Sunday, 22 May 2016


I think Sharon Osborne has become the icon she is, because she will say exactly what she thinks.  It's hard to imagine that any 'D' notices or threats from Clarence Mitchell would put the wind up her.  She has no qualms in pointing out the Emperor isn't wearing any clothes, she is too feisty and unpredictable to be restrained by grey men in suits waving Writs at her - she would eat them for breakfast and spit out their injunctions. 

She is absolutely right of course, babies and toddlers should never, ever, be left on their own. And the danger wasn't 'stranger abduction', the danger was accident.  Every parent knows that toddlers are walking, talking, weapons of mass destruction.  They have no boundaries or sense of danger.  Turn your back for one moment and they will be eating the contents of the cleaning cupboard or putting lipstick on the dog. 

It is unbelievable that this large holiday party, that included six doctors, thought it was not only safe to leave their very small children on their own, but that it was socially acceptable in the UK.  And the UK MSM picked up on it - 'We ALL do it', gushed luvvie TV presenters and newspaper columnists, making child abandonment a traditional British custom along with football hooliganism. 

Those condemning the practice of leaving babies and toddlers alone in strange environments (or indeed, any environment) were labelled 'haters' and 'pitchforkers', devoid of compassion, they were the worst of humanity unleashed.  And in fairness, the tapas group's half arsed form of childminding had worked perfectly well for 5 nights running.  If what happened, hadn't of happened, as Kate would say, they could have been role models for parents everywhere. 

The McCanns were of course completely blameless, they could not possibly have foreseen the one in a zillion chance that a predator, who looked exactly like Gerry, would break into their apartment and steal a child.  Presumably when they ticked the boxes of their risk assessment the chances of the children climbing out of their cots, exploring the strange apartment and swallowing mum's pills scored, or going up in flames: nil points.  Bizarre, and indeed callous, as six of them were doctors and must have spent some of their training in A&E.

The mythology that the ONLY danger to the 9 toddlers left on their own throughout that holiday, was stranger abduction, and the chances of that happening remain one in a zillion, took hold.  The message is, carry on regardless folks, go out with your mates, relax and enjoy yourselves, and if you do check on them, don't bother actually looking at them, pulling their covers back up, or planting a gentle kiss on their cheeks.  Listening at the window will suffice, if they are not actually crying, all is well and you can return to the bar, safe in the knowledge that you are a responsible parent. 

I am of course being ironic.  Sadly, there are some parents out there who will like the 5 nights in a row odds. They will dismiss all the worries and fears that plague every parent because they want to go for a drink with their mates.  Most mothers instinctively develop a heightened sense of awareness of all the risks and dangers that may threaten our young.  Women for example can hear at a higher pitch so they can hear their baby's cries.  Just as a mummy tiger will clear every danger from her cave, a human mother will be attuned to every sharp corner, every hob unguarded, any reachable unedible substance.  We are physically unable to switch off, many of us, I am sure, didn't sleep for years!

To pretend that the McCanns and the Tapas group did not endanger their children, is in my opinion, one of the most wicked lies in this whole wicked debacle.  Those little tots were not safe and secure for 5 nights!  They were ALL at the highest risk imaginable.   Not from stalkers, paedophile gangs or anguished couples seeking to adopt, but from being left home alone!  They weren't even in familiar surroundings, they were in a holiday apartment where the parents could neither see nor hear them.  One of the babies had diarrhea and vomiting - she could have choked, and listening at the window every half hour wouldn't have saved her.  Perhaps it's their collective 'there but for the grace of God, go I' mantra that holds them together. 

As for Sharon Osborne, she is now under fire from the McCann supporters, not that she will care.  The attacks on her parenting skills and on her children have already begun.  She'll ride it out, the proof is in the pudding, and she has much to be proud of.  As for the attacks on her marriage (low blow), if she is as clever as I think she is, she will always be the one pulling the strings, and her marriage will be what she wants it to be. 

Sharon is pointing out something that should have been an issue when news of this case first broke.  'Are there any lessons to be learned' Gerry is asked in one of his first interviews.  'Yes.  We didn't do anything wrong' Gerry replied.  And that's what the mainstream media went with.  I hope when this case finally reaches a conclusion, the 'authorities' condemn this tragically dangerous form of child minding as they should have done 9 ago. 


  1. Yesterday, I was the poster who wrote about bullsh*t baffles brains and the brainwashing post Madeleine's disappearance. A now the flood gate has opened thanks to Sharon Osbourne, on the back of Mumsnet & the idea that a 7month baby could\would be left whilst the mother popped out to the shops - this concluded with the McCann debate.

    What bothers me is it's not regularly pointed out in MSM the extent of these children being left, night after night. Supposedly in a UNLOCKED, public accessible apartment with quite a nasty raised patio & flight of stone steps. But ponder the thought not a tiny baby safely cocooned in it's crib but a FREE RANGE toddler.

    Would you leave a FREE RANGE toddler (in a bed) during an afternoon nap, whilst you popped out to the shops. Particularly one, who bed hopped!

    It's interesting to consider the gaggle of doctors & their (alleged) child care arrangements over that holiday. Jane Tanner who's daughter the same age of Madeleine stressed that she had DEADLOCKED the main door so the child could NOT exit (Rogatory interview).

    It's taken nine years for people to openly discuss the care of the of these children & Madeleine's disappearance. Again, many contentious issues of cause & effect.

  2. This was a very deliberate action on behalf of Sharon to open the debate on the mccanns and wasn't necessarily about leaving children alone. I think the floodgates are beginning to open and this is just another way to focus the publics mind on the mccanns. Sharon could have answered that question about leaving children alone without mentioning the mccanns and still got her point accross about the dangers of it. I for one never believed the the neglect story and like you was dismayed at the way parents in the UK were portrayed by the sofa queens and the we all done it gang. I worked for a number of years in holiday complexes and was always amazed about how the very vast majority of parents cared and watched out for their kids. I always thought it was never a holiday for the majority of them who seemed to run after them, fuse over them and constantly watch them every minute. There is no way from what I experienced that so many parents in 1 group would leave young children alone the way they claimed they did. Like you I see Sharon as a strong individual but I also know that's she is caring and she wouldn't have brought the mccanns into it if she genuinely thought that they had had a child abducted through their neglect even if she thought it insane. No this article was to focus on the mccanns, at the minute its let's get the public talking again about it, let's not call it an acceptable way for parents to behave like Kelly told us and let's see where this goes

  3. Ros, please remember, No Neglect = No abduction. They did not neglect these children, remember someone from the group was missing every night. Neglect is their excuse to facilitate abduction!! Just look up dr Judy wood on you tube and you will see that there were NO PLANES used on 9/11. Planes are the LIE that facilitate and justify the terrorists and excuse to go to war. Planes and a small fire do not turn millions of tons of concrete and steel to DUST!!! Anyone, show me a genuine plane part from the 4 planes that day? A large group of doctors do not abandon babies and toddlers, specially with a granny there watching !!! Ros remember, there was NO NEGLECCT !! This is why the "family friend" responds with a comment to MS oSBOURNES comments, it re-inforces the neglect that they say they did !! The Mccanns, like the Bush`s are playing/played a very similar game, with 2 rules...1, get your lie in first and 2, make it a big one.
    Love your Blog Ros, keep it up.

    1. I think they did neglect the children 17:35. I cannot think of a single valid reason for the tapas friends to implicate themselves in a criminal offence such as child endangerment. They could all have faced very serious charges.

      None of them wanted to miss out on the tapas and the fun, and they were just too darn selfish to consider their childrens' needs. They weren't taking care of each other's children - heck they weren't even taking care of their own.

      There is no doubt that they considered themselves far superior to the hoi polloi who surrounded them, and with two anaesthetists in their group they may have used some kind of pharmaceutical cosh to ensure the children stayed in their beds.

      I don't go along with the 'no neglect' theory, nor do I believe Maddie died earlier in the week. The premeditation, the 'swinging' and the 'cloning' is pure nonsense. I believe the theory of Goncalo Amaral - the expert who was there on the ground, and I believe the alerts of the dogs. Anything outside of that criteria, I have no time for, and believe me, I have examined EVERYTHING.

    2. Cristobell I appreciate what you are saying the fact that the rest of the tapas went along with the neglect story convinced me in the beginning that there was neglect and subsequently led me to believe that an abduction had occurred. I think there is something much bigger at play here that persuaded the tapas 7 that it was in their best interest to maintain the neglect story and quite frankly there are so many lies and inconsistencies in their stories that I wouldn't trust anything they had to say. When this all comes to light the tapas 7 will be charged with preverting the course of justice, they had a long time to think of coming clean between their original statements and the statements they made in 2008 and they continued to lie about the events of May 2007. That in my opinion shows that there is something or someone controlling the lot of them. Remember starker they are all hiding some big secret. I don't believe in cloning premeditation or death earlier in the week. The swinging theory has some merits but I wouldn't be in a position to be able to argue convincingly about it

    3. Roll out the ''PACT''

      Sometimes you have to think out of the box, and this is not a very comfortable place to be, when centre to it is a four year old child.

      But the PACT has held firm for nine years. The 'friends' aka Tapas 7 have been sheltered. They have not been door-stepped, maligned or pursued in anyway. Not even tarnished with the same brush i.e. possible neglect & mentioned in the same breath as to what might have happened to Madeleine. Is this because of the true friendship of the McCanns protecting their friends, or their friends protecting themselves?

      But dwelling in the far reaches of silence, remains Churchill's famous quote:
      ''riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma''

      What could be hiding in plain sight?

      If you take your eye off the ball for one moment and consider Madeleine left the apartment and fell into some deep hole, who's fault would it be? It's a completely different ball game, than being abducted\disappeared.

    4. This was an extremely arrogant group, who considered themselves to be far more intelligent than the people around them and of course they came up a with a checking system that was far superior to Butlins or Warners and they are still flogging it as responsible parenting 9 years on. THEY DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG, get it!

      It is bizarre that whenever the topic of their childminding comes up, the word 'accident' is avoided like the plague. None of them mention the risk of accident, the only risk to those kids as far as Kate, Gerry and the tapas friends are concerned, was stranger abductor. Even the British media oblige them, they too agree that no-one could have foreseen the risk of someone breaking in and stealing a child, as if that were the only risk those kids faced.

      In my opinion, that tapas friends are bound to the McCanns by their 'collective decision' to leave the kids on their own. Child endangerment is the only charge strong enough to threaten their lives and careers. All of the tapas kids could have been seized and place in care by the Portuguese Authorities, and that I think, is the reason they were all frantically calling everyone they knew in the UK who could help them. 9 kids abandoned and one dead/missing - none of them would have worked as Doctors again. Significantly, Kate never has.

      If Madeleine had left the apartment and fallen into a deep hole, it would have been the parents fault. Wandering off makes the parents culpable, she could not have wandered off if an adult had been there.

      If the McCanns had hired a babysitter, and she had gone down the road to have a meal with her friends leaving the babies unattended, both she and Warners would have been sued for millions.

      They are getting away with it because they are doctors. They have managed to persuade everyone that they know best.

    5. From 17.35

      Hi Ros,

      What do you make of this statement by GM,

      From Gerry's blogs:

      "Sometimes people do things for reasons that even they cannot understand."

      "An act of madness, an accident or sudden impulse can lead to consequences that people may never have imagined or intended."

      "Faced with such a situation we believe any human soul will ultimately suffer torment and feelings of guilt and fear."


      Do you think there is any possibility that one of them could have struck out, with unfortunate fatal consequences, specially under the very difficult circumstances they were holidaying under.

    6. Yes. I think Kate had a fit of rage, partly through jealousy and partly I suspect related to the prolonged crying incident as heard by neighbour Mrs Fenn.

      I suspect Gerry too had a fit of rage.

      The heavy bruises on Kate's arms and wrists that can be seen from photos taken on the day/s after Madeleine went missing are strongly suggestive of very heavy restraint.

      Which suggests to me that Kate and Gerry were not exactly 'on the same page' in terms of the decisions made that week.

    7. Agree, the heavy bruising on Kate's arms and hands has largely been ignored. I don't know why, because they suggest that some sort of trauma surrounded Madeleine's disappearance. Many assailants are caught because of the injuries they have on themselves. It shows the extent of the cover up that the police took no official photographs of the bruising, nor was she questioned about it. Very odd.

  4. Rosalinda 22.5 @19:51

    "I believe the theory of Goncalo Amaral...and...the alerts of the dogs." (Madeleine suffered a fall, which proved fatal).

    Do you have any thoughts as to who might have discovered the body, where, and when?

    From what the McCanns have told us, it can only have been Kate who encountered her daughter, eventually, prostrate behind the sofa her husband had ALREADY moved against the wall to stop the children playing behind it, and several minutes AFTER a child in arms (Not Madeleine - wrong pyjamas) was seen by the Smiths.

    What happened next?

    Not what the McCanns claim no doubt, as the truth will have died, along with the infant, the moment the body was discovered.

    That being the case, what reason do you suppose the McCanns might have had for lying about events days prior to their daughter's death late on the Thursday?

  5. Read between the lines!

    JT's original sighting and everything that then became the details of the timeline(s), gave everyone an alibi...... think about it! Since everyone of the T9 was accounted for, it couldn't be one of them.

    Now wipe the slate clean & start again. JT didn't see Madeleine's abductor\abduction, if DCI Redwood's crèche-dad is correct.

    Who now has an alibi for the time, which is unknown when Madeleine 'disappeared' !

    But for an observation in human behaviour & personal experience of missing people, that is those who should be in bed - they are never where you think they are, or wherever everyone has looked several times. After all, no one knows for certain exactly where Mrs McCann looked - before running back to the Tapas bar. MO spent 5+ years in the belief that he overlooked Madeleine missing from her bed! (allegedly).

    1. Anonymous @14:22

      Thank you, but you are preaching to the converted in my case.

      My point is really quite simple: If the avalanche of lies following the Thursday evening are thought to have been the direct result of adverse circumstance, as represented by the hypothesis of 'accident', then what is there to account for the lies told in relation to any number of altogether trivial incidents over the days prior to what was, supposedly, a sudden and unexpected development.

  6. Bjorn/Sweden
    Hello Rosalinda, just a few words with reference to your excellent text.

    First of all I would like to emphasize, that Madeleine’s accidental death due to child neglect seems to be far more likely than Madeleine being abducted, due to child neglect, but it is of course child neglect in either case.

    Yes, Rosalinda, the McCanns certainly exposed their children to all kinds of danger. How can anyone argue against that?

    If a majority of the British citizens would defend the McCann’s way of looking after their children, this may jeopardize the care of other British children in the future. As for Kate, she really managed to “switch off” her maternal instincts on that holiday, especially at the night when Madeleine went missing.

    If Kate then seriously believed that Madeleine had been abducted and that she was kept alive and hidden somewhere by a paedophile, she must also have known how terrified Madeleine must have been at that moment. What Madeleine most of all would have longed for in such a terrible situation must have been the voice of her “protective” mother, which could have made her overcome her fear by crying and by screaming. And thus revealing her hiding place.

    We all know that Kate neither searched for a daughter that night, nor did she cry out her name. Instead, she and Gerry displaced themselves from Madeleine by downgrading her status to a neutral third person pronoun or to a subject in the indefinite form. “She is gone…We have let her down”, as Kate shouted, or as Gerry said to a neighbour, who just wanted to help; “A little girl is missing”.

    Moreover, by distancing themselves from the Mark Warner staff, who volunteered to search, these people could not possibly know if it was the name Madeleine or Maddie they should call out, or what other encouraging and familiar words to use in order to comfort little Madeleine, and Kate was not there not assist them. How could she be so ignorant? To Jane Hill on BBC in 2008 Kate said that they were non-functioning for at least 48 hours, but obviously not, in terms of making telephone calls to friends at home and then deleting them.

    1. That is a brilliant post Bjorn, your English is impeccable!

      I agree, any mother who thought her child was lost in the dark or being held by a monster, would need sedation. Kate and Gerry didn't need any medication, and Gerry even remarked that he slept well.

      As for helping the searchers, Jane Tanner only had to say 'he went that way' to give them a place to start.

      For me, the most callous moment is when they stepped out of those patio doors leaving their young children on their own. It really hit home with the crimewatch reconstruction. What on earth were they thinking as they walked out and closed those doors behind them. It sends chills through me.

      I agree with the distancing, she became 'the girl' from the moment she disappeared. Perhaps that was Kate and Gerry's way of suppressing any emotion they may have felt - a sort of clinical detachment.

      But crucially their lack of fear for their daughter's predicament gave them away. Even the automaton Kate could not have functioned if she truly believed her child was in the hands of monsters.

    2. Yes, Kate claimed that in the first 48 hours, they were non-functioning; although Kate was 'functioning' enough to change her earrings for the second TV appearance / appeal - as someone pointed out to me recently.

      I mean, come on, I know ladies like to look their best, and many will colour co-ordinate their apparel, but for crying out loud, this woman was claiming that a predatory paedophile had abducted her 4 year-old daughter - and she vainly changes her fucking earrings from one interview to another!!!

  7. You're correct and there shouldn't even be a debate on the subject of whether or not it's ok to go out and leave children alone. Whether at home or on holiday makes no difference, it is wrong and to pretend otherwise (presumably to avoid causing offense or for the sake of political correctness) is a dishonest and dangerous message to send out. The risk of abduction may be very remote but you cannot possibly feel it is a safe option leave kids in a locked/unlocked home when statistics clearly show that domestic accidents are the leading cause of death and injury in the under 4's, and, surely, if they're left alone that risk is hugely increased.

  8. Far simpler just to get rid of your child by shipping them into the care of some religious group to be abused for a few years.