Wednesday 29 April 2015


World's phoniest victims 
The parents of missing Madeleine McCann are once again delighted to receive a large cash award to compensate them for their hurt feelings, feelings hurt, not by the loss of their daughter which they recovered from within 48 hours, but by the loss of public adulation.

Again and again, they blame Goncalo Amaral for putting a stop to the phenomenal Fund that was set to make them multi millionaires.  If Goncalo had kept his trap shut, Gerry would have been running his own TV channel devoted to himself missing children and Kate would be dishing out advice on childcare.  They believe that Goncalo alone is responsible for their downfall and that if they destroy him, they will be put right back up on those pedestals where they belong. 

Its lunacy of course, the Portuguese police files, the mountains of evidence online and of course their own bizarre behaviour gave them away, and gives them away still.  They are fixated on Goncalo as the enemy, but the enemy is all around them, and moving in.  Wouldn't want to be them in a zillion years, it will only take one person to break the pact, and then they all go down. They must put all their faith in human nature, and you can't get good odds for that, no matter how many rosaries you say. 

I am stumped as to the Portuguese Justice System.  It has left me without words.  For the moment, I will blame myself for putting too much faith it, perhaps even for seeing the libel verdict as the end, rather than another chapter leading up towards the climax. 

Truth and Justice never comes about naturally, it takes lots of battles and occasionally a revolution.  At the time of writing this, Goncalo has yet to hear the official verdict (?) or commented, though I believe he is going to appeal.  That is fantastic.  And now is the time to up the ante and get behind him with all the support we can rally. 

I would urge all those rich benefactors and media moguls who have been similarly forced to hand over cash to these bereaved parents to get behind Goncalo Amaral, even if they do so anonymously, or they will be held to ransom forever more.  When they make the film, which they will, Goncalo will be the last man standing, and the public will remember the ones who fought on behalf the victim and condemn those who protected her killers.  That's the story.

To donate to Goncalo Amaral's legal fund: 

The Truth of the Lie:

Sunday 26 April 2015



A few months ago I did an interview for the Sun regarding my 'involvement' in the McCann case.  The interview was about the internet and trolls. I have had nearly 8 years of being slandered, threatened, abused and occasionally been encouraged to end it all, so I thought feck it, I finally have the chance to show the watching world (I hoped) that I wasn't in fact a two headed beast pounding out vitriol about a grief stricken family from the backroom of a grimy bedsit. 

Thus preacheth Tony Bennett
I said quite a lot of words when I gave the interview, but the one that stood out in the minds of the Sun headline skimmers, Tony Bennett and a large percentage of the fruitloop antis was the word 'Bitch'.  The 'pros' were of course too busy laughing - and it was a fair cop, they had just cause.  And fair dues on the Sun editors too, supply and demand and all that and the word 'bitch' is always pretty reliable. The public however didn't bat an eyelid, the only threats and messages of hate I received came from antis claiming I had devastated the cause and blackened their names.  It was as if I had eaten the last cake that they all had their eye on.

In the eyes of the middle class white men running this case (on both sides) we must all listen with mother and stand when the National Anthem comes on.  The idea that women, and confident, attractive ones at that, should be running the Investigation and the making of a documentary, is an effrontery that has wedged those tiny whities right up their arses.  The lead detective has flowing blonde locks and paints her nails.  WTF! Stop the press, drop the Royal baby, unless a woman has the mind of an antiquated bishop and the face of Anne Widdicombe, she should never be taken seriously! 

Anyway, back to that Sun article.  Trying to explain that you are not a lunatic can unfortunately have the opposite effect, and I speak from experience so I should have known better.  But I was once told by a soothsayer that I'd make the middle pages of said red top, so I had to give it a shot.  Fortunately, for the world, the photographer insisted I kept my top on, but I might as well have for all the uproar that followed. 

Just to be clear, I was speaking for myself, I was not speaking on behalf of all those who have taken it so personally, those who's lives have been ruined by sharing the same non belief in the McCanns as myself.  I have never hidden behind anonymity, ergo, I have taken the full force of Team McCann retribution.  None of those protesting have, their 'real' lives have remained unaffected.  Whilst I am flattered these scaredy cats 'appointed' me their spokesperson, I didn't and nor did the article. I take nooooooo responsibility for any of the actions of the antis, as groups or individuals.  I've signed none of their Petitions and I've joined none of their secret groups.  I find what some of them do, and what they have done, morally corrupt, they have literally become (or were they always?) a pack of vigilantes meddling with an official police investigation by intimidating and harassing innocent witnesses. And, just for the record, I have never had any desire to be part of a mob, especially an angry one, because, and I cannot stress this enough, I despise mob mentality. 

 This case has attracted some of the worst of humanity, most of them posing as righteous, indignant, beacons of virtue and regular screamers of 'think of the children'.  People, who, for whatever reason are terrified of their identities being revealed.    

So what did I do that put me on par with Myra Hindley and Lucretia Borgia?  I admitted that I enjoy, actually to be precise, that I get a buzz from the 'verbal' jousting on twitter!  Shock, horror, prepare the bonfire, lol, actually, stoke it up, cause I've got more to add.  What I like about twitter is that it is a bit like Fight Club - the rule is, there are NO RULES.  And why on earth should there be?  Twitter is all about words, and unlike sticks and stones, they don't break your bones.  OK, occasionally some twisted fuckheads will come out with freaky stuff, but when you understand that the problem is coming from freaky sender, not you, you can deal with it rationally.  And enough laws already exist to round them up.

Why is it necessary to have a noble cause to promote in order to justify spending time on twitter?  Why must we pretend it is a chore, or something we have to squeeze in between deconstructing the Gettysburg Address and putting the washing on? Why can't we acknowledge we enjoy twitter for what it is?  It's fun ffs!  A bit like a funfair ride if you are on a particularly feisty hashtag.  For the first time in history, we, the plebs, can interact with - hell just about anyone, even the Pope!  We can tell our local MP he/she is a twat (and get escorted off the premises) and we can tell people like Stephen Fry, Russell Brand, Nicola Sturgeon and Callum Best how fab they are and Hugh Grant that his last film sucked.  Its a great leveller, and its impossible to keep a secret.  Maybe that's the problem, and the reason why Richard Madeley demands protection (from what?) and Grace Dent whines on about the lawless internet.  Those who demand others only say nice things about them, will have as much success with that as they will in the real world.  I wish them well and hope their heads get better.  Incidentally, it is only the completely witless and charmless who need it written into the statutes.

Sadly for those who wanted me stoned (not in a fun way), the public thrashing simply didn't happen.  Complete strangers wrote to me out of the blue, even pro's were sending me private messages and offers of kind shoulders and sympathy.  I found so many friends I never knew I had, and it restored my faith in human nature over and over.  Sadly, it also sorted the wheat from the chaff, and the sinister agendas from the genuine ones - ce la vie.  The Sungate episode was extremely enlightening, it showed how some people read what they want to, and not what is written.  Which might of course explain a certain person's poor research and conclusions. 

And speaking of Mr. Bennett and his barmy fixation with bitches:


Saturday 18 April 2015


I am in the unique position of being able to speak out on behalf of alleged paedophiles, without having a zillion books thrown at me, or being accused of being a paedophile myself because I am a survivor of a catholic children's home and the author of a misery memoir.  Gawd help those so labelled because someone needs to speak up for them before there are tragedies. Contrary to popular belief, the threat to children doesn't come from solitary men with mental health problems, it comes from much closer to home. 

It is about time the taboo and yucky subject of Paedophilia was opened up for debate, because whilst it is in the hands of zealots driven by a political and moral agenda, kids are not being protected.  Laying all of society's ills at the door of the local Quasimodo has never cleaned up the neighbourhood in the past and it won't now.    

First of all, how do you define a paedophile, the enemy we are all on the lookout for? For most people the image of a paedophile is a monster, hidden away in a bedsit, popping out only now and again to steal a child.  This is the image presented by the experts and the media and accepted by the public as the biggest threat.  In effect, they are this century's witches, evil creatures who want to steal and eat our innocent cherubs.  Except of course, the opposite is true.  These isolated dirty old men actually present the least risk, as they rarely have access to kids and more often than not, they are frightened of their own shadows.  In statistical terms, you are more likely to win the lottery, twice, than your child has of being molested by a hermit.  The odds on your child being molested by someone they know however, are probably 2/1 or evens. 

The truth is, men and indeed some women, who have a sexual interest in children are all around us, its often those who we least suspect and its often those who protest the loudest. Pointing the finger at the usual suspects draws attention away from themselves.  Society doesn't need to be groomed or manipulated to look the other way, we want, neh demand an enemy we can recognise instantly, and of course it helps if there are tattoos or signs to look out for, many thanks Dr. Joe Sullivan. 

Paedophilia is far from new, it is a leitmotif throughout human history and all the rage in roughy toughy Sparta.  Those who claim they can rid society of this evil are lying, they can't, it is part of human nature.  The only way children can be protected from predators is through education and by telling them the truth!  And the truth is, there is a very good chance that among the people they know, including their bosom family, there will be creeps who will try to molest them. 

I have never written about my own sexual experiences as a child because 1) I have kids myself and they didn't need to know about it, 2) I too find the subject yucky and 3) I wasn't traumatised!  However, my kids are older and wiser now and able to see things in perspective, as indeed am I.  And I feel sure as I relate my encounters, there will be a few nodding heads, and OMG's, that happened to me. 

I was 10/11 when I first became aware that quite a few 'ordinary' adult men did not see me as a child. I do not know if this is something experienced by every 10/11 year old girl, the subject is far too taboo, so I can only speak for myself and I can only relate a few of my experiences and the way in which I reacted to them.   

My Mum, God bless her, was a party gal, beautiful and feisty -  and when the song about the sock it to 'em mom who gave the Harper Valley PTA what for, came out, I thought it was all about her and me!  She had several boyfriends and I would often tag along when they took her out. Great for me, probably not so great for them. One of her boyfriends was a rich old fella with an open top car and a holiday flat in Brighton. 

To a 10 year old girl, 'would you like to go for a ride in my sports car' is on par with 'I've got puppies in the back of my van'.  He took me to a quiet car park, showed me his thing, and said if I sat on his knee and let him touch me I could drive his car and he would buy me a new dress.  It was all pretty yucky and repulsive, but for me, the dominant memory was driving the sports car and the new dress.  I didn't tell my mother, who would have killed him, and the dress was soooo pretty. Does that make me a mini prostitute?  I await the howls of condemnation. 

My next realisation that grown men were interested in me (children) sexually was at a house party while I was safely tucked up in bed.  I had wondered out earlier in my nightie to use the loo, seen all the adults getting drunk, had a few 'hello gorgeous' remarks thrown at me, and returned to bed.  I woke up to find a half naked man cuddling me, followed by a huge uproar as a furious Irish man pulled him away and a major punch as I cowered in the bed.

The next memorable occasion was a wedding reception I went to with a friend.  At the time, the number one hit was Gary Puckett's Young Girl and aged 11, I was very flattered when a grown man asked me to dance.  He sang all the words to me personally as we danced, then lifted me up, squeezed me tight, and whispered in my ear, that he could get arrested for what he was thinking.  I didn't know what he was thinking, so I didn't really care - apart from the fact that he had beer breath and his stubbly face had scratched my chin, he told me I was beautiful and that was the bit I heard and remembered. 

My next encounter, possibly of the third kind, was during a school outing to the cinema to see Swan Lake.  Mini skirts ruled, and the moment we stepped out of the school gates, we rolled and pulled our calf length skirts up as high as they would go. At the cinema I drew the short straw and had to sit at the end next a gentleman on his own.  During the course of the movie he kept putting his hand on my knee and tried to creep it further up my leg.  I have no idea how a normal 13 year old would react to that, I had by that time had 2 years of harsh religious indoctrination, so I kept my trap shut and mouthed 'help me' signs to my equally daft friends who also did nothing. I wasn't especially traumatised, though I did go off Tchaikovsky for a while.

Fortunately, or unfortunately, my budding career as a mini Lolita, was swiftly brought to an end by my being incarcerated in a convent. The sadistic monster in charge liked boys and loathed females - there was nothing kind, caring or compassionate in the abuse he dished out, all in the name of the Lord.  He despised women to a fanatical degree, as some of those religious zealots who rise to power often do, and he was in the unique position of being able to punish Eve and whoop it up with Adam.

It was the religious experience that traumatised me, not the human ones and that is why I feel so passionately, that the whole approach to paedophilia desperately needs to be re-assessed.  Focusing on the wrong enemy allows real abuse to continue.  The danger to kids doesn't come from the loner in his bedsit uploading child porn, it comes from all around them and from those we least suspect, especially those 'correcting' our behaviour for our own good.

While this 'lets hang a paedo' campaign might be popular among ex News of the World readers, it does absolutely nothing to protect the real children who are now being abused.  Physical abuse is far more prevalent and life threatening, but it doesn't incite the same interest and anger as the sexual stuff.  Those involved in child protection are focused almost exclusively on all matters below the waist, while evil stepfathers, carers driven to the brink, and sadists generally are battering and verbally abusing the kids in their care on a daily basis. 

Predators are drawn to young, vulnerable, single mums.  That is a fact, and that is where a large percentage of child abuse stems from. They move in on the family and take control. They usually begin by taking over the disciplining of the children for the stressed and much relieved mother, then they move onto the other stuff. My own mother, would never have any of it, and neither would I, but in every walk of life, rich and poor, I have seen it happen to others.  There are indeed lots of signs to look out, and tattoos are probably at the bottom of the list.

When dealing with the subject of paedophilia, we should be talking about protection, not retribution.  Resources should be concentrated on preventing abuse not picking up the pieces after. An angry mob burning down the house of an elderly man with learning difficulties doesn't rid society of evil, never has, and never will. Harsh internet laws will not prevent a drunk uncle at a wedding copping a feel from a prepubescent teenager, or stop grown men from wanting women in school uniforms to serve them drinks.  More children, young girls especially, would be better protected by their mothers teaching them to say 'fuck off' in a very loud voice and the strategic uses they can make of their elbows and stiletto heels. And for my critics, there are occasions when only the 'fuck' word will do and being groped is one of them. These tried and trusted methods have been used for centuries and protect far more children than panic buttons and creepy lectures from non sweary experts. 

As for my own childhood sexual encounters, some will say I was fortunate, because I was molested by nice paedophiles.  Possibly, but like murderers, or indeed regular people, paedophiles come in all shapes and sizes and from all walks of life.  Paedophilia crosses class and social barriers, it isn't confined to tattooed chavs and social misfits - far from it.  Most of the molesters I met and men who wanted to show me porn, were domineering, often popular, and many were alpha males and pillars of society. Look at Jimmy Savile and the string of elderly celebrities being arrested, do any of them fit Joe Sullivan's profile? 

None of those who molested me, were violent or threatening and I don't feel my life could have been improved had they been hung, drawn and quartered.  I also don't blame my mother, she was barely out of her teens herself and didn't have a clue what was going on.  I doubt very much I am the only child who has ever had a drunken party guest climb into bed beside them or been offered goodies in exchange for sexual favours. Most paedophiles woo a child in the same way as an adult heterosexual man woos a female.  Showcasing (strutting their stuff), flattery and present buying - difficult for a grown woman to spot, impossible for a child.  Many kids are probably not even aware they have been molested. 

The idea of experts compiling the profile of a typical child molester is ludicrous.  You can make them ugly, give them pimples, bad breath and tattoos but you may as well shoot goldfish in a tank.  There is no such thing as a 'typical' child molester. The friendly, non violent, generous and 'official' ones, will probably never be reported and the domineering sadists will have all around them cowering in fear. 

Sadly, the most evil, the homicidal maniacs, the crazies who pop up in societies all over the world are impossible to legislate against.  No amount of legislation would have prevented the Moors murders or the heinous crimes of Fred and Rosemary West. How do you draw up coverall laws that can take into account the sheer lunacy of one in a million without infringing on the rights and freedoms of everyone else?  Unfortunately, those who would introduce and enforce these laws, do it from a position that says anyone who criticises them or their proposed laws must be paedophiles themselves, or defenders of paedophiles. Ergo, in the 21st century, it is impossible to have any form of reasoned, logical debate on the subject of child abuse and its prevention, because the big voices, will always shut it down.

Saturday 11 April 2015


One of the biggest flaws in the case for any prosecution of the parents, is the fact that on the night of 3rd May, there was nothing odd about their behaviour, the penultimate night of their holiday, was much the same as all the previous nights.  It would be impossible, the defenders say, for Gerry and Kate McCann to have enacted such a charade if something terrible had happened to their daughter.  So strong is this argument, that it makes up a major part of their defence.  There is no way that anybody could do that, so case closed.

Sad interview faces


Unfortunately for the McCanns, when you give away so much information, and they have had to in order to keep the headlines, you also spill the beans bit by bit.  Gerry could not resist a shot at becoming the next Samuel Pepys by keeping the world informed of his daily activities and what he had for breakfast, while simultaneously running a campaign for world domination awareness of his and his wife's his daughter's plight.  A liar, fantasist, spin doctor extraordinaire and wannabe leader of the people Gerry may well be, but a writer he is not.  As fascinating as his life and choice between coco pops and bran flakes might be to him, its drivel to readers, he is not Kim Kardashian and no-one wants to be just like him.  

Acting normally
The idyllic, care free, day to day family life Gerry describes in his blog, does not correspond with the heart tugging account of the nightmare they were suffering at the hands of the Portuguese police as described in Kate's book.  Gerry speaks fondly of child friendly toppings, mince and tatties and family days, as if everybody (including the PJ) were supporting them and urging them on.  He was able to go from writhing on the floor and roaring like a bull, to Mr. cool, calm and collected, earnest father at the drop of a hat.  Kate too, could go from smashing up furniture and self harming to a serene, tragic heroine clutching onto her husband's hand, the moment a camera was pointed at her.  How do you have a screaming match with police detectives who believe you are involved in a heinous crime, then go on television and tell the world the police are not looking at you, they are looking for an abductor.   

Unfortunately for Team McCann, they are not nearly as clever as they think they are.  They have told us again and again and indeed given remarkable demonstrations, of how they were, and are, able to act 'normally' in the face of all adversity and in the most difficult situations imaginable.  Situations that would bring most normal people to their knees.   

Even Clarence confirmed, that we didn't know what was going on behind the scenes, the weeping, the wailing, the bed breaking, the thrashing around on the floor and roars of sheer pain.  Yet each time Kate and Gerry appeared in front of the cameras, they were smart, polished and almost serene, with no signs whatever (apart from the huge ugly bruises on Kate's wrists and arms) of the writhing or the gnashing of teeth that went on before. 

Their 'acting' was accepted without question, its the British way doncha know, and indeed they were praised for their stoicism.  They were putting on a brave front and it was something to be admired, and rewarded, it lifted Gerry and Kate above the herd, it gave the masses something to aspire to, a stiff upper lip.   

Don't break down in front of the camera, a psychologist (not named) advised the distraught parents, the abductor will get off on it.  Advice Kate took literally and keeps close to her chest to this day.  Kate rarely, if ever, cries at the mention of her daughter's name and she gives a sterling, animated performance when demonstrating the partially opened door and the whooshing of curtains.  She goes through the motions of the most devastating moment of any parents' life, the moment she finds her daughter missing, without so much as a quiver of a bottom lip, a tear or any expression of guilt or remorse whatsoever.  Memories of real situations arouse real emotions.  Think of a lost loved one and you will either smile or shed a tear.  Our memories come with emotions that cheer us up or tear us apart - that's why I advise anyone who wants to write their life story, to start with the good stuff. 

August 2007
But all that aside, we know for a fact, that even all these years later, mothers like Sara Payne and Kerry Needham and fathers like that dear, sweet Peter Lawrence, would fall to pieces if asked to recollect the terror of the moment their beloved children went missing.  Kate however gives us an animated example of 'this is what happened (you mugs) why can't you get it into your thick heads?'  The relevant details of the message are highlighted and drummed home with the details spelled out (with actions) as though we are a class of 4 year olds.  The downside of course was, that every wannabe armchair detective and Miss Marple set about scrutinising those finer claims to such an extent that they know exactly which way the wind was blowing that night and it wasn't gushing through Apartment 5A whooshing curtains and slamming doors.

In this curious interview, a little over 3 months since her child disappeared, Kate with her friend and film maker Jon Corner, Kate, looks relaxed, tanned and glamorous, posing on a rock set against a breath taking background.  As she speaks freely, Kate  gives us a light hearted anecdote about her sister-in-law choking on her full English as she discusses Kate's 'tiny tears' husband - an anecdote that makes her, if not her audience hoot with laughter.  She then goes on to discuss the moment her life was destroyed forever as if a can of baked beans had fallen off the shelf. 
The police are looking for a live child,
and they've said that a lot
The cloud of suspicion that hangs over the heads of Gerry and Kate McCann, has very little to do with Goncalo Amaral's theory or even the commentators and bloggers online.  It all stems from their own very odd behaviour.  How could the McCanns have behaved 'normally' on the night Madeleine disappeared.  The answer has been staring us in the face, they have been doing it along. 

Lord and Lady MacBeth


Monday 6 April 2015

WTF MOMENTS PART II - Blame the Police and start your own investigation

From the moment Madeleine disappeared, her parents Kate and Gerry decided NOT to put any faith in the Portuguese police.  Kate referred to the first two police who arrived on the scene as Tweedledum and Tweedledee, they, like the 'fucking tosser' who interviewed her, were not worthy of her respect.

Even as the biggest missing child search in Portuguese history began, the McCanns and their friends were frantically phoning the UK, pleading that no-one was helping them and as British citizens they were demanding all the diplomatic assistance the UK could offer.  These frantic demands and condemnation of the third world they found themselves in, were not the result of hours, days or even weeks of lethargy on the party of the Portuguese.  These phone calls were being made immediately following the alarm being raised.  That is, while the police, the staff from Warners, the local people and holidaymakers were frantically leaving no stone unturned in the immediate vicinity.  At a time when Madeleine could have been lying injured under a bush. 

The decision not to trust or listen to the local police seems to have been made the night Madeleine disappeared and the negative campaign began straight away.  The Portuguese police were to take the brunt of the blame even before they arrived.  

Gerry and his friends took control of the investigation that very same night.  As the police advised them not to contact the press, they were running off pictures of toddler Maddie in her Christmas party frock and handing them out to passers by.  Don't mention Maddie's distinctive eye warned the Portuguese police, 'but it's a good marketing ploy' whined Gerry, and went ahead with his LOQK FOR ME campaign anyway. 

Fascinating to observe, I have to say, never in my entire life have I seen suspects in a major crime launch and manage a separate investigation to the police.  An investigation supported by their government and paid for with public donations.  So unique and bizarre is this case, that I am still here nearly 8 years on.  

On 9th May 2007, John McCann, Gerry's effervescent big bro, appeared on Sky News, bursting with pride for his proactive family and the way in which they had taken control, though to be fair, he graciously acknowledged that if the Portuguese police could work with them, that would be sort of be OK, but they were going to do it anyway. They had captured Britain's good old wartime spirit, it was us against them and all the little Englanders and closet racists were more than happy to hop onboard with a barrage of sardine munching insults and mocking of the European lifestyle.    

On 22nd May 2007, while the official Portuguese investigation was very much underway, the public were being asked to send their holiday pictures to CEOP and Jim Gamble, and the NPIA were asking for anyone with information to contact them.  The official police meanwhile, the Police Judiciary (PJ) were being inundated with thousands of sightings of little blond girls all over the globe by nutters stirred up by the excitement created by Team McCann.  Even the press were joining in, helpfully pushing Robert Murat forward as a suspect. There were many things the PJ could have done better, and they have acknowledged that, but in fairness, they were also being sent on hundreds of wild goose chases and the main witnesses were not co-operating.  They were too busy running their own investigation.  

Phew, not arguidos anymore
The PJ had no option but to shelve the case.  As the McCanns and their friends refused to go back to Portugal for a reconstruction, there was nothing they could do.  Were the McCanns distressed at the case being shelved?  Apparently not.  They have always had the option of keeping the case open, or asking for it to be re-opened by the Portuguese police, but that 'incompetent' label stuck, so too all the negative adjectives the UK media attached to the original investigation.  Stories of the Portuguese police 'incompetence' appeared everywhere, and UK journalists spoke about them with contempt and the occasional sneer.  PJ Bad, Kate and Gerry Good.  They had won the propaganda war. 

Are there any lessons to be learned?  Hell yeh.  Should parents of a missing child be allowed to conduct their own investigation, in Portugal or indeed, here in the UK.  Well yes, of course they should, I don't believe in banning anything.  Should they be supported by their government and public money to continue such a charade is another question altogether.  Nearly 8 years on this case still remains unsolved. 

Saturday 4 April 2015


I agree with the tweeter who pointed out that none of the winners were male.  In fact, the nondescript, passionless and characterless leaders of the 3 main parties might well have spoken as one, they were all so eager to send out nods and winks to each other in the event of any deals being required, that they kept to their scripts and became as one.

Austerity MUST continue, even if it is killing the weakest and most vulnerable.  We'll only do it a little bit says Ed, we are not for turning said Dave, and we could go either way said Nick. We live in a society that has now stopped evolving and is going back to those dark and miserable days when workers had no rights whatsoever and unscrupulous employers worked them to death.  We now face the same sights as our predecessors from the Victorian Age, people sleeping in the streets and queuing for food. 

The three main leaders spoke warmly and nostalgically about the NHS as if it had already gone, doing the sums in their heads as to how they could cut back on it even more (or sell it off) while smiling ruefully.  Not one of them, said, we are going to invest in the NHS, we are going to improve every area and bring it back to the world flagship it once was.  In improving the NHS, we will be employing thousands up and down the country, more Doctors, more nurses, more ambulance staff, more auxiliary staff, more help within the community.  We will be investing in the highest level of care and rehabilitation, we will be putting the health of the nation first, taking care of every UK citizen from cradle to grave.  Radical, outrageous thinking?  Not really, those ideas were born in the 1940's and put into practice after World War II, a time when Great Britain knew a thing or two about austerity.  Yet in 2015, as the health of the nation declines, it must be cut to the bone. 

The three women on the panel spoke out for the millions who no longer seem to have a voice in Westminster, those who are presently paying the price for the bankers' greed.  I agreed with everything Natalie Bennett of the Green Party said, most particularly, they would end austerity.  Bravo Natalie for putting human life first.  Leanne Wood of Plaid Cymru spoke from the heart with a sincerity that put all the men around to her shame.  Nicola Sturgeon for the SNP gave a solid, sincere performance, her confidence and her undoubted ability make her a formidable leader.  I was especially touched at the end when Leanne and Nicola had a quick hug, they did well, and they are coming from the side of good.

All three women clearly interact with their constituents and understand the problems of the ordinary people they represent. They spoke out against the sheer inhumanity of this government's present path.  They said all the things Labour should have been saying, and they said them loud and clear and with feeling and passion.  Mass unemployment, homelessness and millions of kids falling into poverty, no longer seems to offend Labour leaders.  Pity Ed can't run ATOS by Nye Bevan or zero hours contracts by Joe Gormley, because he seems to have forgotten the people he represents. 

I wonder sometimes if it is all a mass conspiracy.  High unemployment and desperate people lowers the wages bill and zero hours contracts makes the
units work harder, everyone wants those precious 'hours' and overtime.  As the Unions, the defenders of the workers, were put through the mulcher by a previous tory government, they no longer have the muscle to fight back. All those basic human rights they fought so hard for and won for future generations, have been clawed back, bit by bit, to a stage where the unemployed can now be forced to labour for rich employers for no remuneration whatsoever.  They used to call that slavery. 

On the 'word is my bond' front, I wouldn't believe Clegg if he told me 2+2=4 (and I used to like him) Cameron will always look after his Eton buddies, and Ed is so far removed from the reality of working class life that he, a Labour leader has committed to continue with atrocities of austerity.  Unbelievable.  Clegg knew he was inbetween the devil and deep blue sea, so he should have gone for something completely different, something that offered hope to all those he clobbered after selling his soul. An end to austerity maybe? Because none of the main parties offered that.  None even attempted to find a new and philanthropic way in which to end the misery of millions. 

Well here's one.  The only way in which to get the economy moving is to feed money into it.  Building projects employ people who then have disposable income to buy luxury goods, etc, etc.  It kickstarts spending, but if there is nothing to spend, it will never happen.  The UK needs to invest in science and technology, medicine, the arts, the leisure industry.  Yes!  The leisure industry.  Whilst it may satisfy our Methodist need to work our fingers to the bone doing pointless jobs, it just isn't necessary anymore.  We need new industries, the old ones are antiquated, out of date and no longer fit for purpose. 

New industries need to be created, ones that will enhance and improve our lives and improve the lives of future generations.  Industries that will educate and nurture the children of today and promise a better future for all of those who are living longer. The UK still has the movers, the shakers and the innovators but they are having the lives sucked out of them, by skinflint old misers who would prefer to turn the clock back a couple of centuries.  The UK once led the world, it now limps along behind.

As for Nigel Farage, I have little if any respect for him as a human being, but he does at least understand politics and human nature.  His crude 'say it as it is' rhetoric appeals to humanity's baser instincts by using patriotism and fear of foreigners to build up his popularity.  Its a common ploy, so too appealing to greed.  People don't like sharing their goodies, they like to keep them all for themselves and more besides just in case.  Greed is something a lot of people understand and can relate to.  They are proud of what they have worked for, and no-one is having it.  However, with this attitude, also comes paranoia - they believe that everyone is after their stash.  So they put fences around their properties and the more neurotic ones electrify them and buy guns. 

Farage must convince the voters that all these foreigners pouring into this country are after their hard earned luxury and white goods and possibly a few metres off their gardens.  This is not a difficult task, see Goebbels, page 1 for propaganda stuff.  Farage wants to protect 'our' borders from invading foreigners, he is the crusader standing on the white cliffs of Dover with his trusty sword and an army of wannabe white supremacists behind him. Borders and boundaries etc, are big issues in world politics, some people get very touchy about them and they have been known to start wars.  Will the mean 'lets not treat sick people if they are foreign' spirit of Nigel Farage make him next Deputy PM?  After the last General Election, I guess anything's possible. 

Thursday 2 April 2015


Whilst establishing that Madeleine had been abducted, the McCann Media Machine also established that the parents didn't do anything wrong.  Leaving babies alone while you go out to dine is the British way apparently.  Legal advice was quickly sought and obtained by the parents, checking on the children every half  hour fell well within the bounds of responsible parenting.  Thousands of people they said, had contacted them to reassure them that they do exactly the same, even dopey sofa Queens, alarmingly, said they too, had done this, so they couldn't be more sympathetic. 

Bizarrely, even, almost 7 years on, the BBC still portrayed the 'responsible parenting' as normal, and perfectly acceptable behaviour. These were not chavs throwing cans of White lightening to each other over the garden fence, these were PLU (People Like Us) fine dining at a restaurant that just happened to be down the road from where their kids were.  There was no suggestion that there was any danger present other than the zillion to one chance that a paedophile may have been scouring the resort for a special child to steal, and no-one could have foreseen that. 

Gerry and Kate
Are there any lessons to be learned?
Are there any lessons to be learned asked Sky News Ian Woods, during one of their first interviews.  'At worst, we were naïve said Kate'.  AT WORST? Seriously?  That is the full extent of the blame that you will accept Kate?  'We have said many times, and I think everyone agrees', says Gerry, and you have seen the proximity Ian, blah, blah, blah. So in a nutshell, no, nada, zilch, lessons to be learned, the McCanns did nothing wrong, being down at the tapas bar with their mates was really no different to being in the next bedroom and the guilt is on par.  As they did nothing wrong, there were no lessons to be learned.  No warnings to other parents, no pleading with them to learn from their mistake (not admitted) and certainly no acceptance that their own actions might have cost their daughter her life.  Remorse?  You got to be kidding.  Remorse follows ownership of guilt, and there isn't any.

Legally and morally, Gerry and Kate were in the clear, they did nothing wrong and anyone who said they did was just being spiteful.  Rather than condemn their own actions, which would have been admittance of wrong doing, they sold the benefits of the childminding system they devised and used on that holiday as if they had found the answer to every flustered parent's problems.  It had worked perfectly on all the previous nights and up until Madeleine disappeared, it had been an idyllic holiday for all.  Gerry and Kate especially, their kids went happily to the crèche each day, and stayed asleep in their beds while their parents went out in the evenings.  Gerry and Kate even had the luxury of leisurely showers and pre drinks alone before joining their equally unflustered friends at the restaurant.  The system worked.  Except, and I hate to be the one to point this out - it didn't.

In order to spare the parents' feelings, not only were they not reproached for what they had done (they had suffered enough) this terrifyingly dangerous approach to holiday childcare was given the green light by panting journalists eager to get exclusives from the moneyspinning McCanns. 

No matter that the young and the unenlightened might look to doctors and media personalities for guidance on raising their own kids, not one of those authoritative figures condemned the dangerous practice of leaving children alone and none had the guts to say to the McCanns, wtf were you thinking?

Parents of young children unconsciously risk assess every situation and environment they take their kids into.  A vigilant mother of a toddler will spot a head height sharp corner at 50 paces.   And it stays with you, to this day I still turn saucepan handles inwards on the cooker even in other peoples' homes.  Young parents are on constant alert, it is instinctive, watch a young mum gazing at her child, you can see it clearly, it is quite charming, its how normal, loving parents behave. 

Tapas Friends awarded damages
Did this group of highly educated medical practitioners risk assess before making the 'collective' decision to leave their very young and some sick, babies and toddlers alone in their holiday apartments while they dined out? Do they still claim it was a faultless system of childminding? Worse case scenario, all THREE children could have been taken said Gerry. The only blip in the plan it seems, was their failure to take into consideration the likelihood of a child predator wondering around the coastal town looking for unlocked apartments and unattended children and they cannot be blamed for not foreseeing that. That, apparently, was the only error they made.

So lets take a look at this checking system that has been defended so vigorously by the parents, their friends, the press and people who really should know better.  The decision was at worst, naïve, 'we are sorry we weren't there AT THAT MOMENT', but we have done everything to make up for it since, so lets not dwell on it blah,blah.    Lets focus on the risk to our children from wondering predators if left alone, and totally disregard the risk of them choking, eating something they shouldn't, climbing and falling, poking fingers/objects into plug holes, etc, etc, and of course fire, the reason the patio doors were left open, apparently.

To steer the blame away from the parents, the threat to the children had to come from OUTSIDE the home, not the safety within, in the form of a stranger, a bogeyman, a sinister finger of fate. This enabled the full force of the law to be brought down on all the misfits, loners, lurkers, porn fans and usual suspects in the vicinity and online and steered the investigation and everything arising from it outwards and away from the main players.

Lets do a risk assessment of our own.  Gerry is of course right, the chances of a predator coming into your apartment and stealing your child is indeed miniscule to almost non existent.  The chances of that child getting out of bed, exploring and wandering off are at the top end of high.  So too the chances of a serious accident resulting in death. 

These small children were not in their own beds at home, they were in unfamiliar surroundings. Ditto their parents.  Although they were small, some were walking and if they were typical toddlers, extremely active. Most kids can climb out of their cots and go exploring well before the age of 2. In familiar surroundings a few falls and knocks on the noggin might make them think twice about climbing furniture they know, but in a holiday apartment, everything is new. 

The definition of toddler should read 'accident waiting to happen'.  They have no sense of danger.  They have no sense.  Period.  Most new parents, even before their babies are born, begin to childproof everything in their homes that might present a danger.  Locks are put onto cupboards, protectors are put into electric sockets, wires are placed out of reach, ditto medicines, detergents, toilet cleaners, soap, cosmetics, the list goes on.  When you find your toddler has poured an entire bottle of Chanel No. 5 onto his rocking horse, you don't take any chances. 

Was Apartment 5A safe?  A 4 year child might not be able to open complex shutters and a window, but a door left ajar would not be difficult for a little girl determined to find her parents. The distance between the apartment and the Tapas may have been 50 metres as the crow flies, though I doubt it, but it wasn't a straightforward route.  The patio led out onto a concrete patio with concrete steps.  The small gate may have made the steps inaccessible to two year olds, but it wouldn't be much of challenge for a little girl who was almost 4.  Ditto the gate at the bottom of the steps leading onto the main road. And between the apartment and the tapas bar was a swimming pool.

For those checking on the children, they had to walk out of the complex via the reception doors, and then via a series of reception doors, gates and steps to get to their apartments.  That's if they used the short route.  If they entered their apartments via their front doors using keys, then they had to follow the main road around and enter via the car park at the back. The plan wasn't simple,  convenient or user friendly and if I am honest (great expression) it must have been a complete pain in the arse. 

Don't interrupt me!
Put aside for a moment the obvious danger to the kids, this was a group of adults on a similar wave length who were really into each other.  They shared the same hopes, dreams and paths in life.  They were a select group, choosy about their friends and the company they kept.  No doubt they shared fond memories of their student days when conversations, debates and good times went on forever.  Unfortunately, one of the down sides for new parents, is that just when the good times get going, they are interrupted by little ones who want to stay up and have fun too.  This is extremely painful for narcissists, especially if they are in the middle of strutting their stuff. 

We're not the ones who did
anything wrong - 'he's' still out there!
Most sceptics find the clumsy, unsociable, system of checking hard to swallow. Five days into their holiday, and that was the best plan for childcare that these highly educated, medical professionals could come up with?  And one that they stuck with every night of their holiday?  One that involved their food going cold, their conversations being cut off mid flow, not to mention endangering their kids.  Have any of them ever worked in A&E?  

In the eyes of the UK Government, the media and for a long time, most of the public, the McCanns were blameless.  Not only were they blameless, they were heroic. Not for the hundreds of lives they could have potentially saved by pointing out the real dangers of leaving children home alone, but for spearheading a campaign on behalf of the 1% of missing children kidnapped by strangers.  In real terms, your child is twice as likely to be struck by lightning than be abducted by a stranger and a hundred times more likely to die from an accident.  As for dining out while your kids sleep, the message from the powers that be, seems to be carry on regardless.