything other than suspicion and guesswork.I invited you to share your thoughts.I asked you who you thought was guilty in the piece.What happened to the child and at whose hands.If you don't see a cover up at the top( right to the top) then what do you think about the involvement of so nay leaders and the intel community.Bit much to save the skin of a doctor..
I always look at the moon.I watched it two nights ago.The raging wind and wild rain beat the world up for an hour solid.The moon was still and calm.But I was watching it..I knew. Solitude is corrupting me..
Wisdom has flowed my way for years.I let it flow around me and away.It's my thing, you know..
Know this, for this is wizdum.. I am sufficiently proud of my knowing something to be modest about my not knowing all..
Tasao Zig
Zig 23 October 2019 at 19:51
Delete“You say the parents can't hide their deception under controlled conditions even with carefully crafted scripts.Fair enough.That's your suspicion.Your opinion; your view.”
Zig 26 October 2019 at 03:31
“That's not a lie.Jane Tanner did say that.”
What was ‘fair enough’ for Ros should’ve also been ‘fair enough’ for Jane’s opinion (our Jane, not JT). You were biased.
I wasn't biased, I was being objective. It seems most of the arguments i've ended up in on the subject seem to be with people who don't understand what bias, critical and objective thinking and opinions all are and what the differences are.Ros will tell you that I've said to her a million times that opinions shouldn't be put forward as facts.It's wrong.A fact is a fact, an opinion is an opinion.So, if you have an opinion that suggests that somebody told a 'big lie' to millions you need to explain why it's a lie.It's easy to do.Unless you know all you're really doing is trying to sell your opinion as a fact.Then you can't.You duck the argument or admit you were / are wrong to do it.Like here..
DeleteZig
"Sweden issued an international arrest warrant for Assange over allegations of sexual assault in 2010. He was detained in the UK, and later bailed over the allegations.
ReplyDeleteIt followed claims that while on a visit to Stockholm to give a lecture, Assange had raped one woman and sexually molested and coerced another.
Assange says both encounters were entirely consensual and the Swedish efforts against him are part of a smear campaign.
snip
Swedish prosecutors dropped the rape investigation into Assange in 2017 because they were unable to formally notify him of the allegations while he stayed in the embassy.
The two other charges of molestation and unlawful coercion had to be dropped in 2015 because time had run out.
But even after Sweden dropped the charges, Assange stayed in the embassy as he still faced a UK charge of failing to surrender to a court."
Hi Anon 25 October 2019 at 01:14
ReplyDeleteOur newly initiated laws on sexual behaviour allow the Prosecutor's office to investigate quite normal consensual sexual intercourse in order to see if there’s something suspicious in it, that the radical Swedish feminism would perhaps dislike. In the Swedish Assagne case this movement is represented by Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilén, who gladly volunteered to have sex with the whistle-blower. However, it turned out to be in a slightly different way than they’d expected, so they felt that they’d to contact the authorities to find out whether they’d been the victims of rape or if they’d just enjoyed sex in a “normal way”.
snip
ReplyDeleteRape or 'sex by surprise' ?
At a time when Assange was proving to be the worst kind of nightmare for world liars /leaders- especially US leaders past and at that time present ( Obomber) he was suddenly a rapist who needed to be away from his computer and internet. or, to be more literal, in prison.But to jail a man for exposing the criminal exploits and lies of world leaders is to show the world that free speech is actually an illusion as is the democracy we're told we fight to uphold.So, good old rape will do for now...
In most places, the word 'rape' conjurs up images of force.Non-consentual sex.No means no, as Obomber told us back then( in between years of lying for money and committing genocide ).And, that's true; no does mean no.But what does yes mean ? The last time I looked, yes meant yes.In the context of the Assange stitch up, that means consent; ergo no rape.
So we get to the finer points of a bizarre law.That of 'sex by surprise'.At the time of the alleged party- i mean rape- sex by surprise meant the refusal of the man to wear a condom.Not to let go of the woman or zip up.In Assange's case it was reported back then that the woman didn't realise he hadn't worn one so she later decided she had been 'sex by surprised'- or raped. I say it was later, as she made other claims before the rape claims.On Twitter for instance she was boasting to all who would listen that she had just 'bedded' a celebrity.A rebel.Lots of thubs up followed.Then, suddenly twitter had removed her tweets.That's twitter- a US founded network.
You need to know more about the history or histories of 'Miss A' and 'Miss B' of the so-called case.Who they- or at least one of them- had been connected to before meeting Asasange.Then ask yourself if Assange had been walked into a honey trap made in America.The country he had exposed.
Zig
April 2019
DeleteAnna Ardin:
I would be very surprised & sad if Julian is handed over to the US. For me this was never about anything else than his misconduct against me/women and his refusal to take responsibility for this. Too bad my case could never be investigated properly, but it’s already been closed.
Manfred Pürro:
Why did Sweden never wanted to guarantee Assange no Extradition to the US in case he comes to Sweden? Don't you think your case (I believe is real) was misused to arrest him for the US? Aren't you mad that swedens authorities put US interests over solving your case?
Anna Ardin:
I think he misused Wikileaks to get away from personal responsibility. https://www.aklagare.se/nyheter-press/for-media/assangearendet/kan-assange-utlamnas-fran-sverige-till-usa/
Mat4Rou:
@therealardin
You know it's untrue. You know that the set of events that led to the extradition warrant and solitary confinement made him freak out, and genuinely think that this affair that was quickly closed by the first Swed. prosecutor has been weaponized by US into lawfare against him.
https://twitter.com/Math4Rou/status/1121783334005297152
Says it all..
DeleteThe suspicion is that the US was caught with it's pants down big time and Julian Assange made public what was dismissed time again as 'conspiracy theories by conspiracy nuts'.For once the internet was actually 'the information superhighway' it was wrongly promoted as.For once the unadulterated and ugly truth was confirmed. Uncle Sam had nothing.So, being the ''leader of the free world'', Uncle Sam set the witch hunt alight. They knew, and know, that eggs can NOT be unscrambled.Words can NOT be unsaid.So Assange had to go into exile and live the life of a prisoner while America worked on a way to make an example of him.he has become the sacrificial lamb.People will see the once immaculate, calm and confident orator and see an unhealthy, unkempt shadow of the man he was as Uncel Sam gets his wishes ( again).
The message is clear : ''you hate lies from your bosses ? You hate our genocide and war mongering ? You don't likke our psyops and false flags ?Keep it to yourself.We have ways of dealing with your type''
And so, the 'victim' of the rape is asked a personal and intimate question about her ordeal being used to make the cards fall in the Us favour. her answer is there. ''he misused wikileaks'. That one statement tells you all you need to know..
Zig
Calling Major T.....calling Major T......
ReplyDeleteI have addressed the thread you directed me to above ^^^^
You owe me A bottle of bubbles at least for enduring that little journey..
http://cristobell.blogspot.com/2019/09/im-delighted-libdems-have-decided-on.html?showComment=1571235358114#c3090724933671074724
Z ;)
If we could get the hang of it entirely
DeleteIt would take too long;
All we know is the splash of words in passing
And falling twigs of song,
And when we try to eavesdrop on the great
Presences it is rarely
That by a stroke of luck we can appropriate
Even a phrase entirely.
If we could find our happiness entirely
In somebody else’s arms
We should not fear the spears of the spring nor the city’s
Yammering fire alarms
But, as it is, the spears each year go through
Our flesh and almost hourly
Bell or siren banishes the blue
Eyes of Love entirely.
And if the world were black or white entirely
And all the charts were plain
Instead of a mad weir of tigerish waters,
A prism of delight and pain,
We might be surer where we wished to go
Or again we might be merely
Bored but in brute reality there is no
Road that is right entirely.
Oh bruv, I’m so sorry. I should’ve known better. I remember having a problem in the past when I gave you a link to a comment and it didn’t work. I thought at the time that we used different browsers and yours wouldn’t open the page the same way as mine. I used Firefox then, and yours was probably Safari. I certainly didn’t mean to invite you to read the whole blog, just the bit in Spanish. Stupid, stupid, stupid me!
My bleeding heart in bleeding heavens, I owe you more than just a bottle. Christmas is coming, would you like a very interesting book?
“We must love one another or die.”
T’s in tears, Sawyer is sorry.
May I draw your attention to the fact that yesterday you and I have referred independently, within twenty-five minutes of each other, to a ‘Finn’ (me @14:27 - to Huckleberry Finn, you @1452 – to Michael Finn). I had no idea who Michael Finn was. I do now. :)
Mr Sawyer, dry your eyes...
DeleteYou have excelled yourself again.If I'm not mistaken that's the fine war poet Louis Mac is it not.The sheer drunkenness of things being various..
I have often wrestled with browsers.Have they nothing more wonderful to look at ? I tend to be guided back to the satanic Chrome, as seems the unwritten online commandment as handed down by Google. Especially on Youtube( Google's) and this blog( also Google's). I ususally give up.You can't argue with the b***s..
I probably would have walked through that whole thread anyway.I wouldn't pass comment on something unless i had a good or goodish grasp of the context.And while that particular thread kept swerving from side to side it survived a crash.I turned up late like a drunk AA breakdown service.Did i fix it ? Or do you require a courtesy thread...;)
Until you tell me i shall continue to just wink some more happy thoughts into a little tiddle cup...
Zig - Thread Mechanic..
Hi Rosalinda Z,T, BB,NL and others
ReplyDeleteWhatever the truth may be about the alleged rape and about the American-Swedish relations with regard to Assange’s publishing activities, it has now become so apparent, that our government sooner or later would’ve been compelled to extradite Assange, had he ended up in the hands of our Swedish Police authority.
At the time the American ambassador in Sweden denied that his country had any interest in him, but Assange himself knew of course that they had and that’s the reason as to why he skipped bail and fled into the Ecuadorian embassy. Where else could he go? We thus have, to say the least, a partial responsibility for what has happened to Assange, and for what happens now, which we will forever be remembered for.
I’m so ashamed of my country for not having had the courage and integrity to give Assange guarantees for not being extradited to the US, where, as we should’ve known from the very beginning, he will face nothing but injustice in all its ugly forms
Bjorn et al...
Deleteof interest..
https://www.globalresearch.ca/assange-allegation-stitch-up/5674521
Zig
I'd be ashamed that Sweden made such a fuss and fanfare about declaring nonconsentual sex( forced, or rape) illegal in 2018.Do they not see when sex combines with assault it's illegal any way ?Yet they were happy to call the refusal to wear a condom 'rape'.Insane..
DeleteZig
Thank you, Björn.
ReplyDeleteRespect.
T
Hello Björn (25 Oct. at 22:12)
ReplyDeleteTalk of “ashamed of my country”, at least, unlike my country, Sweden opposed the invasion of Iraq.
(‘In a series of damning findings, a seven-member panel in the Netherlands concluded that the war, which was supported by the Dutch government following intelligence from Britain and the US, had not been justified in law.
"The Dutch government lent its political support to a war whose purpose was not consistent with Dutch government policy," the inquiry in the Hague concluded. "The military action had no sound mandate in international law."’)
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jan/12/iraq-war-illegal-dutch-tribunal
As for AA, I think there is a degree of subjectivity in the rape or consensual sex discussion. We weren’t there after all. AA (among others) as US’ useful idiot(s) is more that I’m leaning towards.
Med vänliga hälsningar
NL
Tnanks, NL. You are lovely.
DeleteT
Hi NL 26 October 2019 at 23:10
ReplyDeleteThanks for comment
"ashamed of my country"
The UN expert, the Swede Hans Blixt (expert on mass destructive weapons) explicitly said that he hadn't found the slightest trace of such weapons while going around in Iraq looking for them. Besides he was allowed by the Iraq government to access any place he so wished. The US didn't listen, nor did we in Sweden.
Björn - is there now an "Assange Syndrome"?
ReplyDeleteTo dive into a foreign embassy to avoid answering charges and an international arrest warrant?
Hi Anon 27 October 2019 at 20:03
ReplyDeleteHad Assange been extradited to Sweden, he would’ve been kept in prison before being questioned. It’s also very likely that the prosecutor would’ve dropped the whole case, realising that not even our preposterous sex laws would’ve been sufficient for a “successful” prosecution. However, Assange would most certainly have been extradited to the US without any judicial process in our courts. Assange knew that and, as I’ve said before; what else could he do to avoid the US injustice, but flee into an embassy, who promised to protect him from being persecuted for political reasons.
Yes, we may well try to find a term for this absurd socio-political situation that Assange is in, because other publishers around the world will have to face the same accusations for the very same reason and they will do what Assange have been doing for many years, that is trying to stay away from one of the most repressive and corrupt governments in the world, but still trying to keep on revealing who the real criminals are. Yes let us call that ”The Assange Syndrome”
Yes, Prison would have been a safe haven. Ask Jeffrey Epstein.
ReplyDeleteHi Rosalinda,
ReplyDeleteA bit late in the day to comment on your well written summary "The Madeleine case today"
But I'll go with these couple of thoughts.
Many people writing in on your blog doubted that "Operation Grange" would amount to anything except a smokescreen for a police investigation, and it looks like this has turned out to be true.
As you noted through many of your earlier columns, the ordinary police officers were honest and dedicated but the powers that be refused to honour their own police's findings.
Another classic example of corruption in high places involves the recent tragic death of British motorcyclist Harry Dunn, crashed into and killed while driving on the correct side of the road by the the wife of an American air base spy. The car is photographed on CCTV driving on the right hand side of the road just as the accident happens.
As events unfolded it seemed the Nottinghamshire police did their best and got a statement from the woman driver who promised to be available for further investigation but were gobsmacked soon afterwards to discover she and her family had fled the country back to her homeland in an American military plane.
As the story unfolded due to the sterling tenacity of the dead boy's parents it seems there was collusion at many levels in a ploy to whitewash the affair and get the American woman as far from England as soon as possible.
It's transparent to anybody who doesn't believe in fairy tales that CIA/NSA or even the base commander at the spy centre with the blessing of the British Foreign Office agreed to a fake "Diplomatic Immunity" charade and ordered the family out of the country.
The plan hasn't held up too well under scrutiny since the proponents of the scam never imagined that this (to them) obscure story would reach world proportions.
So... you can see where this is leading.
People at the top in government are shameless in twisting facts, turning a blind eye or layering on falsehoods to prevent their own embarrassment and protecting their ilk from ever getting prosecuted.
Same with cops who investigated the Madeleine case. Detective Goncalo Amaral and the Police at "operation Grange". These poor people never stood a chance against the establishment.
But there's something...
At least thanks to the internet and the spread of knowledge, - in people's minds both cases are settled; - if that is of any consolation.
Have a nice day.
jc
''But there's something...
DeleteAt least thanks to the internet and the spread of knowledge, - in people's minds both cases are settled; - if that is of any consolation.''
No, it's not and it isn't something It illustrates the power of the internet when spreading gossip and rumour is needed.It does nothing for any criminal investigation.Believe it or not, the police have access to the internet at work and at home.They have a deeper understanding of the case and access to all relevant information and evidence.What good is it if it's settled 'in people's minds' ? That's nothing more than saying ''lots of us suspect the same people even if there's no evidence and the police don't, so they're guilty''. That's citing 21st century technology to arrive at a 19th century vigilante mentality.So you're doing the internet and it's users a disservice.
Hi Anon 29 October 2019 at 18:20
ReplyDeleteand Hi Rosalinda. Although you’ve changed topic, I just had to say a few words.
"They have a deeper understanding of the case"
I’m afrid that that does not apply to the Met/SY, as they haven't made any progress in their investigation since they got themselves involved.
/They have/ "access to all relevant information and evidence". Yes they have and so have all of us, since the Portuguese PJ decided to publish their extensive investigation on the Internet.
If the Operation Grange had had anything worth telling us, they would've told us so long ago. As for the McCanns, they’ve explicitly for more than 12 years appealed to the general public to help find Madeleine, so if they like yourself still believe that the Met/SY have a "deeper understanding of the case" than all of us, who’re commenting on it, they should close down their ”Find Madeleine Site” and let the ”Operation Grange” run the show alone, but they haven’t and they won’t. Ask yourself why?
Björn30 October 2019 at 19:03
DeleteBjorn I'd back up the notion that the police have a deeper understanding of the case.I'm not sure OG have it.They were put together for show.For the sake of appearances.Don't think that because the police tell us all they have nothing that they really have nothing.The whole reason for a cover up is to conceal the truth not reveal it.
I'm not 100% sure that the McCanns have faith in the any of the forces or OG.They may say they have as they've had the case funded blindly for so long and an unprecedented amount of concern / interest ( worry?) from some very powerful politicians who were all supposed to be fighting austerity in their respective countries, win elections and stabilize the economies.They could have been getting on with that as two countries had police forces willing to investigate. Why wouldn't they entrust it all to them until they'd involved themselves and Military Intelligence first ?
Let me remind you of one short statement by one big name in the play...
'' The case will be solved when the political will of two countries allows it''(Goncalo Amaral , paraphrased).
Does that suggest that the police know nothing or that they have a deeper understanding which they are keeping to themselves for reasons we can't fathom ? And could that be why the McCanns, behind their public facade of gratitude, have their doubts in the investigation and lack of progress.Why else would they need to ask for the public to keep looking ?
Zig
Anonymous 31 October 2019 at 22:50
DeleteMorning, comrade Zest
“Bjorn I'd back up the notion that the police have a deeper understanding of the case.I'm not sure OG have it.”
OG are the police, aren’t they?
“Don't think that because the police tell us all they have nothing that they really have nothing.
This seems to clash with the first quote since it’s OG who “tell us all that they really have nothing”, which implies that the police and OG are one and the same.
“The whole reason for a cover up is to conceal the truth not reveal it.”
So the police (OG?) are participating in the cover-up.
“Let me remind you of one short statement by one big name in the play...
'' The case will be solved when the political will of two countries allows it''(Goncalo Amaral , paraphrased).”
Hmm… What’s your recipe as to when to rely on Amaral, a ‘perjurer’, and when not to?
“And could that be why the McCanns, behind their public facade of gratitude, have their doubts in the investigation and lack of progress.Why else would they need to ask for the public to keep looking ?”
How have you arrived at thinking that? Any pointers? What kind of doubts? Surely you are not suggesting…
Namaste
T
OG didn't become a body until years after the event .Once all reasonable standard investigative routes had been exhausted OG was set up to be a group who only focused on the McCann case.In the are of police integrity or corruption we can talk about the PJ and SY and OG as separate entities.OG were NOT involved at the scene of crime or when the dogs were running around it.They were presented with the history of the case for their files.If wither or both of the first two mentioned were /are covering something up( including any incriminating evidence) that could have been completed long before OG were brought into the game.So it wouldn't imply they were /are corrupt.
DeleteHe [Amaral]was convicted of perjury.I believe he made some mistakes and i believe he was wrong to publicly accuse the McCanns of doing what he guessed they had done. He believes that a cover up took place.If he is accusing the McCanns od hiding the body of their child and all the lies that would follow from that if it was a proven fact, then he must believe the cover up is to protect the parents.He is adding 2 and 2 his way.His opinion is that the 'political will of two countries' is the only thing preventing a solution to the case implies that he believes it;s Portugal as well as the UK who want the crime concealed.Why would Portugal try so hard to protect two Brit holidaymakers who are bringing years of bad PR to them and potentially damaging tourism in an economically poor place ?They wouldn't.Why would the UK spend so much time and effort and money to do it anyway.It would be quicker, cheaper and beneficial all round to both countries if the parents were dealt with if they really are guilty.So the political will being in deadlock must be something else and somebody far more important than a holidaymaker must be being used as leverage.Until Amaral elaborates on what he means by 'the political will of two countries' he isn't saying enough.If he elaborates with the amount of passion and determination that he was able to when targeting the parents we'll see what he is about.A wild fantasist or dangerous, loose cannon.If he names names again that lead nowhere he's a convicted perjurer on thin ice.On the other hand he could be the seen as a hero who was made a sacrificial lamb by his own bosses because he could have inadvertently opened a can of very important dangerous worms.
''How have you arrived at thinking that? ...''
Beginning at the point of being innocent until proven guilty.Then at the lack of incriminating evidence that could have brought an arrest and charge.Then considering an unprecedented panic-stricken interest paid by UK PMs and politicians who sent MI5 in to Portugal PDQ.The attention afforded to them and the case by an outgoing and incoming PM and MI5 would surely have shocked them at the time.It would have given them hope too.In the early stages you'll accept as much as you can get.But, in retrospect, if your child is missing and MI5 knock on your door, you have to ask questions.You'd have to be stupid not to.A kidnapping or even a murder is still a police matter.If Politicians have deemed the event worthy of MI involvement, it's a political game.There is NO reason whatsoever for the intelligence community to be involved that fast if it was only a police matter.Even less if the parents hadn't been completely cleared of suspicion at that time.I believe If it was me I'd be questioning the motivations of the politicians.I'd be questioning why one of their number left a job to take up one as media controller if they didn't know it was going to be going on for years.Hiring a politician to take over the media coverage doesn't fit with the expectation of it being over any time soon. Why would he wouldn't leave a well paid job in Whitehall for a gig that would be over in days or a month.Who told him it was for a long haul.
Namaste, comrade...
Zig..
Operation Grange is an investigative review by London's Metropolitan Police Service into the circumstances of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. The operation, conducted by the Homicide & Serious Crime Command, was initially led by Detective Chief Inspector Andrew Redwood, supported by a further twenty-eight detectives and seven other staff. In December 2014, the case was handed over to Detective Chief Inspector Nicola Wall. The review is overseen by the Gold Group management structure.
Deletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Grange
Anonymous 12 November 2019 at 09:27
DeleteThank you very much, Ziggmund, for you extended reply.
OG has been run by the Homicide & Serious Crime squad of SY, under the guidance of Gold of all-police Gold-Silver- Bronze whatever.
https://www.met.police.uk/notices/met/operation-grange/
“He [Amaral]was convicted of perjury.”
How do you think this affects the value of his opinions?
“I believe he made some mistakes…”
I agree and think he thinks so too.
“… i believe he was wrong to publicly accuse the McCanns of doing what he guessed they had done.”
The choice was his. I hope I would’ve done it differently, and perhaps, with the benefit of hindsight, so would he.
There seems to be nothing else begging for my immediate attention in the rest of your Magnum Opus. I have a cold and feel sorry for humankind and other kinds, so I’d like, if I may, to bid you a very good evening followed vy a very good night etc. etc. Meet again soon, comrade. Meantime, put on your red shoes and dance the blues. I shall return!
Namaste.
T
“He [Amaral]was convicted of perjury.”
DeleteHow do you think this affects the value of his opinions?''
Given that the perjury record was the end result of his dishonesty during the investigation into a child killed by her parents it raises an eyebrow.But he was lying to defend his detectives not to incriminate the killers.Someone called as a witness that has a record for perjury connected to a former missing child will be chewed up in court.But we aren't talking about his opinions are we.I know they're opinions.You do too.Anyone with an open mind does.But he didn't write a book called 'the opinion about the opinions' did he.I would think his credibility would be far higher if he wasn't so dogmatic and broadened his view.
''The choice was his. I hope I would’ve done it differently, and perhaps, with the benefit of hindsight, so would he.''
I dare say we've all hit a point where we wish we could unscramble some eggs we made a mess with.But these eggs were major in size as was the mess.Unscrambling eggs in your pan is one thing; unscrambling them when they've gone viarl across the world is very different.The damage is done and he's had years to publish regrets about how he did things and how he formulated his opinions and built a shell of absolute stubbornness around him and watched the cash roll in.It damaged his credibility as a detective( former).
Zig Asataire
I have no doubt the higher echelons of the police force and those who conspired to not bring the perpetrators of the crime to justice know pretty much exactly what happened. It was a giant hoax that went wrong. An accident doesn't account for the high level of cover-up. It sounds far-fetched but Blair needed distraction from Iraq and the MSM is just full of total rubbish. Things can and do get made up, distorted, blown up, covered up and exaggerated. Something big was being covered up from five years earlier - think Soham. There were lots of secrets to keep and people keeping secrets. Dr Amaral I think was nearly there in his assessment but I don't agree with simple accident and I think Madeleine came to harm earlier than Thursday. It could be that Dr Amaral knew more than he let on in any case. And it is a fact that a young relative of his was shot in the head at point blank range in London. A very strange coincidence but there are so many in this case. The viciousness of some of the trolling coming from the Team McCann camp was truly horrific. Not people to get on the wrong side of, particularly Gerry who I think is best conceptualized as 'The Joker' character in the Batman movies.
ReplyDeleteSo the multi billion pound /dollar genocide in Iraq and Afghanistan needed needed to be forgotten and ignored and a really dramatic, world -shattering distraction was needed.Nothing less would do.So a 3 year old British child was kidnapped from her bed on holiday in Portugal.I see. And that made the population forget all about war .You suggest 'think Soham' five years earlier.That had already been put to bed.A man and his partner were jailed.OK it was all dubious, I agree.But the connections here ? And if these high rollers needed theses distractions how does that make Gerry McCann a 'joker character' a la Batman ?And if either of these non-related events are close to anything rational, how does the death of Amaral's family member relate to Madeleine's fate ? And if he knew more than he said, why hasn't he shared it in his book, the several interviews, the blogs, radio and TV interviews ? It's not as though he is suggesting he didn't know who the culprits are.What stopped him ?
DeleteYour theories here need sources and they need to have the links between them explained.Without that, it's sounding like bizarre bullet points remembered from bizarre blogs elsewhere..
Zig
My emphasis
Delete“john blacksmith11 October 2018 at 01:07
Hello. The huge majority of sensible people who ever study the affair (I exclude the nutters and haters) seem to have roughly the same reactions as you do: sympathetic at first, because, thank God, that is what people are, but then starting to think there is something "wrong", "off-key", "at an angle", "not right" and so forth about the pair. At root, however these observers express themselves, the cause is the same: the couple - and I don't mean this insultingly but as a statement of fact - are not quite human.
Everything they ever say about human feelings is the same: the words about their children, each other, their families, everyone, indeed, who features in their "emotional" lives are always recited as though carefully repeating what they've learned "real people" say and sound like. The feeling genuinely isn't present in them. That, of course, is why everything they say that isn't straight weird, is filled with clichés and why they sound curiously like Alexa or other programmed semi-robots.
There is one exception to this emotional non-existence which most unbiased people also instinctively recognise: they don't need to programme themselves to hate. That flows naturally, easily and with cold venom - but even then they aren't completely spontaneous because they have to check themselves into concealing just how deep and horrifying their hatred is in case it frightens people. I tell you, they are monsters.
And, lastly, that is why their success has been greatest with the MSM. The latter quickly lose themselves in a world of human cliché once they've learned the job. They know the job is to ignore ordinary people and ordinary life and turn everything into excitement, "colour", drama,soap opera because it brings a bit of excitement into what they think are the dim, empty lives of average people.
The poor bloody MSM were so sunk up their own apertures, so divorced from these ordinary people that they actually thought "Kate and Gerry" were the real thing - ordinary people! And the more the couple sounded like second-rate actors in a television soap opera, the more convinced they became of how real they were!
Monsters.”
Anonymous12 November 2019 at 11:31
Delete''and I don't mean this insultingly but as a statement of fact - are not quite human.''
You do mean it insultingly.The whole post is about what you want to have us believe about the McCanns being liars and actors.So, in context, you're hoping to make insults with such a subtle touch it will look like unbiased commentary.That you try to actually reveals the bias you're hoping nobody will accuse you of.
''Everything they ever say about human feelings is the same: the words about their children, each other, their families, everyone''
If you are asked the same 3 or 4 questions repeatedly over 10 years or more by an endless line of TV interviewers, journalists and reporters,you will only have the same 3 or 4 answers if you're telling the truth.If you vary them, that would imply your previous answers were lies and the eagle -eyed 'experts' logged onto youtube biting their knuckles would start another hysterical campaign online with the usual 'proof!'' and 'monsters!' lines.If you require a variety of answers and respones you ask a variety of questions.It's simple.
''they don't need to programme themselves to hate. That flows naturally, easily and with cold venom ''
There's that well hidden bias poking it's nose out again....
You define it as hate; some define it as anger;others define it as coldness.Some define it as a normal reaction, given their circumstances.
Imagine having your toddler snatched from her bed and never seeing her again.Then the local police losing time and then trying to make up for it by publicly accusing you of hiding her yourself but providing no evidence of such a thing.Then imagine being told that you and your friends were bound by judicial secrecy laws to remain quiet and that being spread all over the internet as a 'pact of silence' that indicates a shared sinister secret( a much more fun explanation , and one that fits our bias).Then imagine trying to update the public on camera and on TV shows according to the expert advice of a controller given to you by your PM who had granted an endless fund for the investigation only for the public to call that 'robotic' and 'inhuman'.How would you feel ?Full of love and gratitude to the police who failed you,then accused you ,and the public who have decided to ignore the judicial secrecy laws so they can call you a monster ?Would you be laid back, full of fun and quips ? Is that 'human' enough ? Or would that be ''the cold evil bastards are smiling..they're monsters..''
''The poor bloody MSM were so sunk up their own apertures, so divorced from these ordinary people that they actually thought "Kate and Gerry" were the real thing - ordinary people!''
Yes, poor MSM.Such victims of their own honesty and integrity and trust. How do they manage to get by I wonder...
As things stand, they are ordinary people.The politicians who have involved themselves from the off, however, aren't. They are all powerful and influential people .They determine the fates of nations and their people.They have policies and wars financed by bankers.They have money to fund what they see needs to be funded, whatever the economic climate.And they see the lack of progress, evidence, leads, eye witnesses and confessions in this 12 year old case as good reasons to keep handing money over to continue what nobody of critical mind believes is even close to real anymore.But let's look at the parents.The cardiologist and the GP.There's only two of them and they're middle class so it's 'juicy'. Leave those honest, educated, privileged politicians and their mischievous intelligence communities and media controllers alone.After all, they all do such a great job..
Zig
As things stand, you have completely missed the point blacksmith had made: people who, having lost their child through their negligence, lie and hate are not ordinary people - “they are monsters.”
DeleteBTW, answering the same 3 or 4 questions repeatedly over 10 years or more by an endless line of TV interviewers, journalists and reporters with the same 3 or 4 answers is not an indicator of the truth of the answers. Can’t you see the other side of the coin?
Your comments speak of your (pretend?) ignorance and bias.
Can you organise that into some kind of chronology and structure please and clarify what your argument is
Delete“The McCanns are pathological liars. That doesn’t make them guilty in the disappearance, not at all, but it’s a complicating factor. It means that, however much they might want to tell the truth, their mental database doesn’t necessarily provide it when called up. It's just a disability: the old Mark Twain saying, “if you tell the truth you don’t have to remember anything” applies.”
ReplyDeletehttp://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.com/2018/11/artistic-licence-part-one.html
Now that it’s been established that GM told a falsehood to the global audience of many millions, let’s consider KM’s telling the same audience “The child was barefoot and bare armed…” Was Kate telling the truth?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS9NH5azgWY&start=854
I think it takes more than a Mark Twain poster quote to bolster an accusation of causing the disappearance of your own child then lying to a global audience.Are no detectives in that global audience ?
DeleteIf you really want or need to tell the truth, you can.It isn't nuclear physics. Why the need to talk about a 'mental database' not holding it when all you want to say is '' i don't believe what they said'' ? Again, if you call something a lie or somebody a liar, you're stating an opinion you have.If you want to have others agree, you need to demonstrate what the lie is or lies are and why they're lies.A good way to do this is to provide the alternative - the truth, With proof.
If it has been established that GM told a TV audience a lie- show me.Show me why it's a lie.And then tell me a sensible reason why the police have requested 12 million pounds over 12 years to fund the farce when they have the TV to use in court or in questioning.Could it be that 'millions'' in the global audience are competent detectives than the detectives of the PJ and SY ?Or that you speak for the 'millions' who have seen too many documentaries and movies where the 'twist' has been that the brutal perpetrators turned out to be not the unshaven and unkempt layabout gangsters but the middle class clean respectable parents.It's real life.not Television fiction....
Zig
11 November 2019 at 23:36
ReplyDelete“I think it takes more than a Mark Twain poster quote to bolster an accusation of causing the disappearance of your own child then lying to a global audience.Are no detectives in that global audience ?”
Sophistry again: You are talking about something irrelevant and contrary to what’s in the comment to which you are replying: “The McCanns are pathological liars. That doesn’t make them guilty in the disappearance, not at all, but it’s a complicating factor.”
“If you really want or need to tell the truth, you can.It isn't nuclear physics.”
Indeed. “Was Kate telling the truth?” Please answer truthfully, comrade, and avoid the irrelevant.
“Why the need to talk about a 'mental database' not holding it when all you want to say is '' i don't believe what they said'' ?”
Why the need to talk about “nuclear physics”? Are you splitting atoms here?
“Again, if you call something a lie or somebody a liar, you're stating an opinion you have.If you want to have others agree, you need to demonstrate what the lie is or lies are and why they're lies.A good way to do this is to provide the alternative - the truth, With proof.”
Don’t you think this applies to you as well? With respect, you’ve been blowing hot air and iZnoring the question asked.
“If it has been established that GM told a TV audience a lie- show me.Show me why it's a lie.”
I have already shown you that GM did not tell the truth. Are you calling J Tanner a liar?
“And then tell me a sensible reason why the police have requested 12 million pounds over 12 years to fund the farce when they have the TV to use in court or in questioning.Could it be that 'millions'' in the global audience are competent detectives than the detectives of the PJ and SY ?Or that you speak for the 'millions' who have seen too many documentaries and movies where the 'twist' has been that the brutal perpetrators turned out to be not the unshaven and unkempt layabout gangsters but the middle class clean respectable parents.It's real life.not Television fiction....”
Time after time you’ve been breaking into irrelevant rhetoric. After all, it was you who injected this thread with the notion of O’s Razor to which you seem to be immune. Generally, telling porkies isn’t a matter for the police, you know that, Zoro.
Namaste
Mao
Indeed. “Was Kate telling the truth?” Please answer truthfully, comrade, and avoid the irrelevant.
DeleteYou accuse me of sophistry.That's quite an accusation.It's also an attempt at a low blow.One of the intentions of sophistry is to deceive.To accuse somebody of trying to deceive is to accuse them of having a hidden agenda.I remind you and other antis, I represent a very small minority of commentators that have followed this case.I have an open mind.I can use that mind to think critically.I don't need to use it to sell snake oil.I never call anything an absolute fact unless i have the proof.Nor will I call something a lie without the proof.What could my agenda be ? Is seeking fair play and justice seen as an intention to deceive now ?That's a bit paranoid isn't it..
Was Kate telling a lie ? I don't know.You don't know.Kate knows.Whether I believe her is another question and a more appropriate and sensible one.My answer is that I can't tell as i have no evidence of her words being true or false.I suppose, as I believe that the child was taken by somebody for whatever reason then I tend to believe she is telling the truth and she didn't want her child to be abducted.But I can admit that i only suspect that and can't prove it.Again, that puts me in a small minority.Do the detectives believe her ?We're told on the internet by commentators that they don't.Not just Amaral- but quite a few.Yet no arrest...
''Don’t you think this applies to you as well? With respect, you’ve been blowing hot air and iZnoring the question asked.''
More verbal limbo dancing, Comrade.Who shot you down to that height.Or did you fly too close to the Gin..
I have done more than answer and address the question in discussion.Somebody accused somebody of telling a big lie.Then disappeared when the debate ensued.I said it was a lie to make an accusation that has no proof and asked for that proof so I could be persuaded it had any weight.Not just me- we could pass it to the PJ too and then to our Home Office who need to save money.I never blow hot air in my opinion.Nor do i insult for the sake of it. Maybe I should drink . Pick up the lingo.The only reason I'm dignifying your insults with a reply is because your previous record for debate has been exemplary.But I can't make it a habit, I'm afraid.
''I have already shown you that GM did not tell the truth. Are you calling J Tanner a liar?''
I have already answered this question and addressed the area.Why haven't you read either ?
I have explained using logic and common sense (a combination i now realise combine to form a kryptonite to all antis) what i think.What GM said was NOT a lie.He told the TV audience that a friend( JT) had described and what can now, logically, be considered as possibly Madeleine. I have outlined above why it still can be considered such with regard to her supposing it was a small girl( pinkish pyjamas) around the size of Madeleiene.I said she had no reason to be suspicious at the time.The suspicion of the antis is that JT saw nobody at all( because they need more 'evidence' to hold up the theory of guilty parents).In which case she was lying to the police and to the parents.But GM was still stating her description as she recalled it.The poster you're defending has said nothing since.And the police here and there haven't seen it as not adding up either.
'' Generally, telling porkies isn’t a matter for the police, you know that, Zoro.''
If the lies are emanating from persons of interest with regard to a kidnapped , possibly murdered child, past or present, they are. Especially if they contradict earlier statements made in a police station.
Namaste
Zig's Razor
Gizzy dear
DeleteRe: sophistry
Anonymous 11 November 2019 at 12:08 quoting ‘blacksmith’: “The McCanns are pathological liars. That doesn’t make them guilty in the disappearance, not at all, …”
“Now that it’s been established that GM told a falsehood to the global audience of many millions, let’s consider KM’s telling the same audience “The child was barefoot and bare armed…” Was Kate telling the truth?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS9NH5azgWY&start=854 “
You: “I think it takes more than a Mark Twain poster quote to bolster an accusation of causing the disappearance of your own child then lying to a global audience.”
Me: “Sophistry again: You are talking about something irrelevant and contrary to what’s in the comment to which you are replying: “The McCanns are pathological liars. That doesn’t make them guilty in the disappearance, not at all, but it’s a complicating factor.”
Now, where in the above do you see an accusation of causing the disappearance of … own child to which you refer?
Ok, not sophistry. Flick of the wrist, trick, magic, hocus-pocus, sleight of hand, fantasy, imagination, mistake, talking in your sleep, hearing voices etc.
The things I do for love…
More to follow.
Namaste
T
Anonymous 15 November 2019 at 02:32
DeleteDear Professor Gizzus, my personal Jesus
Re your “Was Kate telling a lie ?”
Anonymous 11 November 2019 at 12:08: “Was Kate telling the truth?”
Me: “Was Kate telling the truth?”
You: “Was Kate telling a lie ? I don't know.You don't know.Kate knows.”
You see the difference?
In the above, you seem to have equated ‘not telling the truth’ with ‘telling a lie’. However:
Ok, Kate knows. How does she know? She says she knows from J Tanner. We know from the files what Tanner stated she had seen, and that didn’t include the child’s bare arms, right? How, then, can it be that Kate is telling the truth when she says that Tanner saw something that Tanner didn’t say she’d seen? Tanner is an eye witness who swears that what states she saw is true. Do you know of any evidence capable of suggesting that Tanner told Kate that she‘d seen bare arms? If you haven’t, then Tanner’s evidence stands regardless of what Kate says. After all, Tanner is a primary source as regards her sighting.
I know you’ll correct me if I’m wrong, comrade.
Now, was Kate telling the truth?
More to follow.
With utmost respect
Thomas the Humble of the Suchness of Lepton Universality
“The only sea I saw Was the seesaw sea With you riding on it. Lie down, lie easy. Let me shipwreck in your thighs.” And all that whilst regarding the moon and the grass…
Care to join me for a sarnie?
Anonymous 15 November 2019 at 02:32
DeleteZiggmund
“I remind you and other antis, I represent a very small minority of commentators that have followed this case.”
Why do you label me an ‘anti’? No need to answer, I don’t care.
“I have an open mind.”
Is your mind open enough to let enter a rather basic notion that ‘it could be’ ‘it possibly was’ do not convey the same meaning as does ‘it was’? GM was NOT telling the truth. His possible motive is clear: Tanner’s sighting was the only bit of allegedly independent evidence supportive of the alleged abduction.
NB You might recall that bit of evidence was later dealt a mortal blow by DCI Andrew Redwood (“We are almost certain now that this sighting is not the abductor”). If one were to follow your semantics, one would have no problem equating ‘almost certain’ with ‘certain’.
“I can use that mind to think critically.I don't need to use it to sell snake oil.I never call anything an absolute fact unless i have the proof.”
I hear what you are saying. What’s the difference between ‘a fact’ and ‘an absolute fact’? No need to answer, ‘cos I is just wondering, Razor.
“What could my agenda be ?”
I haven’t suggested an agenda as such. I’m just puzzled by your unwillingness to give simple answers to my simple questions.
“Is seeking fair play and justice seen as an intention to deceive now ?”
No, it isn’t. Not in my book.
“More verbal limbo dancing, Comrade.Who shot you down to that height.Or did you fly too close to the Gin..”
Yeah, that tango takes two. Perhaps my magic carpet is fraying, but the magic ring is firmly on my finger, and Gin genie is safe and sound in his lamp.
“I have done more than answer and address the question in discussion.Somebody accused somebody of telling a big lie.Then disappeared when the debate ensued.I said it was a lie to make an accusation that has no proof and asked for that proof so I could be persuaded it had any weight.”
In this discussion I have asked you only three questions (regarding GM, KM and OG). You haven’t answered them. Is OG part of the conspiracy you believe exists?
Perhaps our Jane appreciates the dictum ‘A litigant in person has a fool for a client’. Aren’t you being a bit hard towards her? I have, in her absence, given a sufficient justification for the view that GM was not telling the truth.
“Not just me- we could pass it to the PJ too and then to our Home Office who need to save money.”
Your celebrated sense of humour... :)
“The only reason I'm dignifying your insults with a reply is because your previous record for debate has been exemplary.But I can't make it a habit, I'm afraid.!”
That’s honourable of you, comrade, I appreciate it. If you feel I insulted you, I offer you my apologies and sympathy. My affection and loyalty you already have.
“I have already answered this question and addressed the area.Why haven't you read either ?”
You might’ve addressed the area but not the ‘volume’, I dare say. :) You know I carefully read everything you write, comrade.
“He told the TV audience that a friend( JT) had described and what can now, logically, be considered as possibly Madeleine.”
Here we are: “possibly Madeleine”. That’s not at all what GM said. Had he said the child could possibly have been Madeleine, we wouldn’t be discussing what he said. Please don’t take my saying this as an insult, comrade. I’m just stating a fact.
“But GM was still stating her description as she recalled it.”
Respectfully, comrade, no, he was NOT.
“And the police here and there haven't seen it as not adding up either.”
You humour me again. I think the police see what they want to see.
“If the lies are emanating from persons of interest with regard to a kidnapped , possibly murdered child, past or present, they are. Especially if they contradict earlier statements made in a police station.”
If one is to believe the police, in their eyes none of those we’ve been discussing are “persons of interest”.
Respect.
Razor T
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteAnonymous18 November 2019 at 16:36
ReplyDelete''GM was NOT telling the truth. His possible motive is clear: Tanner’s sighting was the only bit of allegedly independent evidence supportive of the alleged abduction.''
We are either being pedantic or we aren't. Please stick to one or the other.How can a motive be 'possible' yet 'clear' ? The investigation would- in fact is- still be being treated as an abduction / missing child. Even if nobody saw it happen or someone making an escape.No detective would dare to say 'it wasn't an abduction because nobody saw an abductor'.
''NB You might recall that bit of evidence was later dealt a mortal blow by DCI Andrew Redwood (“We are almost certain now that this sighting is not the abductor”). If one were to follow your semantics, one would have no problem equating ‘almost certain’ with ‘certain’.''
I recall it well.But that only suggests that she saw a man carrying a child other than Madeleine.Not an abductor.Was she to know that at the time of it happening ?When did Redwood say it- before or after Oprah ? before or after the statements were on the files of the PJ ?
''I hear what you are saying. What’s the difference between ‘a fact’ and ‘an absolute fact’?''
In the context of a criminal trial none.
''In this discussion I have asked you only three questions (regarding GM, KM and OG). You haven’t answered them. Is OG part of the conspiracy you believe exists?''
The discussion was only about whether or not it is right or fair to label GM a liar but failing to show evidence of the lie.I have answered all questions about GM and KM.I also stated I think OG was part of a conspiracy to keep the illusion of a live investigation in the public mind.I didn't say they are willing participants necessarily as there was nothing new they could find by the time they were put together.
''You humour me again. I think the police see what they want to see.''
You're implying that the police are corrupt.
''If one is to believe the police, in their eyes none of those we’ve been discussing are “persons of interest”.''
Yes, but i said past or present.The parents were persons of interest to the PJ, just like Murat.
Risspeck..
Ziggmund..
I refer my learned friend to an earlier point made by myself that had to be repeated and is now having to be repeated yet again .I joined this paticular debate in response to somebody suggesting that GM 'told a big lie' on a TV show concerning an alleged sighting made by the family friend, JT.I asked what the lie was, and what the evidence was for it to be considered a lie.Further, I acknowledged the sighting as recollected by JT and stated it was of secondary importance to the discussion.The point in discussion was whether or not GM could legitimately be called a liar.As he was referencing the recollections that had been made by JT, given to the PJ by JT and then to a TV interviewer, I contended that he couldn't be called a liar.She really did say what she said.And the description she gave did take on a new significance once they found that Madeleine had been taken.GM, therefore, was citing her recollection on the fateful night so can't be accused of lying.It isn't a question of whether or not JT was lying in the first place or if KM was lying in another place in the story.The accusation was that GM lied on TV.Despite meticulaous and determined efforts made by yourself to interpret his recollection of JTs recollection, he can't be accused of lying.And that was the whole point of the discussion ;whether or not the accusation of him lying was a legitimate observation and valid claim ; could it be regarded as having any merit.I have shown that the ansswer to both is a resounding no.Any discussions about JT as a credible witness or KM lying about something are different avenues that shoot off this main road and in another direction.
ReplyDeleteI further remind my learned friend of my recent request.
Noting that learned friend has always been grateful and full of praise for contributors willing to make accusations and outlandish claims that lead to the inevitable framing of the parents for all kinds of crimes despite the absence of evidence or proof, he was meticulous in his scrutiny of contributors daring to suggest that the McCanns had no evidence against them.Further, whilst acknowledging that the involvement of many highly placed politicians from two countries and the British Intelligence Service has been unique and unprecedented and suggests far more than a run of the mill abduction or infanticide, has failed to provide us with his interpretation of all of that and why it was facilitated with such speed if it was merely a case of two parents hiding an unpleasant crime.Perhaps the parents had all those important people over a barrell and insisted that they dropped whatever they were doing to cover up their crime at once or they'd cause trouble.Likely ?
Zig Of The Bailey