Saturday, 24 December 2016


Like many I found the two Jonbenet Ramsey documentaries totally mesmerizing, it is a case that has fascinated me for years.  For those unfamiliar with the Jonbenet case, the details were almost a prototype for the Madeleine McCann mystery that was to come. 

Just like the Madeleine case, an exceptionally beautiful child was stolen from her bed in the night, but in Jonbenet's case, her brutalised body was to turn up in the basement.  The first cries of Patsy Ramsey were, my daughter's been kidnapped [and just to prove it], there's a ransom note.  The first cries of Kate McCann were my daughter's been taken, [and just to prove it] the bedroom window is open.  Both mothers are clearing themselves with their opening lines. And it could be said, with statements, and/or actions that they personally have prepared. 

It could be argued that both Patsy and Kate were acting like ferocious mummy tigers.  As a bit of an FMT myself, there have been times when my kids have been in danger or I have perceived them to be in danger.  Times when the fog lifts and I have sprung into action to protect my young.  Times even when I would have signed a deal with the devil himself without bothering to look at the small print.  I certainly would not have sat around weeping, wailing and planning my own defence. 

The problem I have with the weeping and wailing, especially the throwing of himself on the floor by Gerry, is that it simply doesn't ring true.  We are all genetically programmed with survival skills, if we weren't we wouldn't be here. In traumatic situations, our thinking becomes clearer and more determined. That flood of adrenaline enables us to catch the baby before he/she falls on the floor or attempts to drink bleach.  We don't go all fuzzy as the T-rex approaches us, we get the feck out of the way.  The actions of the educated Kate, Gerry and Patsy Ramsey are contrary to human or even animal behaviour.  Our first instincts when our young go missing is to look for them.  For Kate and Gerry, emergency medical situations were part of their vocation.  While the rest of us faint at the sight of blood, a medical professional will stem the artery, we don't expect to see them out cold alongside us.   

And given Gerry's, err let's say, controlling disposition, one thing I have never been able to understand is why he didn't demonstrate his organising abilities with the search parties.  His time, and the time of his wife were, apparently better spent on SOS phone calls to influential people in the UK.  Not the actions of a father desperate to find his daughter, but the actions of a father desperate to hold onto his remaining kids and his reputation perhaps? 

John Bennett wanted to go ahead with his planned flight on Boxing Day, the private plane was at the ready.  He clearly wanted to get his wife and son away from the scene, tellingly he said in an interview, he never spent another night in that house.  Like Gerry, he was not concerned with finding his daughter's kidnapper/ killer, he was protecting his remaining family.

Poor little Jonbenet died on Christmas night according to her tombstone.  The amazing experts who worked on the two documentaries, analysed every part of the evidence in detail.  For myself, I was already beyond reason doubt stage, it was the 3 page ransom note that did it, but I leaned towards the 'unstable mother' findings of Steve Thomas (Jonbenet's Avenger) rather than the theory that the 9 year old brother did it.  I simply couldn't believe that a 9 year old could be physically strong enough or indeed wicked enough, to strike a fatal blow to his sister's head.

After watching both documentaries, I am back to the drawing board.  I then went onto watching the interview with Burke Ramsey and Dr. Phil that included interviews with Burke as a child.  I won't analyse him other than to say he was more than capable of being part of a secret, 'if I did, I wouldn't tell you' he said as a 9 year old.  The adult Burke made uncomfortable viewing.  He was clearly socially awkward and highly defensive, both of himself and his parents.  He was an overprotected child who has grown into an overprotected adult - he has sworn allegiance to his protectors.   

But here's a thing, and it's a statement from last night's superb documentary that made me stop and sit up straight.  What is strong enough to motivate a mother to lie, scheme and plot to the extent that mothers Patsy and Kate are perceived to have done.  Plots so sinister and machiavellion they could be straight out of the dark crime section on the bookshelves.  Such stories are not without basis, history and literature is littered with plotting mums determined to place their little soldiers on the throne.  Figuratively speaking of course.  Neither Patsy nor Kate could protect the daughters they lost, and that kind of pain would drive a mother to do literally anything to protect the children she still has, even to the point of madness. 

It could be argued that everything Patsy, Kate and their husbands have done, has been done to protect their surviving children.  Ie. that's it.  No titillating swinging scene, no paedophile gangs, no government VIPs being flown out of PDL in helicopters, no deep dark secrets. 

Whist the way in which these adults have protected their children is indeed questionable, it is capable of being understood.  Some might say they went way above and beyond, in the ferocity of their fight, and the accumulation of vast wealth and government protection.  That their altruistic motive of 'protecting the kids' was overtaken by fundraising and their own need for public recognition. 

But let's not be churlish.  Tis the season of goodwill, and maybe a good time for many among the antis to consider for one moment that everything the McCanns have done, has been driven by their love for their children.  No dark, sinister motive.  It doesn't excuse their actions, and it doesn't make them right, but it does make them human.

Merry Christmas everyone, I now have a mountain of sprouts to peel, a ham to glaze and a bottle of Irish cream that is screaming to be opened as soon as the ice cubes set.  Forgot to buy ice, doh, not to mention a white tablecloth that desperately needs a wash and will now have to go in with the coloureds :( 

Thursday, 22 December 2016


UPDATE - 28.12.16

In response to Bampots on Madeleine McCann Mystery, and to whom, many thanks :)

[quote="Bampots"]I must admit have been extremely brave to say what you did....i did not get any impression you were in anyway supporting pedophillia![/quote]

Some do unfortunately Bampots, it is usually the first insult thrown if anyone is 'brave' enough to discuss this subject honestly.  Accused paedophiles are not allowed to have any defence, because anyone defending them will be accused themselves.  It's all pretty medieval actually.  When someone, like Jim Gamble [who is no academic] states looking at underage images leads to heinous crimes, it is taken as a fact because he is the expert.  I believe he also wanted to include watching obscene cartoons in his long list of arrestable offences. Does he have any evidence to back up these claims?  Who knows, no-one dare ask him. 

The Paedophile Hunters, men after his own heart, they like the cut of his jib and are exactly the time of people who would be attracted to his proposed vigilante task force.  They too have great enthusiasm for rooting out and garrotting witches, all under the guise of 'look how macho I am'.  And of course, ripping a paedo limb from limb proves how straight and heterosexual I am.  Of course it does.

I know I go on and on about lucky I was to have such forward thinking parents, but I truly was.  I was so outgoing that I made dear friends of every age and from every walk of life, I feared no-one.  And I was always drawn towards the outsiders, those excluded.  I've always taken the time and trouble to get to know the outsider and it has always enriched my life.  It is probably why, as a feminist, I have never hated men!  I had the best dad in the world, and men around me who took the time and trouble to teach me everything they knew, even though I was a girl, lol. 

I also worked for 3 years as a support worker for those with mental health problems and learning difficulties.  Of all the jobs I have in my life, it was the most rewarding.  When the interview panel asked if it was 'empty nest syndrome', I gave a resounding yes.  I grew to love all the clients I looked after, I was deeply touched by their innocence and simplistic view of the world.  One client, a partially disabled guy in his 60's was fixated on cameras, videos and technology, but with learning difficulties, it was on an ongoing struggle.  He worked at a local factory sweeping up, for which he got paid £9.40 per week (yeh, I know).  On his way to and from work, he had a penchant for strolling through the local park trying to take pictures of children, school girls especially. He was picked up by the police several times and returned home, having been given a good talking to by the police, and full of tears and remorse.  He was not a malicious or violent man.  He shared his flat with another disabled guy who was a wheelchair users, and during the night when they were on their own, he looked after his friend.  I, and indeed all the other carers, knew that he wasn't in any way a threat to children.  There was nothing 'mean' about him, he was a child himself. 
It does indeed chill me to the bone to think that 'Alfie' could be a victim of this horrendous form of public justice and punishment.  He is a vulnerable old guy, in fact just the kind of guy who would be pilloried as a monster.


I have threatened, a couple of times I think, to tell the story of my close relationship with an adult man (not a relative) who I first met at the age of 4.  Tom was an amateur photographer and I was a precocious kid who loved his company.  So how did we meet?

As a small child I lived with mum, dad, my older brother (by 11 months), and our Landlord, in a small house opposite Holloway Sanatorium in Stroud Road, Virginia Water.  It was a sanatorium for the rich and famous and the visitors arrived in chauffeur driven Bentleys and Rolls Royces.  I remember them well because I once ran into the road chasing my ball, and a lady in a very smart suit got out of her car and smacked me!  I remember all of us swearing secrecy because if my mum had found out, she would have smacked me too. 

It was an idyllic place to grow up, it was pre 'Moors Murders' and the whole neighbourhood was our playground.  There didn't seem to be any such thing as childminders in those days.  My mum and dad worked shifts, my mum nursing and my dad in the kitchens.  And we had lots of playmates, as most of our parents worked across the road in the hospital. We were the kids of doctors, nurses, porters, kitchen workers, from all sorts of backgrounds, mostly immigrant.  My best friends were 3 little Indian sisters and a German boy called Heina who wore lederhosen.  I loved the shock value of introducing Heina as my best friend, it was the early 1960's and it was great the way their eyebrows flew up when I said, and he's German.

Our houses backed onto a large paddock that was surrounded by nurses homes and staff accommodation and that was how I came to meet Tom, a wonderful man who became my next best friend.  Tom was a single man who lived in the male nursing home and it was his job to deliver bakery goods to all the staff quarters.  It was the era of Cowboys and Indians in the films we used to watch in a staff cinema within the hospital.  It was at a time when institutions took care of  their employees and their families - we also had use of an outdoor swimming pool and beautiful grounds. Tom in his slow moving electric cart full of goodies became the wagon train we kids used in ambush while pretending to be a tribe of marauding red Indians.  Tom accepted our 'raids' in good spirits, often playing along and pretending to have been shot by an arrow, and we always came away with treats. 

Tom was an amateur photographer and when he was off duty he would often come out to the paddock and take pictures of us as we played.  I was fascinated by his cameras and what he was doing, and I became a frequent visitor to his room, where he would show me all his cameras and pictures and give me cups of tea and cakes.  He was a quietly spoken and very thoughtful man, in retrospect he was shy with other adults, but with me, to my delight, he would talk for hours, and better still, he had the time and patience to listen to all my chatter.

I honestly don't remember how old Tom was, in the 1960's all men had the same hairstyle and all men looked old! From all  the thousands of pictures I have, there is only one of Tom, taken by myself according to what's written on the back, where he looks in his late 30s.  He always wore a suit, shirt and tie, and a rainmac he wore over the top on rainy days.  When working he wore a brown hospital coat over  his clothes.  He was a very kind, mild mannered man, always smartly turned out, very well spoken and the complete opposite of my loud, crazy family, where you had to fight to get a word in. 

When my brother started school at 5, I was the unhappiest child in the world.  On his first day, I totally showed the whole family up by having a full scale temper tantrum in the playground, because he was allowed to start school and I wasn't!  I had to be carried out of the school kicking and screaming.  Not only was I irked (thus began the feminism), but I no longer had anyone to play with.  I'm not sure if I latched onto Tom, or he latched onto me, but I began visiting Tom frequently when my brother was at school, and I soon brought him home and introduced him as my new best friend. 

My parents were then, and in fact for most of their lives, irritatingly unshockable. They didn't bat an eyelid and gave him the same warm welcome they gave to everyone.  I think they found him a little awkward to talk to, but they liked him.  I did once ask my Dad many years later if he was ever worried about my friendship with Tom.  He said he did of course, but the main thing was, I was happy.  And because I was the type of kid who never stopped talking, I would give him every detail of where 'me and Tom went' and 'what me and Tom did'.  I never kept anything back.  Still can't.   

I became Tom's muse, that is one of the main, if not the main subject of his photographs for the next 5 years, that is, up until I went into care.  At the age of 21 I received a huge box of albums that captured and documented most of my childhood. One of the most wonderful gifts I have ever received.

It's difficult now to remember what Tom and I used to talk about, but we talked constantly as we walked miles and miles looking for nice scenery and locations for Tom's pictures.  If he looked sad I would run up behind him and hold his hand, and sometimes I would just jump on him and give him a hug when he least expected it.  I could always make him laugh. Quite often I would go back to his room with him and lay on his bed while he fiddled about with his cameras and negatives or sat in his chair.  He was completely engaged in his photography, possibly somewhere at the lower end of the autistic scale.  He was always striving for perfection, the right lighting, the right angle.  Some of the notes that accompany the pictures recall how impatient I would get waiting for him to press the button, apparently I told him, he should be 'quick like me'. 


Never in all the time I knew him and spent time alone with him, was there ever any question of anything sexual, and yuck at the thought.  Tom only ever showed me kindness and friendship and respect and it breaks my heart to think what would happen to him in this hysteria led climate.  Tom was a well brought up, highly educated man with impeccable manners. He found my quite frequent temper tantrums and fallings out with my family highly amusing - I would turn up at his door hating everyone and he would put the kettle on.  He always managed to calm me down and even see the funny side.  He taught me some great lessons for the bipolar that was to come. 

I'm not naïve, and as an adult I have to consider there is a slight possibly that he got his jollies from the pictures he took of me, but I very much doubt it. 
He was more interested in the position of the tree, the shadows in the leaves and the position of the sun, than he was in getting me to keep still.  But even if he was, I don't really care because he never harmed me, all my memories of him are happy ones.  One picture captures a moment when I myself and a pal meet Tom in a country lane, the dialogue on the back says we were running towards him [to smother him in hugs and kisses] when he told us to stop so he could take the picture.  Kids don't greet abusers in that way. 

I'm loath to discuss sexual abuse in the same blog as dear old Tom, but probably like many, I didn't go through childhood unscathed.  At least 3 of my divorced mother's (uppercrust) suitors exposed themselves, and 2 of them thought I might like to look at pornography with them.  One of them did actually touch me, once, then bought me a new dress in Harrods and let me steer his open topped sports car in a car park whilst I sat on his knee which was how the grope occurred.

Was I traumatised by any of it?  Not at all, my honky tonk mumma taught me how to defend myself and not whine.  Both good lessons.  And I don't hate any of the men either.  They were trying to get to me with kindness, not abuse, and accepted my rebuttals graciously.  It pains me to see all of these victims claiming their lives were devastated by an inappropriate grope.  I wish women would 'man up' (I hate that expression as much as the next feminist, but it's late and I'm tired, lol) and stop using the victim card.  The world is full of men (and women) who will try to take advantage, and that applies at 6, 26 and 66, every age actually.  I think the incidents described above will probably apply to many adults, especially where parents have new partners.  And in most cases the grooming will be of the generous kind, rather than assault and battery.  The majority of paedophiles woo children in the same way as heterosexuals and homosexuals woo their 'love interest', with kindness and charm rather than with shackles and masking tape. 

The reality is, a lot of men do like very young women and adolescent girls and boys in a sexual way, there is no point in denying it.  See Ancient Rome and Sparta. And the same applies to adult women leering at shirtless teenage builders and attractive young men.  When I taught at college, I had two teenage students who brought to mind Adonis!  I would fantasise about that whole 'she was 31, I was 17' song, lol, but only my female friends found it funny. They were both lovely lads, one black, one white, each stunningly attractive, with a thirst for knowledge and adored by the girls. One did actually ask me if it was OK to ask a lecturer out to dinner, and I gave him a firm no, though I was secretly chuffed!

I wonder when it became taboo to appreciate the beauty of children and young people.  Happily history, literature and the Old Masters were able to capture the joy of childhood before the paedophile watchers and hunters moved in.  Writers like Hans Christian Andersen, Lewis Carroll and JM Barrie enjoyed close, some might say, intimate, relationships with children and out of those relationships came the most wonderful children's literature, written by men who could understand the world from a child's perspective.  They could bring the imaginations of those children to life and touch the big kid in all of us. 

Distinguishing between what is and isn't the sexual portrayal of children only seems to matter to those who are looking for signs. I doubt people in the 15th century were sent into a frenzy by the cherubs genitalia in the masterpieces of Raphael.  These hunters both official and official, remind me of the late, barmy, Mary Whitehouse, the kind of people who want to put a thong on Michelangelo's statue of David.   

But back to dear old Tom.  I am eternally grateful that I had parents who were so enlightened because my friendship with Tom was one of the most rewarding relationships of my life. I expect though, despite everything I have said, there will people  out there, who will claim the relationship was unnatural.  I accept it was unusual, but unnatural, not in the slightest.  One of the joys of life is that every now and again we will meet another human being who will be on the same wavelength, it might be a stranger in the supermarket, a neighbour or a work colleague.  And that attraction to that other person doesn't have to be sexual, it can be as simple as a shared sense of humour or a knowing look, we meet friends we like all through life. 

My relationship with Tom wasn't one sided, that is, I was never under his control.  I was a very determined little girl, a bold bitch according to my Irish Aunts. He had to show as much interest in making mud pies and catching spiders as I showed in his cameras.  We were so in tune, he bought me a pet mouse for my 5th birthday that I insisted on carrying around in my pocket, to scare old biddies.  My stories would make him laugh out loud, we had the same mischievous sense of humour. 

I like to think that our paths were destined to cross, I was always determined to be a writer and Tom supplied me with a photographic account of my childhood, possibly one of the most treasured gifts wannabe author could ever receive.  I guess I will never truly know if there was more to Tom's fondness for me than the constant photographs.  Some will probably say, of course there was, are you mad?  I honestly don't know, and not really sure I would want to, though I would be interested in the thoughts of others.  This is first time I have discussed this in public, I think it is fear that people will take something that was so precious to me and degrade it. 

We all thrive when we receive love and affection, and as a small child who regularly fell out with everyone, Tom was the 'constant' who always adored me no matter what.  I returned to see him again and again because I loved the way his face lit up when I knocked on his door and I loved listening to him telling me how wonderful I was.  If the best gift you can give a child is confidence, then he gave it to me in shedloads, I feared no-one, not even the brutal sadists and paedophiles who rescued me when I was 11.  But that's a whole other story. 

Tuesday, 20 December 2016


Well done to Aaron RoachBridgeman on his excellent Vigilante Brits documentaries.  However, I was deeply disturbed by paedophile hunters  and the way in which they have touched upon a public nerve that takes us back to the dark ages. 

Firstly, these are not educated men.  And I am not saying that out of a sense of snobbery, I'm saying it because they know nothing whatsoever about their subject, and nothing whatsoever about psychology and criminology. In pretending to be 12 year old girls, they are putting real 12 year old girls at risk.  What on earth are they saying to these predators to keep them hooked for months on end?  Clearly the Lolita they are chatting to online is not instantly available, but there may be other young girls who are.  Is it ever a good idea to lead a paedophile on to the point where they bring condoms and a rope?  What if they got the rendezvous mixed up and the pervert thought, well I'm here anyway. 

The problem with vigilantes is that they, the leaders especially, usually have unresolved issues. That is they have been personally affected in some way, either themselves or someone close to them.  Their rage is understandable, but their self prescribed cure of vengeance won't make it go away.  They believe if they 'get' every 'paedo' the pain will stop. Their judgement and sense of reason is warped by that stage of their development when they were traumatised. No legitimate law enforcement agency would or should ever use them, they would be psychologically unstable and totally unqualified.   

Because their goal is punishment, in the form of public shame and crucifixion, they have completely caste aside any form of reason or humanity, and justice doesn't even get a mention.  Informed that one man had committed suicide, the hunter replied, it's not because of what I did, it's because of what he did.  Absolving himself completely of the tragedy while the crowd cheered on.

Ye Gods, what kind of justice is this in the 21st Century?  It's a crowd pleaser is what it is.  No doubt in former lives these men were the hangmen or the groupies who followed them.  They are all about the punishment, they want someone, anyone, hanging at the end of the rope, the paedos draw a good crowd when they get bored with the Muslims. 

It angers me because it feeds into the same crazy philosophy that created 'All men are rapists', only this time round, it's much dirtier and nastier.  This assumption that all men who like, or who even really really like children, want to harm them is ridiculous.  In most cases the opposite is true, men who genuinely like kids and enjoy their company are rare, and to be treasured!  Assaulting a child is the last thing on their minds, they want to protect them, like an auld dawg passing tips onto the young 'uns.  It breaks my heart that the wonderful bond some men seem to have with kids is now seen as suspicious.  All those cheeky compliments and wise words, held back for fear of being misinterpreted.

But returning to those Paedophile Hunters.  I can't help but wonder what it is they say to their 'prey' to keep them dangling online for 7 months?  Do they keep producing pictures of a '12' year old girl?  What are they offering to entice dirty old men to come and meet them in a car park?  Judging by the samples of the conversations, their alter egos aren't saying anything a 12 year old  girl would say.  12 year old girls are excruciatingly embarrassed by everything, I know, I was one!  I sometimes wonder if the only dirty talking going on online is between the hunters and the hunted.  Real 12 year olds would laugh their socks off. 

 What terrified me the most with the paedophile hunters, was the amount of support they had from the public, and the media.  It was a bit like a Trump winning the presidency moment, where you ask yourself 'is this for real?' 'Should we take it seriously?'.  Unfortunately, as the Trump result showed, 'hell yeh'.  Because unfortunately, once you approve small armies to go out there beating the shit out of those they hate [figuratively speaking, or not], you are on the road to anarchy, or tyranny, take your pick.   

Thursday, 15 December 2016


Bar those kids who's creepy stepdads, uncles, family friend etc, sneaked into their bedrooms at night, the majority of the public know little, if anything about the subject of Paedophilia.  And you can't blame them for that, it's a yucky subject, best avoided, even by Home Secretaries. 

Perhaps I should say especially Home Secretaries, who are advised by experts from law enforcement who err on the side of popular public opinion, rather than the scientific findings and recommendations of the academics.  Pillorying the misfits, the socially inept, and those with learning difficulties can still rouse an angry mob and is a sure fire vote winner.  It's a bit like the 'drug' problem, the advice of the real experts is ignored, in favour of public opinion and pressure from huge pharmaceutical companies.   Paedophiles are a catch all public enemy, everyone hates them.   

Having spent 5 years, from the age of 11 to 15 in a Catholic children's home run by a paedophile and a sadist, and having spent my life researching 'evil', I know more about the subject of child abuse than most and that's why I speak up.  In the late 1960's, it was decided that children in care would benefit from having a male role model, and the Catholic Children's society advertised for religious, disciplined, single men to come and take (often sole) care of vulnerable children.  This of course opened the floodgates for every pervert, predator and sadist to move in with us.  And they did.  The CSA Inquiry can only be the tip of the iceberg, because putting freaks in charge of kids was the ideology of the time.  One can imagine the fatcat Council officials discussing the care of orphans with the Church leaders and a picture of Oliver Twist, a large ham and a wad of notes comes up. 

For whatever reason, society, or should I say the Media have picked up and focussed only on the child sexual abuse.  This is actually an affront to most of the survivors of these institutions, because the majority of the abuse that was going on was physical and mental.  The agenda was to break our spirits, make us conform.  The institutions were run like prisons, though we had fewer rights than prisoners, less freedom and more punishments.  It wasn't until years later when I learned about the 'Zimbardo Experiment' that I began to make sense of it, though I have to say, I am not entirely sure our 'guards' started out as normal human beings. They were already predisposed to that sort of thing.

But I digress.  The ex Jesuit and practicing Opus Dei monk, who had charge of our day to day care had a penchant for boys and a seething hatred for girls.  All women (apart from nuns) were whores, he would tell us during his daily sermons.  He was accompanied in his vocation by a Sister of Mercy nun who was enraptured by him, and who's idea of fun was giving small children 'Chinese burns' until they cried. 

Religious zealots and most of my critics, would argue that the above is a more healthy and nurturing environment for children than say, living with two homosexuals who would never hurt them in a million years.  It had the approval of society and the blessing of the Pope.  But I'm not bitter, lol. 

But let's get back to that 'P' word and more importantly, where the REAL risks to children lie.  The unpalatable truth is that the more devious and manipulative paedophiles are drawn to jobs where they will be working with vulnerable children.  It is an unavoidable fact, but as we become more enlightened and whistle blowing is becoming more acceptable, the numbers are much fewer (I hope). 

From speaking to hundreds of middle aged women over the years, I would say the largest and most active group of practicing paedophiles are those evil men who worm their way into the affections of single mothers.  And sexual abuse is probably only one of many distasteful traits brought to vulnerable families by these predators.  They normally come with a set of rules for a 'new order', they project manage life to suit themselves, and if they are that way inclined, disciplining the kids will be part of it.  To the single mums out there, if you ever meet a guy like that, run! 

My next category, I would call The Bogeyman.  The one stalking rooftops at night dressed in semi gimp black, waiting to sweep into the bedrooms of kids who's neglectful parents left the window open.  He is about as real as the guy dressed as a spider and hiding behind the next chimney.  He is a myth created by those who kinda like keeping us all living in fear. 

Next up is the Loner, often confused with the Bogeyman, because it is believed that men looking at underage porn online, will go on to buy a black balaclava and abduct children.  Highly unlikely.  The Loner is the least active, they are not lurking in bushes, they are alone and attached to their PC screen - err, 24/7. That leap from 'watching it' to 'doing it' almost never happens. It's like saying a slasher movie will send the entire audience rushing into the street waving machetes.  If one raving lunatic blames his killing spree on a movie he has seen, should it be banned for all the millions who didn't? [go on a killing spree]. 

A paedophile, or a mass murderer, will always blame someone, or something, else for their wicked actions.  That is, 'I wouldn't have done it if I hadn't seen Chucky or Taxi Driver.  However, a sexual offender, like anybody else, is the sum of a million composite parts.  Triggers can come in any form, all our sexual awakenings are different.  Some men can get tinglings from remembering the spankings they got from the dorm mistress, and the gym slips of St. Trinians could bring back happy memories of the girls' school next door.  Both could have connotations of 'child sex' in the minds of those who think about that sort of thing.  A lot.  Is there an appropriate code of behaviour for sexual turn ons? What is or isn't correct in the bedroom? And who gets to decide?  Worse, who gets to enforce it?  Can you expect a dawn raid if the missus orders a naughty schoolgirl costume and a set of fluffy cufflinks from Anne Summers?   

Judging what is, and isn't appropriate is a very grey area, how on earth do you categorize that sort of thing?  Betty Boop caused outrage in the 40's because it was believed subliminal images of her naked were being flashed on screen and coud have led to allsorts of gawd knows what.  I believe there is a scale for categorizing underage pictures but I daren't look it up in case my computer is pounced on!  That's the problem with the 'P' word, we 'know' if we type it out in full, there will be some sort of surveillance team out there flagging us up as dodgy. 

I'm simply not convinced that looking at images on a screen leads automatically to violent crime.  If the person is already predisposed to violence and abuse, naturally their computer will be filled with obscene images and violent movies.  It's not a chicken or egg situation, the rage, the resentment, the hatred and anger has been simmering away for years.  They were never going to find Snow White and It's a Wonderful Life in Fred West's cellar.  Does anyone honesty believe the tragedy of Aurora, Colorado was the fault of Batman?  Choosing which form of art to blame is down to the prosecutor, or more accurately, the press and they usually go for the leftie, commy, artists and musicians like Marilyn Manson.   

Demonising art, films and literature because it has had an adverse effect on one raving lunatic in 60million+ illustrates how ridiculous it is to blame child pornography for turning men into predatory paedophiles.  I imagine the majority of men look at pornography as often as they can, but that doesn't mean they will sexually assault the first female they encounter.  

The Bogeymen and the Loners, live very solitary lives.  They have little if no access to children, and due to their inability to socially connect with their peers and other adults, they are timid and fearful.  They are trapped in the adolescent stage of their sexual awakening, or should I say the safe world of the pre-pubescent.  They have never been able to move onto the next milestone because they have never been able to handle rejection. They don't have the guts or the means to organise a pyjama party for all the local kids.

Despite the dominant ideology that there are predators lurking on every street corner, or more accurately looking at mucky pictures on the net.  The reality is, the greatest threat and most immediate danger to kids comes from within the home and from people known by them.  That's what the statistics show and so too the tragic headlines that appear when a child goes missing. 

But let's get back to those paedophile rings, that dark underbelly of depravity that is supposedly going on underneath all our noses.  In the heart of Westminster especially.  I don't doubt that kids IN CARE were sexually abused by establishment figures in the 60s, 70's and beyond.  The children's  home I was in, was 30 minutes from Westminster, and favoured boys were often taken on outings and overnight visits to the capital, plus several days at the Vatican.  In those days children's homes and institutions were supermarkets of goodies for those in the know.   Children had little, if any, protection.  Hardly any saw their assigned social workers, and the orphans literally saw no-one from the 'outside'.  Besides which, 'telling tales' incurred punishment for everyone. 

I think the break up, and quite literal, knocking down of institutions in the 1970s, reflected the enlightenment as to what was actually going on in these places.  The way in which good causes can so easily and so terrifyingly go so bad.  The children's institutions and the vast mental hospitals became an abomination on every level.  From children forced to scrub floors through the night, to vulnerable patients being hosed down in ice cold showers. 

Given the culture that existed at that time, it is probably more than likely that some sort of circle, or in the know club existed.  But the crux of the matter here is that kids were available to abuse, that is, kids who would keep their traps shut and had no-one to tell anyway. 

That concentration of vulnerable kids is no longer available to the upper echelons.  That leaves young offenders and runaways.  Sadly, history has shown that the bodies of those seized by evil sadists usually do turn up.  When a paedophile ring was operating in Belgium, kids were literally being snatched off the street. everyone knew about.  So my question would be, who exactly is being abused by these sex rings?  

As for paedophile gangs in the suburbs disguised as regular people, seriously? The majority of us love our kids to pieces, our natural instinct is to nurture and protect them.  And most of us, if we are honest, breathe a huge sigh of relief when they are safely tucked up and asleep and we can do what WE want.  What most people fail to understand is that child abuse is so much more than inappropriate touching. It is all about grooming and developing a relationship with the child, and the truth is, most adults don't have the time or inclination. 

I think the idea that there are paedophile gangs in the suburbs stems from the very strange fantasies of the very strange Ray Wyre that led to the Satanic abuse hysteria in 1988.  The establishment took the word of self proclaimed child abuse expert Wyre, and hundreds, if not thousands of lives were destroyed, as kids were seized and subjected to crude and degrading tests while their parents were being demonised, and so too anyone who dared to speak on their behalf.  That kind of medieval witch hunt should never happen again, but it did, with Operation Ore, and remains simmering away because witchfinder generals always find a place at the top table.  They cast themselves as protectors of children, but I doubt they will find one child who will thank them for being seized.   

The goals of the super rich are to own vast mansions and helicopters, dine at the finest restaurants and mingle with the great and good.  They don't want to be stuck indoors with the kids.  The idea that any of these people worked to get where they are in order to molest children is absurd.  These people like challenges, with a child there is no challenge. 

The average, middle class professional family, down the road have pretty much the same ideals.  Maybe not the helicopter.  That is, they don't see children as sexual and yuck, and they don't keeps their kids locked up in the basement like Fritzle.  Abused kids don't mix with others, they don't go to school and they don't see medical professionals.  Everything those alleging child abuse in the Madeleine McCann case, is contrary to everything we know about child abuse.

For those who genuinely care about children's welfare, the kindest thing they can do, is to offer a warm smile to the stressed out single mum who's baby won't stop crying, and who's toddler is about to kick off.  For me the hardest part about being a single mum, was trying to run a household on one wage, and the desperate loneliness.  The opportunity to meet men was very limited, I did at one stage, date my stalker (I'll spare you - for now, lol).  I remember one New Year's Eve crying into my wine, writing the saddest letter about loneliness you have ever seen and drunkenly faxing it to the Daily Mail.  I was mortified when they published it! 

It is not only old people who get lonely, it is young people too, especially when they face those long evenings on their own when the kids are in bed.  For young women when their need to reproduce (and/or party) is at it's strongest, nature has confined them to the cave.  On the odd occasion they do get to go out and shake their pert tiger skin clad bottoms, they are fighting for the leftovers.  The good providers have been taken by those with time to fashion their animal skins, paint their toenails and no hungry mouths to feed.  All that's left is the wanderers, the thinkers (cute, but a dead loss when there is only one dinosaur toe left in the store cupboard), and those with an excessive love of rotting grapes.  Or as I like to call them, the fun ones.  I can kind of see now where I went wrong. 

But I digress.  The best way to protect children is to protect those who take care of them.  Most of our population is now upwardly and indeed, downwardly mobile.  That is they do not have the close family networks of previous generations.  I have always advocated parenting classes, I would put it in the school curriculum if I could!  Most parents are shell shocked when the babies arrive, torn between different childcare experts and conflicting advice from two separate families.  I come from the 'bin there, dun that' school of thought.  The best childcare advice I have ever truly valued, has come from reading about the personal experiences of others.  It has also come from wise old men and women I have met along the way, sometimes a few kind words from a stranger can be life changing.  I remember one time, dropping one child off at school and hopping on a bus with a suspiciously smelly baby under one arm and a folded buggy under the other. Stressed, dishevelled and balancing precariously, I was stopped in my tracks by an elderly lady who smiled at me and said 'beautiful baby and beautiful mummy'.  It changed the entire course of my day, maybe even my life!

Child  sexual abuse is by it's very nature, dark, seedy and hidden away from society, but happily it is extremely rare.  Other forms of abuse however are extremely common, and actually, fairly easy to spot.  Especially when the 'perfect man' starts restricting the vulnerable woman's access to family and friends.  I was deeply saddened when the Surestart scheme was demolished by the tories.  The best way to prevent child abuse is to educate the mothers.  Not with mythology, but with reality.  Instead of warning them about a sex offender in Afghanistan who has access to a cyber café, warn them about the boyfriend who demands the kids respect him and says a good hiding never did him any harm. 

The best way to protect children is by teaching them to protect themselves.  No-one, as yet, has the technology or the public vote to ban information being publically available on the internet.  They can, and probably do, carry out all the surveillance they want, but anything they try to ban will instantly go viral.  Accept that you cannot protect your children from what they will see and encounter in life.  The internet is probably the least of their worries. 

As a young, pregnant with my first child, legal secretary to a top London lawyer known as the Silver Fox (yes, I had a huge crush on him), and among his many memorable words were, the best gift you can give a child is confidence. Making the child dependent on you and 'the State', does them no favours whatsoever. I remember my mum telling me, you don't cry in front of anyone, because that means they win.  I was going into the convent at the time, and to be fair, that advice probably upped the batterings, but it gave me a severe aversion to hanging my head in defeat. 

If you want your child to survive 'in the wild', you have to teach them the skills to survive.  Watch the divine David Attenborough for half an hour, and you will soon see that the predators go for the weakest first.  If kids respect themselves, they will (subliminally) command respect from others.  How do you ingrain that self respect into them?  Easy, if you treat your kids with respect they will expect, and indeed demand, that same respect from others. They will know the difference between normal and abnormal behaviour.   Children are mimics, they do exactly what you do.  If you always say please and thank you, so will they.  Unfortunately, the same applies with the negative. If they see you being disrespected and accepting it, that 'acceptance' will become normal.  

Complete honesty is essential.  They trust you implicitly and if they find you have lied to them about anything other than Santa, they will struggle to trust you again.  If you don't tell them the truth, they will lie in bed worrying and filling in the gaps themselves.  But don't fill them with fear.  The world is still a wonderful place, and everywhere there is beauty. 

What troubles me most about our inability to discuss paedophilia rationally is the fact that those children most at risk are not getting the help and resources they desperately need.  Those who's parents are cracking under the stress of poverty and homelessness.  And it is not sexual assault they fear it is hunger and violence. 

Because discussing Paedophilia is considered taboo (I will get 0 retweets), the only side of the debate we hear comes from law and order enthusiasts and alt right loons who have set themselves up as vigilantes.  (see Nietzsche quote about punishment on previous page).  And because no-one really knows very much about the whole unsavoury business, those with an agenda, can put up virtually any statistics they want. If we take the missing children's stats for the number of kids who go missing each year, they would probably equate to an overcrowded inner city school.  Who knew? 

But what irks me the most is the demonising of men, and I say this as a post modern feminist and then some.  I am blessed in that as a child, I had such positive male role models.  Not only my beloved Dad, but a lonely single man who I instantly made my best friend, because he didn't have any.  I had the kind of parents who didn't bat an eyelid when their 4 year old daughter introduced a single man in his 30's with a camera as her new best friend.  Nor were they in the slightest bit concerned when I insisted on spending every waking moment with him.  It was a friendship that lasted many years, and one of the happiest and most rewarding relationships of my entire life. 

Sadly it is the kind of relationship that can probably never happen again.  Poor old Tom, who had catalogues of pictures of me (I was his muse, lol) would have been placed on the Sex Offenders Register , and I would have been deemed at risk.  There was however, nothing sexual in the relationship, all the pictures were in clothes, in public places and with my full and enthusiastic consent.  It is tragic that words of wisdom are lost, because there are still troglodytes out there who try to put men off loving kids.  I often speak to little ones when in supermarket queues and out and about, but I always make eye contact with the parent first.  But for men, they must keep their eyes front, not daring to look at, let alone speak to a strange child.  The cloud of suspicion hangs over everyone, but men especially. 

But back to confidence, the old Silver Fox was right.  At the time he gave me that advice I was reading How to Win Friends and Influence People (Dale Carnegie) (lent out and not returned 4 times!) - now on personal copy 5 and it is marked 'Do Not Remove!'.  It contained within it the most moving and beautiful text relating to our attitude to kids that I have never been able to forget.  It is the reading equivalent of pure nectar, my Christmas gift and a gentle reminder of the innocence of childhood. 

A Father Forgets by W. Livingston Larned   

Saturday, 10 December 2016


I have never actually attempted to analyse the McCann interviews in the way that others have done, but now that my interest has been sparked, I thought I would revisit their most fraught interview, the one that didn't quite go to plan. 

I have to admit Sandra Felgueiras is one of my own feminist icons, she is a formidable woman, my highest compliment!  It is apparent from her interviews with the McCanns, that they treat her with deference, figuratively speaking, in an office situation, she is the one in the big chair behind the desk.

Sandra disarms them because they know they don't have the power to manipulate her.  She is beyond their control.  It is clear from the beginning of Sandra's interview with Kate and Gerry on 3rd November 2009, that there is a hostile atmosphere.  I would suspect words were spoken before the interview began, K&G knew this would be a tough one.  I'm guessing, 'I haven't flown all this way not to ask questions on behalf of my Portuguese viewers..... and they want to know about the stuff in their newspapers, ie. your libel battles with Goncalo Amaral'. 

But let's look at the background as to what was going on, on 3rd November 2009 (many thanks Nigel and Pamela), the bigger picture.  The first interview of the day, with the BBC, was tame, and indeed they were accompanied by Jim Gamble, then head of CEOP.  

Factoring in that 2+2 usually equals 4, it is quite clear that at the time of those interviews Gerry and Kate were under the care, control and influence of Jim Gamble, maybe they had had a falling out with Clarence.  In all of their interviews they are promoting not only their daughter, but the 'amazing' work of CEOP and the idea of a similar Missing Child network in the UK on the scale of the NCMEC in the United States. 

In promoting A Minute for Madeleine, they hoped to make missing children a priority cause in the ruthlessly competitive charity industry and the police agencies competing for funding.  I'm not sure A Minute for Madeleine went as viral as they had hoped, but I'm pretty sure Gerry and Kate had a clear agenda that day.  

Body language plays an enormous part in the way in which we communicate, so too the way in which we dress, and the way in which we strut our stuff.  Sandra is bubbling with confidence.  She is wearing a bright red dress, her hair and makeup is perfect, she oozes fabulous.  Kate by contrast is wearing a drab print top and a mumsy cardigan, her hair and makeup, modest and neat.  She never looks comfortable in her clothes, it's as though she wears what is expected from her, that is, someone in her somewhat unique position. 

Gerry is showing what a regular kind of guy he is by not wearing a tie and having his top button undone, the suit says, not a  chav.  He is far from relaxed, he is sitting upright, almost rigid, interestingly, his knee crossed towards Kate, and BOTH his hands clutching onto hers.  Is he seeking reassurance or is he pacifying Kate?  He is stroking her hand in a 'calm down' motion.

I'm afraid one of the things I dislike about Kate, is her girly adoration of 'her man' and the clingy way in which she relies upon him.  It's as if she grabbed the prize and is never letting go.  Like most women who are seriously smitten, she cannot understand why others do not see her hero in the same way that she does.  Regardless, in this interview, both are very much together, her knee too, is turned towards Gerry. 

The macho, alpha male Gerry, has very much been de-emasculated by this interview.  Not only is he turned towards his wife and clutching her hand with both of his, he is also (subconsciously) protecting his balls.  Strong women can have that effect.  I remember one class at University when the words of a particularly extreme feminist lecturer, could get all the guys in the room crossing their legs, simultaneously, lol. 

Sandra's persistence on the 'dogs' question, pushed Gerry into a corner, where, uncomfortably for all of us, the only thing he had left was flirting.  Sandra failed to laugh at his 'ask the dogs' retort, while she had him squirming, she went in for the kill.  Poetry in motion!  She was in fact asking the questions her Portuguese viewers wanted answers to, something all her British counterparts failed to do on behalf of their viewers. 

In fairness, I can see now why Peter Hyatt did not choose this particular interview. despite the fact that it was one of those rare moments when the McCann guard was broken down.  Gerry and Kate had a very clear agenda, which they stuck to through all the interviews and the tough questions.  But the chances are, the same could be said of every interview they gave, especially if we break them down and look at what was going on at the time. 

On 3rd May 2009, they had a script for every interview that was, almost verbatim, the same as that used in the video created by CEOP and which they hoped to make viral.  Their defence, could quite fairly argue, they were being used as puppets. 

Tuesday, 6 December 2016


I really did go into this subject with an open mind, and found the interviews with Peter Hyatt absolutely compelling.  But the more I think about it, the more sceptical I become. 

The beauty of language and the meaning of words lies in the fact that it is continually evolving, elst thou woudst ad infinitum be speaking middle England circa 1600.  It doesn't stand still, if it did, we would unashamedly be having wicked gay festivals every Sunday on the village green. 

Added to which we come to every text we read as a unique individual, that is we already have a fixed set of values and beliefs, and indeed prejudices, and we will take from the text we are reading, exactly what we want. 

For those interested in deconstructing literature, there is a very important essay by Roland Barthes entitled 'Death of the Author' which basically raises the question of whether the text is influenced by the author's life.  Do they bring their own lives into the words they are writing?  Well clearly they do, Charles Dickens exposed the cruelty and injustice of Victorian values by recreating his own poverty ridden childhood.  Charles Chaplin through his tramp and underdog.  They created fictional characters to attack the 'system' - writers, artists, musicians have historically expressed the pain of the common man through their art.  It is a safe way to throw a custard pie at the establishment.

But I digress, the point I am trying to make, and struggling it must be said, is that language, like art, is in the eye of the beholder.  When we are staring at that painting on the gallery wall, our brain, at the speed of light, is sifting through every memory it has trying to find a match, something that will explain what we are looking at.  Mostly it is seeking pleasure signals.  Ergo, what is seen in the eye of every beholder will be entirely different. 

I am only touching the surface of the study of language.  Whilst I pretend to be interested in the linguistic and cognitive science work of Noam Chomsky, the truth is, it is way above my head! 

Every word is open to interpretation, and the most important part of comprehension is understanding the context in which he word is used.  As my dear old dad got older (and grumpier), he became obsessed with quality of his socks.  To stress his point, he explained some socks became so tight around the ankles they became ferocious!  From then on all socks purchased had to be strictly of the non ferocious kind.  Did his use of the inappropriate 'ferocious' reveal his hidden serial killer?  Not at all, Christmas was on the way and he was very particular about his socks. 

Those defending the statement analysis by stressing Peter Hyatt's lack of knowledge about the case are doing him less favours, not more.  No credible scientist would go into research saying only tell me that bit, nothing more.  It would be reckless at the very least and would leave their theory wide open to attack.  As has happened.   

But lets return to Mr. Barthes, can you separate the analyst, Mr. Hyatt, from his work?  He is a religious zealot.  He believes, he, and his kind, will be raised to heaven on the day of Judgement and the rest of us, will, quite rightly, burn for all eternity in the fires of hell.  Some could interpret that as despising anyone who is not like himself. 

Now, is it really a good idea to have people who hold those kind of lunatic beliefs working within Law Enforcement?  He, like Bennett, believes there are all sorts of sexual shenanigans going on in the suburbs all round him, to which he is excluded.  And like Bennett, he wants to root them out and start their own personal bonfires in this life.  I have always wondered how to sum up pure evil, but that need to witch hunt nears the top of the list. 

But here is a direct challenge.  Who, apart from Peter Hyatt and Tania Cadogan would say doors and windows signal child abuse?  Especially in a case where it is alleged the crime scene was staged and the doors, and window especially, played a vital part in the collective alibi.  Their interpretation is fanciful on their part, and loaded with their own prejudices (everyone is at it, bar them) and they want to add a juicy aspect to this case, and sign people up for the course. 

Having lived with, and alongside, children who were regularly being abused, these claims by so called 'experts' as to how abused children act, sicken me. They are clueless, and their claims are not only disgusting, but absurd.  Most of what they allege happens, is a product of their own sick imaginations and bears no resemblance to reality. 

It is clear to everyone in the world, the real experts, their family, their friends, their teachers, their doctors, and the clearly, bright, outgoing, kids themselves, that they are not now, and never have been abused.  And it is unethical and immoral to suggest they have been.  We are each responsible for our own behaviour on the internet, we answer only to ourselves.  We can't censor Hyatt or Bennett, nor should we.  But we can counter their distasteful accusations with sanity and common sense. 

Thursday, 1 December 2016


UPDATE  03:12:16

Tania Cadogan, the batshit crazy, right wing apostle of Peter Hyatt has reported back on that creepy meeting: 

Firstly, statement analysis is not a recognised science, there is no quick, sure fire way of establishing guilt on words alone, the claims are outlandish and ridiculous given the complexity of semantics. 

Hobs claims in Court, 'the analyst is classed as an expert' - the typo and clumsy wording indicates deceit.  Anyone can be classed as an expert in Court if that is what they call themselves.  See the evidence of Alan Pike, psychologist to the McCanns.  These detectives, psychologists, social workers and the like (how unethical) went over the interview with one aim, to see if there was evidence of sexual abuse or not.  Hobs then claims the McCanns spoke freely using their own personal internal dictionary.  Actually they didn't.  They were being interviewed on camera for a national news channel - their language and behaviour could not have been more fake, or strained.  Can she not hear the nervous tremble in Kate's voice? 

They concluded at the end of their 6 hour (ye Gods) meeting, that there was evidence of sexual abuse.  This group of experts, supposedly professionals, have reached a conclusion without ever having met any of the people they are discussing and knowing little if anything about the case.  They certainly seem to have overlooked the  fact that this is a live criminal investigation and the way in which their 'analysis' will affect the innocent people involved.

Peter Hyatt is using this case to sign gullible people up to his online 'lie detection' course.  Kudos to him on his business plan, but it is wrong on every level to go around accusing people of child abuse based on their words alone.

As for doors, windows, hygiene etc, all indicated for sex.  What a load of rubbish.  The doors, windows etc, were important because they were crucial to the abduction story!  Kate found the window open, that's how she know Maddie had gone.  She was also trying to establish just how normal and ordinary that evening was - hence the jammies, the story telling, the tooth brushing. That is the usual routine in homes with young children. 

The 'treats' were separate to the crisps and biscuits so were probably sedatives, conclude this little gathering of 'experts'.  Seriously, these parents gave their children vile tasting tablets and told them they were treats?  That's what they came up with?

In response to a comment on 'Embedded Confessions'. 

Thank you for your comment 00:16.  Like yourself I found Hyatt's statement analysis absolutely compelling.  But if Mr. Hyatt had any form of professional integrity, he would keep his expertise on child sexual abuse in this case to himself as most professionals do. He will not be discussing Child A, or Child B, he will be discussing very real kids who's names are known by way too many on the internet.  He has no Doctorate, but ffs, first do no harm! 

If anyone close to the McCann family read my blog,  I hope they will constantly reassure those kids that these creepy sexual allegations are coming from, to use Kate's words, a very small percentage, of frankly, very unpleasant people. People who, for whatever reason, believe there is a nasty undercurrent of deviant sex that permeates our society.  My 'instant summation' of them, is that they have lived very sheltered lives.  Girls, and indeed boys (perhaps more so), just wanna have fun, and I'm talking about the grown up variety, and with each other.  And for most people having fun doesn't include children's bedrooms, or a gimp costume and a horse whip.  It usually consists of getting drunk, flirting outrageously and confessing to having sex between stations with someone who's name you didn't quite catch. 

I just don't buy into the 'fact' that there are secret little cliques of child molesters and wife swappers living, working and sharing their family photos with registered sex offenders.  It just doesn't ring true, and I speak as someone who has led the opposite of a sheltered life - I was always up for a party!  I also had a tendency to corrupt and lead astray, almost everyone I worked with and for.  In retrospect, most were quite right to sack me, I would have brought to them to  bankruptcy. 

Unfortunately, our society stills carries the legacy of News of the World headlines. It brings back happy memories of Sunday mornings leering at all the smut and filth going on in the lives of the rich and famous, whilst tucking into a bacon sarnie.  The reality is, it was mostly news fodder for the plebs 1984 style, with the bonus of great opportunities to blackmail those in power.  Eg. closet homosexuals and those with a penchant for a good lashing at the local massage parlour.  There was a time when a tabloid front page could ruin lives.

This century's witches are the Paedophiles. We are all pretty much agreed, we hate them the most. However, because the majority of us find the subject just too yucky, those with the least amount of knowledge and their own agenda, get to make the batshit crazy rules. People daren't take pictures at the school nativity play, and youngsters are being registered as sex offenders for sending their own pictures to themselves. 
The hysteria around the 'P' word is based on something that isn't real. A sort of updated bogeyman the authorities want to protect us from.  The truth is, hardly anybody sees children as sexual, even if they are wearing badly applied lipstick and mummy's high heels.  As darn right cute and scrumptious little ones might be, playing itsy, bitsy spider over and over and begging and pleading with the little tyrant to go to sleep, can break even the strongest spirit.  I used to go and lock myself in the bathroom as soon as daddy got home, screaming, you fecking take over!  I would then lay in the bath plotting murder whilst listening to the strains of Maria Callas singing One Fine Day!  

As for all the red flags.  I can imagine the Gaspers were more shocked than most when they heard of Maddie's disappearance, simply because they knew them personally.  Trauma tends to unleash the wilder side of our imaginations, we are in a state where it is easy to make mountains out of molehills.  I expect Dr. Gasper (the Mrs) spent many tormented nights asking herself if she knew something, anything.  A good detective would quickly be able to discern between rational statements and those given with confirmation bias. Common sense dictates we should keep an open mind.

As for the other 'indicators', words, as demonstrated by Peter Hyatt, are open to interpretation. All and any discussions around the 'P' word are deemed peculiar. Society has made it so taboo, nobody knows anything about it, and dare not speak it's name.  Anyone discussing the topic without demands for blood, is seen as an appeaser, whilst those flinging a rope over the hanging tree are applauded.  Rational discussion is virtually impossible. 

What is blatantly clear and beyond question, is the McCanns and their friends went out of their way to enjoy the ADULT side of that holiday.  That is, the sports during the day and the relaxed grown up conversation in the evening. They were passing their kids over to 'strangers' at every opportunity. And I don't blame them for that!  Those of us, who are honest, wept buckets over the nights out we missed because of our kids.  When we are thirty something, we are at the height of our need to socialise and mix with our peers, but we are tied to gogglebox or the company of just one other (who we may or may not, want to attack with an ice pick), and crying out for some stimulation of the brain! 

The biggest, and some might say, proven allegation against the McCanns and their friends, is neglect.  Neglect is the word they have been fighting for nearly 10 years, because it implicates all of them.  And it is a serious enough criminal charge on it's own, without dragging in one of the rarest group crimes known to society. They have never admitted neglect in any way, shape or form.  On the contrary, they succeeded in convincing, almost everyone, that their form of childcare that night was within the bounds of responsible parenting.  The parents statements are littered with key words and tells, even the untrained, can pick out the McCanns' priorities.  'We hope for a successful outcome for ourselves.....  and err, Madeleine'.  Madeleine's outcome cannot be changed - it's already happened. 

Paedophiles are, by the heinous nature of their crimes, very secretive 00:16, there is always the danger that they will be strung up from the nearest hanging tree by an angry mob, especially in areas with a high volume of British tourists. They don't sit around a table discussing their darkest fantasies with their mates and people they hardly know.  What they do goes on behind locked and bolted doors.  I actually cringed and slunk down in my chair as Richard Hall demonstrated the knob in mouth action and nipple twiddling, that may have been the point for me, where all credibility went out the window. 

Any kind of sense, common or otherwise, would beg the question, why would a group of attractive, bright, highly sociable and competitive adults, want to shut themselves away with the kids (for which there is no evidence whatsoever) to do, gawd knows what with them?  I don't even want to go there. 
For the wannabe statement analysts out there, the clue was in Kate's 'we were really into each other'.  That is, they were doing what every thirty something longs to do - they were enjoying the company of their peers rather than trapped in the apartment with demanding toddlers playing what they want to play and fending off tantrums. 

We cannot interpret anything from the CATs reference number!  It tells us nothing other than a box was ticked. The pact of silence I agree flags up deception, but there are many good and valid reasons for deception outside of the 'P' word. 

Photos, where Madeleine is 'objectified' is a whole new area for debate. Sometimes a spoon is just a spoon.  For most of us, the pictures look perfectly normal, we don't see any 'signs' and actually think it quite cruel that some people spend so much of their time looking for them. As if they can solve the mystery by spotting a displaced elbow. As for the way in which Maddie ate ice cream being some sort of signal to perverts - now that's creepy. 

It's been nearly 10 years, where arguably, the McCanns have lived under constant scrutiny. The idea that all these institutions would have left all these children at risk is unthinkable.  And it should be born in mind that the ones being hurt the most by these cruel and frankly disgusting, allegations, are those living children linked to this case through no fault of their own.  It is for good reason that many of the antis are seen as 'haters'. 

Having lived through the trauma of standing in a witness box having my parents accused of heinous crimes, my heart goes out to them.  I came away almost broken, many who went through the same experience went on to commit suicide.  It is possibly one of the cruellest forms of torment.  As illustrated when I flew off the handle with Bennett when he insulted my mother. 

I find the idea of a group of 'experts' discussing and accusing these named parents of child sexual abuse, absolutely abhorrent!  Especially as they talking about a live criminal investigation, and worse those children involved are reaching an age where access to the internet is becoming easier.  How would anyone feel, at the age of 11/12, if a group of 'experts' held a public debate on whether your mummy and daddy had abused you?  These people clearly have no moral boundaries, let alone common sense.  And I am not saying that as defender of the McCanns, I am saying it as a wake up call to those who have crossed that moral and ethical line when making fanciful accusations against these parents.  Do they honestly believe their 'research' is helping those kids?

All those who genuinely care about Madeleine, should show equal care towards her brother and sister, those who are and will be, affected by their ill chosen words. That they so casually discard the feelings of those children, says more about their own motives, and they are not altruistic.  Justice for Madeleine mustn't come at any cost.  Rational, intelligent people know this inherently.  They think about the effect their words may have on others.  As Maya Angelou said far more eloquently than I, it is never forgetting the way those words made you feel.   

I may not be fighting for justice for Madeleine, in the sense of researching and 'exposing' the intimate lives of those poor sods unfortunate enough to be named in this case and making accusations against them.  But I am fighting, in my own way, to keep discussion about this case in perspective and within the realms of reality.  I see this case, and the way in which it has progressed, as a huge learning curve, it has, if you like, as it has opened my eyes to so much in our society that is cruel, and dare I say it, just downright evil. Look out much Chilcott revealed, yet our MPs just voted overwhelming not to bring any charges.  If we look back at the Blair administration, how far up (or down) would be the mysterious case of one missing child by on cover up scale?  Especially at a time when his new best buddy Dubya, was scooping up suspects and subversives  from all over the globe and sending them off to enjoy the sado/masochist delights of Guantanamo Bay? More sado, than masochist it must be said.  It is not child abuse that is rotting society from the inside out, it is greed and lust for power. 

Having said all that, my own quest for justice (staying online) is threatened by my beloved laptop nearing it's end of days!  I'm already losing volumes every time I inadvertently pull the charger out, and the keys look as though they have been trodden on by a herd of elephants.  I learned to type on a 'manual' and pound the keys like a psychotic Beethoven, or on occasion, a particularly flamboyant conductor of an orchestra.  I call it exercise, lol.  But I jest, if you enjoy my blog and want to make a small contribution to the piano on which I will write my next Masterpiece, please feel free to use the donation button!