Friday, 27 March 2015

CREATE A MONSTER the McCann propaganda wars

Sadly, unless there are Oscars for those who practice the dark and murky art of spin, the talents of those who created and ran the incredible publicity campaign for Kate and Gerry McCann will go unrecognised, and the ultimate rewards may be a long stretch at Her Majesty's pleasure. Were they the first and were they unique, hell no, the Ramseys did it first and had the funds and connections to sustain it.  But with the McCanns 'new' industries were created, if not expanded, and reputation fixing (Crisis Management) became 'respectable', accepted as the 'norm' with snakeoil flying off the shelves while the humble pie grows mould.  It must irk the 'Dr. Evils' that they cannot publicly claim credit for the schemes that worked, or explain why the major fuck ups were not their fault. That has got to grate.


Nobody can deny the genius behind the McCanns propaganda campaign and the speed with which it kicked in.  First of all an 'abduction' was established with a tale of an empty bed, an open window, curtains whooshing.  That was the breaking news story that we all woke up on to the 4th May 2007. The fact that the apartment hadn't been broken into was pipped to the post, the first story is the one that everyone remembers.  And this was swiftly followed by the claimed sighting of a sinister man carrying the inert body of a child off into the night. 

Step two, create a monster, a faceless villain, one the public can despise, and if given the opportunity, burn at the stake followed by a street party and lots of back patting.  Don't hate us, hate the monster who stole our child, we are the victims here screamed Kate and Gerry.  While the 'collective you' is looking at us, the abductor is getting away with it - and your kids could be next add their highfalutin friends for good measure. 

Any other suggestion was immediately dismissed as ludicrous, Madeleine was 'taken', she was too small to have opened the window, the safety gates or the patio doors that had conveniently been left unlocked.  The suggestion that her disappearance could have been anything other than abduction angered the parents to such an extent that they established a team of attack dogs made up of lawyers, politicians, spinmeisters and lonely embittered fruitloops to seek out and destroy, using the funds kindly donated to them by sympathetic public.  

Create 'helpless' God fearing victims who will tug on the heart and purse strings of good people around the globe, with particular emphasis on catholics and the especially generous Celts. Thus Kate and Gerry were presented to the world as PLU (People Like Us) clean living, upstanding, morally unquestionable, church going innocents, robbed of their precious child by a faceless monster.  And that was where they struck gold, quite literally, the powers that be always need a 'faceless monster' to strike terror into the hearts of its populace - an enemy of the State. 

Frankenstein's creature steals
blonde cherub
We need someone to hate and blame for all of society's ills, it's not an attractive human trait but it is one that all wannabe tyrants and despots tap into.  Usually it is another nation, but wars are a bit too deadly these days and Muslims and homosexuals just aint cutting it anymore. However, nothing can stir up an angry mob like a childsnatcher.  Fear of child snatchers cross centuries , cultures and class barriers, every child is vulnerable, every child could be our own - especially if the child is well cared for, white, blonde and angelic. Again, not original, see D.W. Griffiths, Birth of a Nation (1915), or Mary Shelly's Frankenstein - blonde 'angels' are often used to demonstrate the 'evils' that lurk within our midst.

When the news of Madeleine's disappearance broke we all grieved with Kate and Gerry.  But grief is a useless emotion, it achieves nothing, we cannot accept that it just 'is', we feel we have to do something about it.  Most people are poleaxed by grief, but some seek vengeance and retribution, and the answer to their grief is 'someone must pay'.

Thus it becomes easy for those with an agenda to lead an angry mob, they plug into people's emotions and people become very emotive when an innocent child is missing.  Logic and reason fly out the window, vengeance belongs to those with the loudest voices - which is why the McCanns needed to be protected and they still do.  Nobody, I hope, wants to see the savagery of mob justice.  It is how the far the protection goes that is the issue.

The case of Missing Madeleine McCann may appear to be unique, but it is far from it.  Whenever police arrive at a crime scene they must be prepared to question everything, especially when the crime committed has already been established by the main players before they arrive.  Jeremy Bamber was in no doubt his sister did it, the Philpotts blamed the ex wife.  
Susan Smith appeals for help
to find her 'missing' toddlers
The list of evil mothers and fathers who have killed their children, then claimed to have been attacked by a stranger or that their children have been taken is endless.  In fact, we have now become accustomed to grieving murderers and shysters leading candlelight vigils, setting up Funds and selling T-shirts. Sadly, it is a trend that is unlikely to end anytime soon, because in the simplistic, twisted minds of the deranged and the desperate, losing a child seems to be a fast track to fame and fortune. 


However, no matter how slick and professional the McCanns' campaign was, many were startled at the speed with which they launched a Fund and set up an online shop. The thing about missing children, is you never know when they might re-appear, yet not one person questioned the long term plans, the wider agenda, the annual 'Madeleine Day', the 'good jobs' abandoned or indeed the need of the parents for millions of pounds of public donations.  Why did the McCanns need childrens' pocket money and pensioners' savings, more than they did?  Why did they need a 'Fighting Fund' - who were they fighting? Ok, they changed it to a 'Search Fund', but why did they need a Search Fund when every police force and psyched up Maddie hunter on the globe were on the lookout for her? 

Gerry and Kate McCann went from not knowing they needed a Fund, to needing one very badly indeed. Legal fees said Uncle Brian as people pushed cash into his hand.  Send money in an envelope to Kate and Gerry, Rothley said Clarence, it will get there.  Who knows how much the McCanns received, they swiftly removed the cashometer from their website and the Fund is the opposite of the promised transparent.  They received millions and they spent millions (on what?), how much was ever going to be enough?  Who profited from the money that poured in, are they profiting still?  The Fund is an integral part of this case, yet it continues unchallenged as if it is the most normal thing in the world for the parents of a missing child to need mountains of cash to carry out their own investigation whilst disregarding all the findings of the police. 
The problem with creating monsters, is that they become impossible to control, they take on a life of their own. The McCanns' publicity machine became a monster but also a huge source of income.  News items and seasonal appeals attract potential libel payees and visitors to their website and paypal donate button.  The McCanns had to keep feeding the monster with stories of sightings to reinforce the belief that Madeleine is alive.  All the odds and statistics tell a different story, but so successful was their campaign that it almost became a criminal offence to suggest that Madeleine might be dead. It is certainly a costly one, hundreds of thousands of pounds have been paid into the Madeleine Fund, by UK newspapers and the former Portuguese lead detective is currently awaiting the decision of Lisbon Court on whether all his worldy goods must be passed to the grieving parents. 

I'm ready for my close up

It should be remembered however that the McCanns have always had the option of withdrawing from public life, anyone can if they really want to.  All they have to do is sack their publicist and concentrate on their non public careers and families.  Obscurity is freely and widely available, as any Norma Desmond, X-factor contestant or Andrew Ridgely could confirm. Publicity is something you work for and pay for, then when you get it you pretend you don't want it.  Gerry and Kate McCann want to be in the public eye but they don't want the criticism that comes with it. Ergo they want something that isn't even available to the Queen or a deranged Ayatolla leading millions, they want it written into the statues.  Thou shalt not take the name of Gerry and Kate McCann in vain.  Whilst it is good to aim for everything your heart desires, you should occasionally have a reality check, because those working for you on a retainer almost definitely, won't. 

Be careful what you wish for
Like Victor Frankenstein in his workshop of filthy creation, the creators of the missing Madeleine campaign had no idea what they were about to unleash, nor how successful they would be, they wanted a Review and their innocence made official but did they really want a full blown investigation?

For whatever reason the McCanns' campaign has included interacting with and menacing their critics on social media.  For over 7 years the internet has been patrolled by a group of McCann superfans and lawyers seeking out criticism, libel and threats (all stored in the 'dossier' and handed to police). However, the raids and the arrests following the outing of Brenda Leyland, failed to transpire and Jayelles is probably wiping her eyes with cats as she weeps over her filing cabinets and all that hard work wasted.  Far from praise and accolades for good citizenship, the Myths sites went into shutdown removed their 'Hate List' and said 'it wasn't me guv'.  The Myths sites were an integral part of the campaign, kept on the back burner as an ominous threat and deterrent, they were brought into play with the Summers and Swan book and the hoped for final clamp down on McCann critics, but the results were deadly.  The mean and spiteful spirit of the Myths' sites was never going to appeal to a wide audience.  Watching half a dozen criminally insane superfans rip McCann sceptics to shreds has very little appeal  and those who thought they could capture that 'mean spirit' and feed it into the UK mainstream were seriously deluded. The very limited membership of these 'hate sites' should have been a clue.

How will it all end? That remains to be seen, I'll leave the last word with Mr Orwell.  Meanwhile we can only watch in amazement and awe as formerly respected journalists, criminologists, sofa queens and ex police chiefs report 'the truth' and scold those who have the audacity to believe the original Portuguese investigation over the parents and all the nonsense that has been printed since. Lets just hope it doesn't become a criminal offence.   

Saturday, 21 March 2015


The biggest threat to the Establishment is the exchange of information, and as we have stormed into a new Age of Enlightenment, the authorities have lost control.  At the moment they are struggling to find an 'enemy of the state'.  In the real world, the undeserving poor still hold the top spot, but in cyberland, they are torn between trolls and paedophiles as public enemy number 1. 

So lets look at the danger posed by internet trolls.  Wiki defines a troll as 'a person who sows discord on the internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, etc'.  Are trolls dangerous?  I think most psychologists, both amateur and professional, would agree that 'trolls' are predominantly socially isolated, emotionally immature, individuals who are already in enforced hiding, brought on by themselves.  As they are too afraid to reveal their real names and identities, the chances of them posing a physical threat are remote to zero.  Just as in real life, these offensive, anti social characters are usually seen off by peer pressure.  They cannot gain a foothold because no-body likes them. 

I find it astonishing that so many people get so emotionally charged by something that is said to them on the internet by strangers and why they take it so personally. I also find it bizarre that they are encouraged by others to blow the deranged words of these sickos out of all proportion.  It is the troll who has issues, not the recipient! Trolls project their own inadequacies, they have nothing else to draw on, they don't know you! 

As for gangs of paedophiles on the internet, shouldn't the priority of the police be on those actually committing the crimes in the community where over 90% of children are abused?  The best protection children can have is the truth, and the truth is, stranger danger is the least of their worries.

Yesterday was all about Brenda Leyland, quite rightly.  Brenda Leyland was the victim of vicious campaign by those who demand the internet be censored for the greater good.  Those who would have us believe there are thousands of weirdos out there pretending to be normal, respectable people, who are really dark and sinister with cauldrons of toads innards on the stove and lean to's made of liquorice allsorts. 

Thus, Brenda Leyland was selected.  A bad person pretending to be good.  A respectable, middle aged, middle class, well spoken lady, living with her pet dog in a chocolate box cottage in a sleepy, picturesque Leicestershire village.  Brenda was the 'least likely' troll they could find, not only was it hard to believe that she was a troll, it was impossible.  She was genuinely too nice!  Calls for her imprisonment and hounding came across as spiteful and vindictive. They could have gone for a threatening chav wielding a hatchet on a Council estate, a far more likely candidate and one the public could have readily identified as a 'baddy' but they were out to reveal the murky underbelly of English society.  They wanted to point the finger at every member of the audience, not just McCann sceptics.  They were pointing the finger at every closet rebel and wannabe protester hiding under a cloak of respectability, and saying 'next time, it could be you!'.    

Unfortunately, whoever devised the 'lets make an example of Brenda' campaign, clearly missed classes 1 and 2 in psychology/ marketing/ advertising/ strategy. The public did indeed identify with Brenda Leyland, and they were appalled!  She didn't believe Kate and Gerry McCann. So what? Not many people do.  Their sympathies were firmly with Brenda, but unfortunately she did not live long enough to know that. They were never going to buy Brenda as a villain.  No matter how hard those strategists tried, they failed spectacularly in making Brenda appear menacing or threatening in any way.  Even with the few words of Brenda's that they broadcast, it was apparent, that she was a nice, softly spoken lady, who wasn't a danger to anyone.  The most subversive thing they could latch onto was 'I'm entitled'.  They also, of course, massively over estimated the popularity of the McCanns.  The public backlash against Brenda simply didn't happen.  You can fool all the people some of the time, etc, etc.   

Despite the body of teenager Alice Gross being found the day before, Brenda was the news of the day on Sky and the face on almost every front page.  Had a President been shot, or a tsunami engulfed Asia, it mattered not, Brenda became the news because she didn't believe Kate and Gerry McCann.  Sky News, or whoever wielded the sword, deemed the 'trolling' of Kate and Gerry McCann to be of public interest to such an extent that the item appeared as rolling news.  The item went ahead despite the fact that poor Brenda had mentioned suicide and drinking.  Never a good combination. 

The Crucible, by Arthur Miller
Legally, Sky and Martin Brunt are off the hook, so too, those monsters online who attacked that poor woman whilst she was in such terrible distress. There probably won't be any legal repercussions, but I hope Sky investigate themselves and make every effort to clean up the damage they did to Brenda's life, reputation and legacy.  Those involved will carry the guilt of Brenda's death with them forever more.  To be honest that is something I would not wish on anyone.  For those who care, and I believe Martin Brunt does, it will be a terrible burden, for others it will be business as usual - we can only wish karma catches up with them one day.     

But back to those trolls and the thunderous roar for censorship and imprisonment of 'trolls' like Brenda.  For millions of ordinary people, the internet has given them a forum in which to say what they truly think and feel unrestricted by the codes and conventions that dominate every other area of their lives.  Most of us have dual or even multiple personas that we present to the world, jumping in and out of characters that Bette Davis would have a field day with on a daily basis.  We are as different with our friends as we are with families, our bosses and our co-workers as many receivers of a kick in the shins by their mothers will have discovered. 

The internet allows people to live out their fantasies, and that is a good thing! Most people are already imprisoned by 9 to 5 jobs and fear of other peoples' frowns and raised eyebrows.  Alternate views and out of the box thinking are rarely tolerated in polite society.  'Do come to dinner, but lets not talk politics and religion lol!'  Thus, anything 'not quite nice' is swept under the carpet.  If radical thinkers are sacked, ostracised and made to stand in the corner wearing a dunce's cap, it preserves the status quo. Free thinking should always be ridiculed if you want to be part of the in crowd.

Thus, even though we are the country that 'won the war' and one that stands up to fascists, communists and enemies of Free Speech, we rarely exercise our FOS for fear of the personal, social and financial implications. Try telling your boss exactly what you think of him, and see how that goes. 

Many people have valid and understandable reasons for keeping their identify online hidden.  Many employers are now 'watching' their staff on social media and their bosses will have pictures of them dancing on a table with a waiter, before they can pick up the phone with a tummy bug excuse. Sadly, there are a lot of creepy watchers out there, but sadder still, most of them are doing it officially. 
If people want to create a starry persona and wander the streets of Hollywood and the bars of Moulin Rouge via Google Earth, good luck to them!  And if they want to say everything about society that makes them sick, good luck to them with that too, at least they are not acting out their sick fantasies on real flesh and blood. 

Most people use anonymity online for protection.  And that is a sad reflection on society, not them.  Unfortunately most peoples' jobs would be affected by their views on current affairs.  No legislation needed, companies and public bodies with an image to protect will not support an employee with unpopular/radical views, as Goncalo Amaral found to his cost.  

Joe Macarthy and his Wider Agenda
The McCann supporters website/forum Exposing the Myths, was a classic example of an old Macarthy style blacklist.  It contained the names, faces and details of hundreds of McCann sceptics - people just like Brenda Leyland, who do not believe the McCanns' abduction story. The main body of Exposing the Myths has been removed since Brenda's death, I know for example, they had over 100 pages on myself, only a skeleton of 'the dossier' remains.  Nurses, carers and those who worked for the NHS were especially selected. The object of Exposing the Myths was to discredit, shame, ridicule and hopefully have sacked, anyone publically doubting the McCanns, by writing to their employers, neighbours, friends, relatives and in my case, my publishers, forwarding all the information they had gathered.  In my case, they have every tweet, blog and every comment I have ever made on facebook and forums, often within 5 minutes of posting.  They are super efficient. Their sister site 'JATYK2' however remains, and continues in the same vein, though their target list has shrunk - worth a visit for anyone interested in the mentality of a gaggle of psychopaths.

Brenda Leyland was used, as too was Martin Brunt.  But I hope that he writes this portion of his memoirs now, while the feelings are still raw.  Lessons should be learned from this tragic episode in the field of journalism.  A 'sensational', and in this case manufactured, story should never go ahead when there is a risk to life. In my opinion, the mention of alcohol and suicide was a flashing red light that should not have been ignored. 

Sadly, the Brenda Leyland headlines and call to arms for legislation against 'internet trolls' went hand in hand.  Those who would introduce laws to imprison people who step out of line on the internet need the support of the public.  First they need to persuade people there is a risk, then they need to persuade their representatives to propose and/or support new legislation that will increase police powers to act.  And they need it PDQ, because the heat from the red faces and the shrieking of whistles being blown in Whitehall is likely to take the roofs off several buildings.

Policing the internet will never be an easy task.  As a law is introduced, advances in technology makes it redundant.  Those wordbound old dinosaurs who make the Laws simply cannot compete with the innovative young bucks to whom technology is an early learning centre pile of bricks that leads to much bigger and wider frontiers. Through those young pioneers, like Aaron Swartz we have freedom of information that no-one could possibly have foreseen.  With freedom of information comes public unrest, and in the worst case scenario, possible revolution. 

Up until now, all those murky secrets and back door dealings could be contained within the corridors of power and whitewashed by a compliant media.  In order for Law and Order to be maintained, the public must believe that those who rule them are squeaky clean, heterosexual (on the whole) and faithful to their wives/husbands/partners.  For example, Clinton won't be remembered for the great President he was, he will be remembered for cheating on his wife, Hilary. 

The public demand respectability and the leaders and the wannabes are happy to oblige.  Unfortunately, human nature being such as it is, few if any, can live up to the moral guidelines they set themselves, so they willingly enter a cycle of neurosis and paranoia fearing their true selves (the ones they hate) will be revealed.  It's like breathing sherry over the Vicar after telling him you never touch liquor, hic.  The righteous then go on to punish their 'human' side through lengthy hours of prayer, self loathing and deprivation, and when they are through with that, they then feel free to inflict the same guilt onto others, whether they want it or not.  

The most powerful in the land have the active assistance of their friends and allies in covering their worst excesses, a good PR firm can fix a reputation within 24 hours.  Unfortunately, even the best spin doctors, image makers and lawyers in the world can come unstuck when faced with unwieldy, unrelenting, in your face truth.  Nothing beats it. Ever. 


Monday, 16 March 2015




I have no doubt that the case of missing Madeleine McCann will someday become the stuff of multiple academic textbooks for students of marketing, journalism, media, politics and purveyors of snakeoil.  Indeed, at one time, Clarence Mitchell, proudly boasted his success, as too did the 'make the lie become the truth' 'Crisis' management companies who swiftly jumped onboard.

It will be hard now for any of them to claim credit for the amazing campaign, and in fact some of the prominent names have long since distanced themselves from the McCann case, especially now, as the truth emerges.  And it was an amazing campaign, the like of which we have never seen before, within hours of Madeleine going missing, it was established that the child had been abducted and the parents were one step away from being saints (soon put right with a visit to the Pope).  They were presented as distraught (but responsible) parents, to whom something terrible had happened. 

That a group of British doctors left their very young, and some sick, babies and toddlers alone night after night in their holiday apartments, distracted from the main story, and in view of what happened, it was spiteful to point it out.  Thus the 'hater/pitchforker' myth was born.  Anyone pointing out that the Emperor wasn't wearing any clothes, became a social outcast, criticising the parents was on par with kicking puppies or voting UKIP.

An image was created.  The perfect family went on a perfect holiday with their perfect friends.  They were the cream of British society, aspirational parents who rose above their humble beginnings to form the solid middle class who put the 'Great' in Britain.  The complete opposite of the free thinking libertarians who would tear the barriers down, the McCanns were educated, law abiding church goers, who not only respected the dominant ideology, they promoted it. 

As medical professionals, they were contributing members of the community. With their posh house, 3 perfect children, devotion to their family and physical fitness, they portrayed the lifestyle that all good people should aspire to.  They never quarrelled, even after the most traumatic incident anyone could experience, and they didn't turn to booze and drugs, they turned to God.

The goodness and perfection of this family is almost Disneyesque.  Three toddlers sit quietly on the couch reading, while their mother has a leisurely shower and their father plays tennis.  Three toddlers who behave perfectly, happily going off to the crèche without a whine or protest, and falling asleep within moments of being put to bed.  While the rest of the adults and the babies within the holiday group were going down with diarrhea and sickness, the McCann holiday household was Pleasantville - vomit, poo, tantrum and stress free.  Up until Madeleine disappeared 'it had been the perfect holiday'.  Indeed.  Taking 3 kids under 4 on holiday is a piece of cake.  They were in no way troubled by anything, ergo, they couldn't possibly be involved in their daughter's disappearance. 

As clean living, white, middle class professionals they became British Ambassadors 'for children' almost immediately with the launch of their European Tour and the Government of the day assisted them by throwing open the doors of their Embassies around the world and lining up diplomats to receive them.  The following year, they again represented British parenting with their calls for an Amber Alert (a back door way in which to collect data on the public), their own lost child merely being a blip in their perfection. 

Unlike the majority of families hit by tragedy, the McCanns' relationship became stronger.  They never blamed themselves, and they never blamed each other.  In fact, they dealt with the guilt and blame issue perfectly within the first 48 hours.  It was everyone else's fault, except their own and they would name, shame, hound and sue anyone who said different.  They had a much wider agenda.

The McCanns and their spin team stirred up public outrage that such a 'nice family' could have something so terrible happen to them.  Gerry's mother summed it up perfectly 'how could anyone do this to a Doctor!'.  The nicer the family, the more outrageous the accusations against them seemed, and Gerry reinforced their niceness each day with his child friendly toppings and mince and tatties, so his audience could say, 'wow, even though K & G are way above us on the evolutionary scale, they eat the same things as us, that is soooo endearing'.  And Kate reinforced her humility with her soft 'Lady Di, Queen of Hearts' smiles and hugs for the less fortunate who joined her in prayer and reached out to touch her on her walkabouts.

Kate - The Voice for Children

With the best spin doctors, crisis managers and lawyers the Madeleine Fund (not a charity) could buy, the McCanns were sanitised to a point where they became untouchable.  And to a point where they actually believe their own manufactured image.  In their own eyes and with their own supersize sense of entitlement, they feel that it is they who have been 'wronged', all their dreams shattered by a small group of saddoes on the internet who are jealous of them.

Gerry, the Voice for Hacked Off libel claimants

The McCanns had clear goals.  They wanted to be so much more than grief stricken parents.  They wanted to be heroes, icons, role models and they wanted public recognition for their good works. Kate wanted to be the 'Voice for Children', Gerry wanted to be the 'Voice for Hacked Off' (and much, much, more).  Unfortunately, neither of them had the charisma to pull it off - they only get really enthusiastic when they are raising money for themselves. 

Unfortunately for them, they lack amiability and warmth, they are restricted to one (very unhappy) subject - game shows and light hearted current affairs are out.  Tis my belief, it was Gerry's agenda to create an Organisation similar to the multimillion dollar NCMEC (Nation Centre for Missing and Exploited Children) in the US, with himself the UK equivalent of TV personality, John Walsh.  Who can forget Gerry's gleeful little face on the Whitehouse lawn. I think that dream was shared by a few others.  After Madeleine went missing, Kate realised the global extent of child abduction, child trafficking etc she told us.  Having experienced the tragedy firsthand, both Kate and Gerry pushed themselves to the forefront of child protection, sharing the breakfast sofa with the Head of CEOP and reminding us regularly that our children are in constant danger. 

Gerry with Ernie Allen NCMEC
at the Whitehouse


It is a fact of life that people like the McCanns will capitalise on peoples' natural generosity when faced with a tragedy, our instinct is to sympathise and offer help, it is what makes us human, though we see it in the animal world too, when one creature will go to the assistance of another in distress.  Predators will capitalise on this human instinct, because they see sympathy and empathy as a weakness.  They see people below them on the evolutionary scale (most of us, their own self esteem goes through the roof) as easy prey.  We are not clever enough to work out what they are doing.  They don't fear us, they despise us, because we are so easy to manipulate.  For them it is a game, look closely at their videos, they are laughing at us. 

Aren't we clever?

How do we know, we are just here to discuss the Fund


Please Give Generously

Multimillion book deal. Sweet!

The McCanns turned themselves into icons that the masses could worship. 'You are so brave' swooned Lorraine, 'yeh, more of that sweetcheeks' Gerry replies 'the Missus and I are hoping for honours, a life peerage at least, 'it's not many who get a standing ovation from an audience of police.  

We had at home with Kate, the perfect mother, at work with Gerry, the perfect Doctor and partying with our favourite couple and other celebrities at Kensington Roof Gardens - with Kate in a dress designed for a Baptist hoedown and Gerry suitably attired to give a bible reading after.  I don't like to say they are manipulating us, but they have been preparing for high office since they first appeared jogging together in matching outfits and giving us accounts of their perfect lives. 

The McCanns perfect lives and parenting bears little resemblance to the reality that is familiar to most mums and dads.  A home with a toddler is a battleground from dusk to dawn. Jerry Seinfeld put far better than I, having a toddler in the home is akin to leaving the top off the liquidiser. We can't control them, they can't control themselves.  No, means No, for less than 5 minutes, they have the attention span of a goldfish, 'oh look, there's a castle, oh look, there's castle'.  

 To say that a holiday with 3 toddlers was perfect, cannot possibly be true unless said toddlers were automatons.  Most parents come home from such holidays traumatized and swearing never to do it again - well, until the following year anyway.  Toddlers don't say 'I've had the best day of my life' and fall asleep the moment their heads hit the pillow. It doesn't matter if you threaten to beat the daylights out of them, offer them all the ice cream they can eat or a cheque (nb. cheques and IOUs only work after the age of 5 and before the age of 10). If they don't want to stay in bed, they won't! Except in McCann world. 

The problem the politicians have, and politics lies at the heart of this, is the sheer volume of rich, famous and powerful people who became involved, people who will find it very difficult to explain that they didn't know what was going on.  The first two policemen on the scene (referred to by Kate as Tweedledum and Tweedledee in her book), knew immediately that the scene was staged, yet the British government intervened in the investigation to the point where the lead detective was removed.  Some might say people in high office perverted the course of justice.

The Establishment defended their intervention by promoting the McCanns as the perfect British Family and putting the blame onto Johnny Foreigner.  Portugal were portrayed as a third world country, with corrupt police who couldn't find the abductor so they were blaming Kate and Gerry.  Both the British government and the British media bought and promoted dialogue that was coming directly from 2 of the 3 arguidos, choosing to believe Kate and Gerry over the Portuguese police!

There is no real defence to the 'abduction' story, there is NOTHING tangible to back it up, even now 8 years on, there is no proof that Kate and Gerry had nothing to do with their daughter's disappearance.  If there were anything that categorically proved the McCanns were innocent, their super efficient media monitoring machine would have shouted it from the rooftops and we could all go home.  Proving over and over again, what a nice family they are, just ain't cutting the mustard.

This case is a perfect example of the power of the internet and social media. For the McCanns it was the best thing since sliced bread - they were getting a million hits a day on their website, and they were waking to the kerching of their paypal donate button.  All the while Gerry had control of what was appearing online, the world was his own personal jet and 5* hotel. He was hobnobbing at the Whitehouse and planning an annual 'Madeleine Day for the Whole World' something involving Elton John, something Arts, something Sports, something on the scale of Comic Relief and Save the World, with all the proceeds going to the Madeleine Fund (not a Charity). Unfortunately he lacks the chutzpah of Jimmy Swaggart, so it never really took off. 
Far from telling Gerry to go and have a lie down with a mind improving book (not Mein Kampf), he was besieged by similarly minded megalomaniacs who could see quite a lot in it for themselves.  Birds of a feather and all that. People like Mitchell and Gamble who hover on the periphery of tragedy, feigning empathy whilst screaming inside 'what about me?'. 

Having spent a lifetime studying human behaviour, I have to confess, it is the psychological aspects of this case that captivated me, more particularly how to spot a lie/liar.  Kate and Gerry truly believe that we are buying what they are selling, they believe it to such an extent, that they keep appearing on our TV screens to sell us some more.  They either have advisors who are inept, sycophants (who have the meter running), or they simply refuse to listen.

Vanity too plays a role and indeed vengeance.  'Here I am at the White House, here we are with Oprah Winfrey, Clement Freud, Hugh Grant and with bestie Lorraine on the breakfast sofa, so in your face you lowlife scum'. 
What a stupid question, who are you?

Don't fuck with me!

Unfortunately for Kate and Gerry, their love of the limelight digs them deeper and deeper into a hole.  Their odd behaviour attracts students of psychology, body language and forensic linguistics, spotting the 'tells' in every interview is an enlightening process, when you learn to spot a liar, the world changes.

The experts 100%, unreserved, belief is based on 'the parents couldn't possibly be involved because they are far too nice'.  Crimes such as these are committed by chavs, drug users, alcoholics and low lives, not nice respectable families. And if we dare to believe or even think otherwise then the whole fabric of our society breaks down.  And that's a pretty good reason to cover up the truth.

Sunday, 15 March 2015


In the worlds of Health, Science, the Arts Industry, the government are advised by legitimate experts with strings of letters behind their names and years of hands on experience.

However, in the world of child protection, they appear to take their advice from self appointed experts and from the police and ex police who have set themselves up as child protection consultants.  Whilst the police may have a lot of experience in arresting, interrogating and prosecuting child abusers, they do not have the background or training to deal with the sensitive psychological issues that surround this whole issue.  They are coming from the wrong direction, they do not understand the causes and effects, their job ends with a conviction. 

Child abuse is a complex issue that can only be tackled effectively once we know the causes, the triggers, the ways in which it takes hold, and the ways in which it is covered up.  Breaking a door down, arresting family members and placing children in care, does not an expert make.   

Most governments are reluctant to commission a report, or even listen to real experts in the subject of child abuse, because their advice will involve spending lots of money.  There is little political kudos to be gained from headlines like 'a million kids lifted out of poverty', after pats on the back all round, its yesterday's news.  Stranger danger cases like Madeleine McCann, can headline for years, with the added benefit of increasing the need for public surveillance.

Child protection, like every other industry, is competing for government cash.  It is in the interests of those protecting children, to claim that our children are in constant danger from strangers and online.  The actual statistics however, bear little resemblance to the claims. Children are indeed abused, but the majority (over 90%) are abused within their own homes, and they are abused by people who know them. The ONLY way in which to protect these vulnerable children is through education and expansion of the frontline services who are presently collapsing through lack of funds.

I take issue with the manufactured fear of stranger danger and gangs of paedophiles congregating and lurking together on the internet.  I'm trying to picture Cyril Smith, Jimmy Savile and Gary Glitter chatting and exchanging images on a forum.  Nah, just don't see it.  They all knew exactly where to go for their supplies and were doing it, not chatting about it.

Unfortunately, the whole issue of child abuse, both historic and current is a hot political football, one where we the public, are only seeing the surface of what is going on.  We are not seeing the back door dealings, the blackmail (its a murky subject, why not?) or the power games that are being played, and we probably never will.  There is little that we can do about that, but for the sake of children everywhere, we should protect them by asking who are the experts and consultants advising on government child abuse policy now?

During the 1980's and 1990's social workers and government ministers were being advised by the 'highly regarded' Mr. Ray Wyre, an ex Baptist minister and self proclaimed expert on paedophilia.  During this time, hundreds of children were 'seized' and placed in care by the authorities, using the guidelines drawn up by Mr. Wyre, and subjected to the most horrendous abuse imaginable - the topic of the day was how far the anuses of these children dilated.

Mr. Wyre believed that masturbation satiation should be mandatory in the treatment of (male) sex offenders.  That is, they should be supplied with, and forced to watch horrific images of child abuse (where do they get them from?) as part of their 'cure'.  Its pretty hard to imagine anything more sickening.

I doubt very much that Mr. Wyre's methods and techniques are the result of any legitimate, scientific/academic study, yet his 'expertise' was so widely accepted that children were 'seized' by the authorities throughout the UK, thousands of lives were wrecked and the victims now form part of Theresa May's growing headache. 

Ms May, or whoever takes her place after the General Election, should look carefully at child protection consultants who advise them, especially those who advocate the 'seizure' of children from their parents on a mass scale.  Appointing a Witchfinder General never has been and never will be a solution.

In the unenlightened 80's and 90's, there was no internet, and wild claims of ritual satanic abuse were able to take hold and flourish and the reluctance to question Mr. Wyre and his methods led to utter devastation.  I can only hope that the politicians of today are not so coy.

Monday, 9 March 2015


Clearly crimes were committed against children who were placed 'in care' and institutional abuse was at one time, standard practice.  The testimony of a survivor of the 'care' meted out by the Sisters of Nazareth will hardly differ from that of a survivor of the Sisters of Mercy or the Magdalenes, the punishments and tortures almost identical. 

A civilised society chooses (democratically) to care for and protect its most vulnerable children and adults, and it entrusts and funds the authorities and the administrators to care for these children and adults on its' behalf. 

And such is bureaucracy, the deals for these 'care packages' are made in the boardrooms, the finer restaurants and on the golf courses.  'We will pay you £x per unit (child)' says the councillor to the bishop, what you do with the units, is pretty much up to yourself, we won't bother you, and the cheaper you can do it, the better for all of us - Father'.  'No problem there', the good Father replies, we teach humility.  And thus the deals are made and the 'units' are doomed.  In Eire, under the Magdalen Sisters, the good fathers and sisters had a double whammy, they were supplied with enough fallen girls and women (free labour) to run a thriving laundry industry.  They already had the whiplash crew. The answer to every question is money.

The problem the Defendants in these historic abuse cases have, is that there are so many of them.  What the Authorities and the Churches are defending is a system of abuse that ran rife throughout the UK, and that they never expected to come back and haunt them. In defending each case individually, they are holding back the tide because the very public CSA Inquiry has opened the floodgates. 

Their form of Defence is Attack, and I am illustrating these attacks on this blog and with snippets of my own Court case, in the hope that other survivors are reading this and can form an idea of what it is they will have to face.  Forewarned is forearmed.  If I had known what these defenders of abusers were going to throw at me in the Courtroom, I would have been much better prepared.

What they are playing now is the 'blame' game, through whatever means possible, they must shift the blame onto the claimants or elsewhere.  Be under no illusion that the abusers and the punishment systems will be put on trial, they won't be, the claimant will.  The only reason I made it as far as a Courtroom, was because I have a clean CRB, no skeletons in my closet , I'm not an addict, nor am I a liar (proven) lol. More importantly, I can speak out loud and clear because I wasn't sexually assaulted (probably because I was a gobby know-it-all as one poster pointed out) and I have long since abandoned the old 'guilt and shame' shite that the good nuns tried to batter into me.  I very rarely, if ever, feel the need to tell a virtuous man in a confessional box what I got up to behind the bike sheds. 

For those who were sexually assaulted, I cannot even begin to imagine what an ordeal standing in a witness box would be like, and it is why I and others have to speak out on their behalf.  Not only do those who were sexually abused have to deal with the horrible memories, they also have to deal with the 'guilt and shame' that accompanies them. Catholicism successfully combines both 'Guilt' and 'Shame' cultures, so that believers have more to punish themselves with, this especially appeals to the masochists who can flagellate away in the name of God and not look in the least bit loopy.  That it appeals to the sadists too, is a given. We all have to suffer as Christ did and there are always those willing to help the less reluctant.    

But back to my Court case.  Because they had nothing on me, they attacked my parents (why I am still here fighting now - some things are unforgiveable). I was not 'damaged' enough, the sad fact is, those that are, will never reach a Court room, most are already dead.  The Defence tactics are brutal - they have to be, we are the Tyger Tyger, unaware (as yet) of the power we have to expose the greedy underbelly of the fatcats who dined on our misery. United we would be formidable, and if we had a common goal, we would be more formidable still. 

At the moment, those defending, and indeed trying to cover up, the systematic abuse that went on, and may indeed still be going on, are making amends to the survivors by promising to track down and punish the individuals who carried out the abuse. This is an almost impossible task that will plunge the claimant into years of recalling every miserable detail of their childhoods until they are finally broken. There will be very few, if any, happy endings while the CSA Inquiry continues in this direction.     

Of course the abusers should face justice, but whilst some of these crazies may still be alive and capable of facing trial and punishment, there is very little satisfaction for the victim, and it doesn't heal the wounds. It is a system that is designed to carry on ad infinitum, one that will always protect the powers that be, one that attracts wannabe Witchfinder Generals (inquisitors) under the guise of child protection and one that has no intention of ever paying financial retribution to the real victims. 

An entire middle class industry has sprung up around the issue of historic child abuse.  One that profits the lawyers, the inquisitors, the media industry and even the medical profession.  And one in which, not a penny goes to the victims.  It would be nice to think that all these 'sympathetic' helpers are doing this for altruistic reasons, but in many cases they are not, they are simply making a living and some are 'striving to make a name for themselves' (most of us are - we are driven by our inner 'whats in it for us' desires, whether we acknowledge it or not). 

Unfortunately, whether they are aware of it or not, they are simply prolonging the agony of those they are 'helping'.  It isn't their fault, its the way the system is designed, there is nothing in place to pick up the pieces when the case fails, which it almost inevitably will - try proving a crime took place yesterday, then try it again with one that took place 40 years ago.  If a paedophile is found guilty of sexually assault 140 boys, each and every one of those boys will have to prove (beyond reasonable doubt) that the same paedophile sexually abused them, giving full and graphic details of every incident of assault together with witnesses, before they will receive an award for the suffering they endured.  Its akin to the old Nazi joke; The Commandant to the Bishop, 'we will spare your life if you can tell us how many passengers went down with the Titanic', then to the Rabbi, 'name them'. 

And when thy heart began to beat, what dread hand? and what dread feet?
William Blake


Saturday, 7 March 2015


The abuses of the Sisters of Nazareth were widespread, and certainly not contained within Northern Ireland.  So too the abuses of the Sisters of Mercy and indeed the Magdalenes and who knows how many other extreme religious Orders.  Indeed, with no sense of irony the Sisters of Mercy would often remind we inmates, how fortunate we were to be in their care and not in the care of their more deranged Sisters, the Carmelites. 

Eventually, those dealing with the thousands of cases that will pour in, will have to acknowledge that there is a common theme.  ANY care institution will attract sadistic psychopaths, who will strive to achieve their sense of law, order and control, particularly within an environment that is ruled by obedience and humility and is closed off to the outside world.  Religious institutions are run by people with a fanatical belief in an unseen entity who's goal in life is to force others join in with their insanity.  Theirs is the right way (society approves) and everyone agrees non conformists should be punished until they fall into line.  Its not permissible to do this prisons, but its perfectly acceptable with children. Psychopaths are in fact the ideal choice to raise an army of model citizens who will obey the law without question. 

Psychopaths are all around us, and contrary to popular opinion they are rarely gibbering maniacs wielding pickaxes, the majority of them are functioning, and indeed 'contributing' members of society. A high percentage of them reach and hold onto positions of great power, it's their psychopathy that got them thus far.  They are appreciated, nay, valued, in the workplace, they keep the cogs of the psychopath above them (in the food chain) running. 

Most however, feel undervalued (they are intrinsically narcissistic) and the only way in which to prove their worth is step on the heads of those beneath them, both metaphorically and physically. The 'failures' among them are particularly drawn to the care industry where they will have power and be able to vent their rage, against vulnerable people.  It is not restricted to children or even to institutions, these bullies exist throughout society you will find them in every workplace and on every street. 

Society does not have the will to get rid of these monsters among us, and it is even questionable whether they it should, they get things done and they are easy to manipulate.  They have no morals or scruples, and they certainly don't have empathy.  They do the murky stuff, things that the rest of us don't wan't to do, or even peek at, they clean up the mess and they maintain law and order.  Society needs them, we just don't want to acknowledge they exist.  As the divine Jack Nicholson said, way better than I, we can't handle the truth, and in the face of it, most of us assume the ostrich position.    

The whole area of psychopathy and what we should do about the psychopaths among us, is a whole new area of debate, there are fors and there are againsts, but as a compassionate society, we should at least make some attempt to ensure they don't look after our grandmothers, or indeed ourselves as our years of whooping it up take their toll.  But that debate is for another day.  

I would stress however, that psychopathy that is allowed to run unchecked and unrestrained, and even encouraged, as happened in the convents for decades, will lead to unspeakable abuse.  In the 1960's and the 1970's they invited lay people, people not of the cloth, but also religious fanatics, to come join them with the childcare - the floodgates were opened.  The 60's, 70's and indeed 80's were, imo, the worst for the abuses, at that time they were bringing in new psychopaths with new ideas (forms of torture) to a bunch of bored women who knew nothing whatsoever about the outside world.  Like attracts like, and psychopaths working together are especially effective.

Whilst it is said that 10% of the population are psychopaths, if you began to look into the percentage in extreme religious Orders, it would probably rocket, (I intend to do a study one day). Religion is all about control.  In areas where it steps into illegality with rape, GBH, sexual, physical and mental abuse, then it should be subject to the Laws of the land that prevails, it should not have group immunity based on the assumption that those who hold strong religious beliefs are good people.  Those who hold extremist religious beliefs that they want to inflict on others are downright dangerous, they just won't take no for an answer. 

But lets get back to the historic abuse.  Even in the 1960's/1970's, the punishments meted out to the children placed in the care of psychopaths was against the Law.  Prisoners in Wormwood Scrubs were better protected. That the local Authorities were paying these institutions vast sums of public money without ensuring we at least received our basic human rights, was criminally negligent.  Those who employed said psychopaths, the Roman Catholic Church and the other institutions were paid handsomely to provide us with a safe, secure and humane environment, they failed spectacularly.  I would like to say that they were neglectful.  They weren't.  They were doing what they set out to do and were probably instructed to do.  They were 'reforming' the Godless children placed in their care, and preparing them to be good, obedient, citizens, who knew their station (humble) in life and who would never question authority.

That these systems of punishments, humiliation control and indoctrination often had the opposite effect, a hatred and distrust of authority, mattered not, it was all about 'the fun times' they had doing it.  Give me the child until he hits puberty and I will give you the (naked), obedient slave, who will suck you off and wash the dishes.  Most of the 'reformed' kids went wild after release.  How long these (and even lesser) abuses went on for, can probably be traced back through history, as a 14 year old, locked in my room and not allowed to go to the ball, I knew exactly how Jane Eyre felt in the 19th century.  There will always be people in life who get a kick out of punishing and reforming others.

No-one is allowed to question the ideology of the Roman Catholic Church, or indeed any other religion, it is a taboo subject, a no go area.  That they are performing 'good deeds' is taken as a given, historically, the clergy, and regular church attendees are assumed to be good, because they have foregone life's pleasures in order to devote their entire lives to a God the rest of us can't see. That their ideology is based on a 2000 year old book of rules that most of us can't be arsed to read , one that advocates the burning in hell forevermore of the little boy and the thousands of others who can't see the Emperor's new clothes, matters not, the kids will be safe in their hands. 

Most clergy do not need CRB checks, they are swept through the corridors of power the world over without question.  They advise governments and they steer the flock.  Their 'cloth' commands respect and gives them immunity.  It has protected them throughout history, and it protects them now.  The public are sick of these historic abuse cases and the horrible criticism of these humble, devoted nuns who gave up everything to look after the brats. They see the sacrifice and the vows of poverty and humility, not how wrong it is for this religion to beat into those who fall within its clutches that suffering and poverty is worthy and noble and a desire for pleasure and cash is dirty and evil. Religion isn't about empowerment, it is about handing your inner power over to someone else (God's reps on earth) and asking them make your decisions for you.   

It is not just individuals who hand their power over to a higher being, although the UK is supposed to be run on secular lines, the governing bodies put their faith in the Church.  In the 1960's and the 1970's (and for centuries before), the authorities trusted the Church to take care of its orphans and homeless children, it was assumed, without checking, that we would be safe and well cared for.  How they went about our day to day care was entirely up to them, they put us in places of safety, boxes ticked.  They were criminally negligent. If they had handed us over to another other cult group, the Moonies, or a group of devil worshippers, eyebrows may have been raised, but even non believers know better than to question the Catholic Church. 

The only fair and compassionate way to deal with ALL these cases of historic abuse, is for the Authorities to acknowledge their negligence in placing us in these institutions without ensuring that we were being cared for humanely. And they must pay, in the same way that other negligent, fraudulent, companies and corporations do.  Financially.  The bulk of the compensation however, should come from the Roman Catholic Church.  The took the public's, and in many cases, our parents' money, and it became part of their mountainous coffers under the Vatican and guarded by Ebenezers. Those who committed the crimes should face a jury of their peers, and those who profited from those crimes (the answer to every question is money) should be made to repay the cash, and then some.

As for those spitting the words 'compo' with contempt and disdain, suggesting a central pot for the middle class professionals to dip into under the guise of helping the victims, you can go and boil your noble heads.  The ONLY cure for survivors, or indeed for anyone who suffers from any form of depression, is self empowerment.  No-one can 'make you better', the only person who can do that is yourself.  Survivors were robbed of their inner power as children, and they are being robbed still.  If they receive cash awards, which is what this is all about, though most are too coy to say, then what they do with it should be entirely up to them.  Are millionaire libel victors given provisos that state they must spend their cash awards on therapy for their hurt feelings?  Away with your faux morality, if a survivor wants to spend a month on cocaine, a year in a Buddhist monastary, or buy a little yellow noddy car, that should be entirely up to them. Empowerment is about choice.

From an economic perspective, it would be cheaper for the local authorities and the Church, to admit liability and negotiate settlement on a 'class action' scale. Every case they fight on an individual basis costs hundreds of thousands of pounds, and as more and more cases come forward, the evidence that the abuse occurred becomes overwhelming.  They can no longer deny it and fighting each case will cost them billions.

As long as each case has to be proved on an individual basis, the historic abuse enquiry will drag on for decades.  And there is NO BENEFIT to the survivors in all this. Dragging up horrors from the past, doesn't empower you, it destroys you.  I know this because I have done it, I've worn the t-shirt and I've written the book!  I also have no qualms in owning up, when I am wrong.  And the way in which I approached all this, was very wrong, it almost killed me. 

Each and every survivor who embarks on a journey of revenge should take the advice of Confucius, 'Dig two graves'.  The entire system is geared towards disproving the abuse ever took place and measuring (psychologically) 'just how damaged' you are.  Obviously, the more damaged you are, the higher the award will be, ergo, consciously, or subconsciously, that is what you will aim for. 

As the Inquiry stands, each survivor will have to relive the horrors that traumatised them in order to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they were abused.  They (and their families- the Defence will dig up everything) are put on trial, NOT the abusers.  The psychological tests and evaluations are not intended to assist the survivor in any way, they end with recommendations that will never be followed up, because neither the cash, nor the will exists, to pursue them.  Survivors are, quite literally, abandoned at the door of the Court.  Several go on to commit suicide. 

Sadly, this is a situation that won't change anytime soon, because the Authorities hold all the cards, they dictate the dominant ideology (priests, nuns etc are good, survivors are low life scum) and the public buys it.  It allows them to get away with blatant lies, eg. the Sisters of Mercy committed abuses in Eire, but not in the UK, or indeed anywhere else. 

Most survivors are too wrapped up in their own woes and needs, to even contemplate the bigger picture.  They see only the abuse they suffered and how it affected them, they focus on the negative, not the positive, not the ways in which to move on.  And I can say that in complete honesty, because I was too.  We accept our role as a victim because it is familiar to us, its part of our make up, it is how we were raised.  It triggers memory receptors in our brains, its almost comforting.  We handed our power over to those who abused us, and we are doing it still.  We are the peasants paraded in the dock to satisfy the News of the World needs of the masses, and we accept this public humiliation because we believe we deserve it.  Those who are thankful to the convent for making them what they are, are more deluded still, but at least they haven't had to live the horrors that we have and they have lived the ordered lives they chose. 

We are fighting a cover up that took place while we were 'in care' and is taking place still.  The authorities want us to focus on the individual psychopaths, they need someone to burn in the town square and there is nowt more popular than a paedophile, they are this century's witches.  They need us to recount in graphic detail every incident of abuse (especially sexual), it draws the Oohs, and the Aahhs - bums on seats and all that.  But more importantly, it takes the blame away from the neglect issue and ties the matter up for decades.  It matters not to them, because any money set aside for the inevitable will continue to earn interest in their bank accounts, not ours.  

And for those worrying about the money coming from the taxpayers, it won't. The money will come from the public liability insurance they should have in place.  It is the insurance companies who are fighting these claims, the insurers, the reinsurers and their top of the range lawyers paid £500+ per hour to find loopholes to get their clients off the hook (Insurance and Reinsurance is highly lucrative).  Meanwhile, the 'Defence' will be fronted by Council representatives who will imply the cash will have to taken from far more deserving causes, thus reinforcing the idea that the claimant is a low life chancer who would snatch the food out of the mouths of babes to buy their white cider. 

We need to change our way of thinking, and we need to face up to reality. 
Crimes were committed, because a culture of crime was allowed to breed and exist within the Institutions who were given millions of pounds to care for society's most vulnerable children, whilst the Authorities turned their backs.  Where there is physical abuse, there is usually financial abuse, and in drawing up the settlements, I would suggest they take a close look at the accounts from that time, because someone was profiting from keeping us in poverty and humility. Our clothes were decades old and we were only allowed to eat broken, donated biscuits, from the local factory. I was 16 before I experienced the joys of a whole chocolate digestive and to this day the inner catholic in me wants to bash them about a bit before tucking in. 

The only way in which this Inquiry can reach a logical, humane and satisfactory conclusion is to sit down at the table and work out a scale of compensation based on the number of years a claimant can prove they were within the care of abusers, in a similar way to which they have dealt with the claims in Eire. 

The survivors need to be realistic in their demands.  No-one can give them back their childhoods or compensate them for any crazy decisions they made in adulthood as a result.  But acknowledgment that it occurred (most of us are treated as crazy), an apology and a realistic cash sum will give many the opportunity to turn their lives around through therapy, education, starting a small business, helping their children, or even an exotic holiday.  What does it matter?  The first step to recovery is to empower the sufferer, to give back that which was taken away, and nothing does that better than cash.  

And the first proactive thing the survivors should do, is to employ an experienced, co-ordinating lawyer, who can draw up a realistic award scale to present as the opening argument in a move towards final settlement and the putting to bed of the entire issue.  The survivors need to make clear exactly what it is they want, and they need someone who isn't bashful when it gets down to the nitty gritty.

For most of the working classes, the discussion of money, and the desire for money, is seen as tacky and tasteless, thus they are happy to leave such discussions to the professionals.  They feel compelled to present their claims as noble, honourable, its all about justice, not frivolity or a reward for moi.  Unfortunately, this mentality allows those with the purse strings to dictate the rules and moral codes and provisos attached.  God forbid, any cash should go to the undeserving poor. 

As survivors as long as we accept, go along with, and encourage this mentality, we remain victims.  The only way the individual abuse cases can be resolved is through a class action that challenges the culture and systems of abuse that existed at that time [and illegal at that time] to pressurise the Church and the Local Authorities to accept their liability for crimes that were committed, and which they paid for.  

Individuals can and will, be broken.  They are fragile to begin with and most are not aware of the Goliath they are taking on when they set out on their quest for justice.  They will further be broken by all the negativity they are dragging up from their pasts and focusing on in their present.  By the time they reach the witness box, all it will take to polish them off, is a few swords to the heart, wielded of course by the representative of God's representative here on earth.   

I am not advising Survivors to abandon their claims, I am advising them to re-evaluate the way in which they pursue them.  The abuse in these convents and childrens' homes and institutions has been proved over and over again.  The evidence that a culture of abuse existed is overwhelming.  If a survivor has evidence that they were in a home where abuse has been proven to be prolific, accept their word for it, and compensate them accordingly. Don't put them on trial. 

At the moment, the only ones profiting from this Inquiry, are the professionals who are investigating it, while the survivors are told to stand in line.  Dealing with each case individually will ensure that the Inquiry outlives most, if not all, of them.  And this status quo will remain ad infinitum until someone brings up the subject of filthy lucre and a humane and compassionate way in which to make it up to those who were treated so badly when they were at their most vulnerable.  

I know that my ideas and theories are not popular, especially among survivors, because most want, the same thing that I wanted, to see and to face their abusers in a Court of law, as adults and as equals. They need to look them in the eye, they need to know why they had been treated so cruelly.  But they won't find the answers in a Court room, or through a series of gruelling psychological tests.  If you fortunate to 'face' your abuser (I wasn't they sent representatives to lie for them) you will see only the elderly shell of a life that is way more fecked up, than yours could ever be.  There is no satisfaction and there is no healing.

Every survivor has a right to tell their story, and every story should be heard, but not in a cold hard witness box, where the general assumption is that they are lying.  It is the abusers who should be on trial, not the survivors. There are ways and means in which to tell your story that are both healing and cathartic, ways that will enable you to find the peace and solace that you desperately seek. 

Survivors KNOW they were abused, it is society that is planting the 'was it me, was it them?' questions in our heads.  We know the system wasn't sane, and it wasn't legal.  The Defence will always try to prove it was our fault or the faults of our parents, basically anyone other than their clients.  I see one commentator has already mentioned I was insolent.  Case proven and damn good thrashing well deserved.  Lol. 

We accept the blame for our non conformity because we are clearly mad.  We know that because when 'responsible people' took over our care they tried to beat it out of us.  We have grown up with a distorted, skew whiff, perspective of the world, one that demands we must blame and punish ourselves rather than consider that those making and enforcing the rules, might be criminally insane. As long as we approach these historic abuse claims from that victim perspective and mentality, we can never win.  And lets be clear what a win is.  A win is an acknowledgment that the abuse occurred, an apology, an assurance that such abuses will never be allowed to happen again, and a cash settlement for every legitimate claimant that is approved by both sides. Survivors should stop taking the blame and accept nothing less.