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. 


  1. When you compare the McCanns' media appearances from the early days to now, it's obvious that they've undergone coaching. This is particularly apparent with Gerry McCann, whose demeanor in recent times has become more and more like a shop window mannequin - poker faced, a lot more imperturbable, and giving nothing away via emotional reaction.

    1. I think Gerry has had the wind knocked out of his sails RJ, gone is the confident, self assured Gerry who went head to head with Paxman and who stifled giggles during the age progression pic press conference.

      I think they have probably had coaching all through RJ, but the tone of each interview will be dictated by the subject under discussion. All the coaching in the world however, cannot produce charisma. Some people have it in abundance, a natural ability to come alive when the cameras start to roll. The McCanns are not among them.

      Every interview they have given is stilted and wooden, they are not acting naturally and the viewers pick up on it. They are trapped in the goody twoshoes, church going, characters they invented in 2007 for ever more.

  2. Whether here discussing with you, or on Hyatt's blog. The problem of all things McCann, whether word analysis or behaviour. Is what is raw and what is rehearsed behaviours. Most, apart from rare moments off camera do we see a sparkle.

    Loved your bit about the cardi - didn't that come out on the Oprah show, particularly the girlie pink one.

    Hand holding, sitting together, verbal and non-verbal cues, they are all there. It just needs someone to inspect them, OBJECTIVELY.

    In fairness to Hyatt, as I understood it, the first analysis was sent to him in the written\transcribed word implying he had no other information, at that time.

    1. Hyatt's first analysis of the Australian interview was in full video/transcript which Hyatt first analysed in August 2011.
      This information is on his Statement Analysis website so he has had detailed knowledge and has studied the McCann case in detail since 2011.

      Hyatt is a con man and a liar.

  3. "The first interview of the day, with the BBC, was tame, and indeed they were accompanied by Jim Gamble, then head of CEOP."


    "it is quite clear that at the time of those interviews Gerry and Kate were under the care, control and influence of Jim Gamble".

    Again, interesting.

    "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."

    Maybe it wasn't Gerry and Kate's agenda exactly?

    "Is he (Gerry) seeking reassurance or is he pacifying Kate?"

    Or is he saying, through the medium of touch, 'I'll field the sticky questions like we agreed'?

    1. "Or is he saying, through the medium of touch, "I'll field the sticky questions like we agreed" I think you might be right anon 14:18 but it mostly didn't work out like that in the few occasions when they got difficult interviews and were caught off guard. When Sandra wasn't falling for his flirty "ask the dogs.." Line he fell silent and it's was Kate who had to jump in and try and change the subject. The same with the German interview when asked how they coped with the increasing suspicion that they had something to do with her disappearance it was Kate that jumped in to field that away. In the late late show interview in Ireland again when the interviewer declared that people were cut straight down the middle with half believing them and half not, it was Kate who jumped to their defence and rubished it. And all the time it was the same message she used you the interviewer have got it wrong the people really do love us ......with Sandra it was the vast majority of Portuguese people are inherently good I.e stop trying to cast us as the bad guys the public love us. In German it was I don!t think it is a big number of people who suspect us, it's just a few nutters ....again the public love us you know. In the Irish interview she quickly corrected the interviewer with I wouldn't think it was 50/50 .....again just a few nutters the public loves us you know. It goes back to what she said when the PJ first accused her words to the effect there would be riots at home our government will not stand for it. She has stations well above herself much more than he has. Yes he is macho male but only in circumstances which he can control. When the chips are down and the hard questions are asked it would be her that my money would be on. Remember the night they were made aguidoes who lay on the ground screaming and wanting to smuggle them out of the country and who calmed the situation. I'm don't study their interviews but i have seen enough of them to understand that she just as much as time (if not more ) were well capable of kissing and cuddling the body of their first born child and then presenting to the world the charade we seen

    2. @17:52

      3:43 "Sir, I have a question. Is the main focus now on Morocco to find her. Is that your hope?"

      Gerry is speechless, and Kate gives an explanation.

    3. Exactly he was ok when being interviewed by compliant media in Britian but couldn't sick the heat of the kitchen in difficult times. Ros and others have mentioned before about duping delight and face scratching etc by him. Imo it doesn't come as easy to him as it does for her and make no mistake this whole charade wouldn't have been possible without her strength to carry it through

  4. Ros says

    "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."

    So you are now a body language expert and a fashion critic to add to everything else you have claimed in the past. It really shows the "real" you when you resort to commenting on the Mccanns appearance and demeanour.

    Just a quick check - your photo on twitter - - are they real crocodile teeth round your neck or just plastic imitations? Is that a grandmumsy cardigan you are wearing?

    When your level of intellect sinks to criticism of peoples appearance then expect to get yourself to be analysed too.

    Does Corbyn wear a tie?

    1. "It is only shallow people who do not judge by appearances." - Oscar Wilde.

    2. Does Kate wear Cadaver No.5?

    3. @15:34
      Is that you again, Tony?

    4. @ 20:33
      No - are you pissed again andrew?

    5. Is that a real poncho . . . I mean
      Is that a Mexican poncho or is that a Sears poncho?
      Hmmm . . . no foolin'

    6. If you read my words carefully 15:34, you will see that I was not being critical, I was highlighting the question, what does the mother of a missing child wear?

      And I don't think I have lowered the tone at all, on the contrary, I have opened the debate up to the bigger issues. I totally concur with Oscar Wilde, (many thanks 16:52) - shallow people miss the time a person has taken to do their hair, match their outfit to their shoes, and the personal touches that reflect their personalities. A 'mentalist' will take it all in within seconds, as too will a palm reader in a fairground tent.

      I think the best demonstration of this was Hannibal Lector in his opening speech to Clarice. '...with your good bag and your cheap shoes..... your only one generation away from white trash'.

      Our appearance speaks volumes, that's why our mums always told us to polish our shoes!

    7. 15:34, Wouldn't it have been better to simply ask the author about this issue, rather than 'do a Hyatt' and jump to conclusions which steer your personal opinion down the wrong road?

  5. Of course - who can forget the lumberjack photo

  6. Was it a nice grandmumsy cardigan you were wearing on Lizzard TV with Poulton

    1. I am not afraid, or even ashamed, to say that my outward appearance is directly affected by what is going on in my personal life. Anyone who suffers from manic depression (bipolar) will understand that in the grip of an episode, what we look like is the last of our worries.

      Alternately, when your hair goes right and you like what you see in the mirror, the day goes well because we are starting on a positive note. Our mood and what we choose to wear are closely entwined.

      I don't know if Kate chooses her outfits herself, I suspect she does, but her choices will be heavily influenced by the image she wants to portray, rather than her own style - if she has one. It is as if she is selecting modest outfits to wear to church.

      She is probably also very aware that people will be highly critical of her clothes in the same way as if she were seen buying strawberries in M&S. She says she doesn't care what people think, but she does care, she cares very much.

      Both she and Gerry are trapped in a nightmare life of keeping up appearances. They daren't be seen laughing or God forbid, rowing, in public, and they must wonder sometimes if they can trust their friends.

      The word mumsy seems to have hit a sore spot, but it is her good Mother image Kate is promoting. If she power dressed in bright colours and tailored suits as female politicians and high flying journalists do, she would be seen as hard and very unmumsy.

      The bright colours and glitz of ordinary mortals would be too tacky for Kate, but it would also radiate a lightness of spirit that she wants to avoid at all costs.

      How does the mother of a missing child dress? Knowing that everytime she steps out of the door, paparazzi might be lurking, and her outfit will be scrutinized by fashion conscious Daily Mail readers.

      One of the joys of leading a totally honest life, is the fact that I can speak quite freely, and often with much laughter, about the (many) times I have fucked up.

      The lumberjack picture was one of the lowest points of my life, it is a reminder of how low depression can take you! My fashion style at that time was drab and please don't look at me. I may have been knocked down but I got back up again.

      As for cardies? I actually luv 'em - have a wardrobe full with tops to match! Smart, casual, mumsy and glamorous, best fashion item ever!

  7. "Andrew Yesterday at 11:15 pm
    Do you have a link for that? Would like to see it.

    Was just catching up and reading her latest blog and noticed a comment left regarding myself. I just want to say that I have not left any comments on Cristobells blog apart from those a few weeks ago. And before that about a year ago."

    Oh dear - poor Andrew had what he says is a false accusation against him. I wonder if he any any comparison with what the Mccanns have been through for 9 years.

    1. Dave Bottomley - you're an arse.

    2. @ Anonymous11 December 2016 at 04:44

      statement analysis - notice the "anal" in analysis- itn means that you are a perverted individual that likes things doing to your "arse".

      Come to terms with it anonymous.

      ETA - shit I believe you like doors and windows! - You should see Hyatt very soon and payhom some money.

    3. @Anonymous 12 December 2016 at 23:03

      Notice Kate McCann on doors and windows.

    4. 23:03 'payhom'? Is that you again, Tony?

  8. ros says

    "Kate by contrast is wearing a drab print top and a mumsy cardigan"

    Ros says:

    "As for cardies? I actually luv 'em - have a wardrobe full with tops to match! Smart, casual, mumsy and glamorous, best fashion item ever!"

    So why the comment - you love cadies!

    1. Tis caRdies I love, rather than those who carry golf clubs, lol.

      Why the comment - I was talking about what Kate was wearing!

  9. Ros - why don't you make it a "pay only" blog and watch the money roll in?

    1. That donation button really bugs you huh?

      Well actually, I would prefer to get my rational, balanced, humane point of view on this case to as wide an audience as possible to counter balance the pitchforking of websites such as CMoMM and several of the Facebook pages. That's why I don't charge.

      I'm not holding a gun to anyone's head 02:47, merely asking my readers if they have enjoyed and/or been enlightened by my blogs to make a small donation on par with a cappuccino or magazine.

      If I were all about the money 02:47, I would have kept my trap shut when my book was published.

    2. @02:47

      Would you like to donate?

      I would, but (as someone else has said) I wish to remain anonymous, not least because of people like you Anonymous 02:47.

    3. Happily no-one sees the names of the donors other than myself 09:56 and it is not in my nature to intrude on people. I'm still not sure what an IP address is, let alone what one would do with it!

      However, should you be Jack Nicholson, I would camp outside your door until you agreed to come and get drunk with me in New Orleans. I know Brad Pitt is newly single, but he so darn gorgeous, I would never get past box 1 on my bucket list!

      I jest of course. I fully understand the reasons for wanting anonymity, it's been that sort of case, but I am not sure there is anything I can do about it, does anyone know?

    4. Lol, although I don’t share your view on Jack Nicholson, and much less on Brad Pitt, even if he were the last man on earth.

      As for your last paragraph, PO Box perhaps, if the benefits outweigh the costs of course.

      Just an idea.

  10. Ros says:

    "Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton11 December 2016 at 02:26

    I am not afraid, or even ashamed, to say that my outward appearance is directly affected by what is going on in my personal life"

    Maybe you should concentrate on your personal life rather than commenting on the appearance of the Mccanns.

    1. Time for bed, Tony.

    2. Tony is probably exhausted 04:46, he is having to reply on behalf of dozens, many with a new found interest in this case, after 10 years, lol.

      He has to give the appearance that the cesspit is active, and indeed relevant, and that Richard Hall is the next Speilberg. That kind of determination takes us into workshop of filthy creation territory and the accompanying lunacy.

      To illustrate how inept Bennett and Hall are, or how much they are earning from their Madeleine films, Hall flew out to the US, to interview a small town preacher with illusions (or is it delusions?) of grandeur. Doh!

      Hall was almost trancelike in his deference to the man talking, afraid to interrupt and afraid to ask awkward questions. But then, he had his own agenda, he wanted Hyatt to confirm Madeleine had died earlier in the week and that some sort of child sex ring was involved.

      Hyatt didn't oblige him on the 'earlier in the week' theory, but he was adverse to it, it looked as though that subject would be left to a bit of negotiation off camera. As for the sexual allegations - a right wing preacher wants to exORcizzze those demons, waddya know? lol.

  11. While we're on the subject of clothes, Kate McCannn wrote:

    “We were informed that we would need to wear ‘dark suits’ to meet the Pope. Clothes again! On the Tuesday morning Gerry and I went to a big shopping centre to buy something appropriate. As a woman who could not yet enjoy a snack in a café without feeling guilty, I could not get my head round this. My daughter was missing and here we were shopping! It was unthinkable. I moved randomly from rack to rack, from shop to shop, the tears rolling down my face. I longed for it all to go away.”

    More clothes:

    1. I wouldn't imagine buying clothes to see the Pope would be any fun at all, and I'm surprised given the size of their entourage, that they had to do it themselves.

      But the quote from Kate about sums up her negative feelings about the way in which others see her. She has to explain to her readers that yes, she too thought the idea of the mother of a missing child shopping for clothes was 'unthinkable'. She is pre-empting the critics.

      She is also revealing how insecure she is, she has a need to explain her actions. The motto for the House of Windsor is 'Don't Explain, Don't Complain'. The problem for Kate is that she likes complaining, she is in full belt victim mode here, that 'nobody likes me, everybody hates me, think I'll go and eat worms' attitude that puts people's backs up. She is complaining HER loss of freedom [to enjoy a snack in a café] The way in which this tragedy has impacted on her life. It's not endearing.

      With tears in her eyes, she longed for it all to go away. For statement analysts, or even those blessed with superb comprehension skills, should spot all the red flags there in an instant! Her plea is not for her missing child, it is for the intrusion into HER life to go away.

      Kate doesn't need to feel guilty. It is her choice. Most of us save our guilt for the wee small hours, where all paths lead to doom and gloom and let me stick my head in the gas oven.

      We all feel guilt over what we should or shouldn't have done, and we regularly give ourselves a good thrashing (figuratively speaking). Catholics especially, who are supposed to examine their conscience each night so they can nod off full of self loathing.

      Kate's guilt is of course misplaced. Why should she feel guilty for doing exactly the same as everyone around her? No-one expects her face to be permanently set in missing Madeleine mode. The persona she is putting across, is her own creation, one that can grow and evolve or remain stuck in 2007, only Kate can decide.

      But I don't want to be too harsh. Kate may be in full blown, what I like to call 'I'll think about it tomorrow' mode (Yes indeed a tribute to Scarlett O'Hara). That is, when we don't want to think about something, we put it off til tomorrow [when it will be easier. And we do this by replacing the subject of our thoughts with something else, preferably something trivial.

  12. “Maddie’s mum, an ambassador for Missing People, is not due to speak.”

    One of the comments:

    In truth, if people do enough research they will undoubtedly know that this is a very unsavoury agenda that's been running in the media now for some time. It's actually a mainstream agenda used by certain charities and the media organisations to exploit the public purse into giving cash donations and to cash strapped charities. I am confident that this post of mine will be deleted by administration for this page very soon. The real truth must stifled or eroded to appease a minority......”

    1. Tnere is no 'admin' 08:07, only me and I agree, Child Scare Industry sounds about right! It's no wonder future generations are expected to be fat blobs sat in front of computer and TV screens, parents are too scared to let their children play out!

    2. Hi Rosalinda. Lol, I quoted one of the Mirror comments, the poster was referring to the Mirror administration. Possibly the comments there have been deleted.

    3. Lol 08:50, yes I realised afterwards, doh! I can't see comments in their entirety before I publish them and got the wrong end of the stick, oops.

  13. It may be of assistance to Peter Hyatt to point out that individual at the top of this page is a remarkable likeness of Richard D. Hall:

    1. Should have gone to Specsavers.

  14. 10 December at 19:37 A gaping, gasping and grasping Gerry indeed.

    Why can't Gerry explain what the story is with Morocco? Can anybody explain Morocco and the McCanns? They were dressed up like tropicasual Karl Lagerfelds on that particular mission, with Kate not looking at all mumsy, more like a lady funeral director. The McCanns were decked out in the same Mormony suits in Rome - same levels of British Embassy accommodation and assistance given there, too. What is it that links Morocco and the Vatican to this case, aside from the strange get-ups?

  15. I think the only link between Morocco and the Vatican is a series of super smooth spin doctors 00:18. Clarence, for example was getting Gerry and Kate gigs everywhere, they were much in demand. Telling a population that their children are in danger is a good ploy for any government, there are so many ways that fear can be manipulated.

    To be fair, Kate and Gerry 'got' religion big time after Madeleine disappeared. Though both have science degrees, they put their faith in the Lord and the power of the Catholic Church. Not to mention, the fruitloops, mediums and psychics.

    In appealing to people of faith, Kate and Gerry were instantly able to get mass support, which of course is much more significant than the support of random individuals. If the Pope supported them, then so too would 1.2 billion Roman Catholics. However, as it turned out, soon after the visit to Rome, they were swiftly erased from Vatican's website.

    In their visit to Morocco, they hoped to be taken to the hearts of the Muslim community. Gerry made a point of telling the Minister for Religious Affairs, that although they were Catholics there were a lot of Muslims in Leicester and could they all please pray for them.

    During that few weeks in June 2007, Kate and Gerry were doing as much campaigning as a presidential candidate. Remarkable, given that barely 6 weeks had passed since their daughter disappeared. At a time when most of us would have been stricken down and inconsolable with grief, they were meeting and greeting Ambassadors, Government Ministers and Police Chiefs whilst giving countless interviews to newspapers and news channels from all over the world! That is some feat! And if anyone thinks that falls anywhere within the bounds of 'normal behaviour', I suggest they get their bumps felt.

    1. Ros Ive just read this comment out to an office full of's probably one of the best sum up of their campaign I've ever read

    2. Anonymous 09:28

      Factually incorrect on every level, you seriously need to re-educate yourself and your office. Not David Brent are you?

      Rosalind talks as her belly guides her, she makes it up as she goes along. Fair enough if you like her style of writing but I strongly advise against taking anything she says seriously.

      She lives in a fantasy world, evidence by her adoration of the movie world and historic figures.

    3. Anonymous at 12:43

      “Factually incorrect” you say. Where is your factual information?

    4. Ouch 12:43, tis true I adore the movies, always have - I actually studied 'Hollywood the Dream Factory' at Uni, and wrote a dissertation on Charlie Chaplin which I must put online sometime.

      I'm not sure how my adoration of the movie world and historic figures means I live in a fantasy world. Does my love of books, art and popular culture also make me a fantasist?

      Would my words be credible if I led a religious life perhaps, locked away from movies, books and reality TV? Perhaps I should be like Tony Bennett, who watches only BBC news and nothing else. What a martyr!

      I live in the real world, which is why I am able to connect with many of my readers. I write in a vernacular that everyone understands. I actually find writers who stick to academia and a self indulgent cryptic narrative, intensely irritating. I have never been able to get beyond para 2 with Textusa for example, there is so much to learn and so little time.

      I was very fortunate in that I had an amazing dad who always explained everything to me as if I were 4 years old, even in my 40's, lol. I remember at the age of 6 standing in front of my dad with my 7 year old brother, as he told us through tears that John F. Kennedy had been shot and we must remember that day forever. It was hard not to, the house was filling with weeping Irish relatives, and the Wake (and the drinking and the singing)went on for about a week.

      My dad left school at 14 and worked in a factory in Dundee, his first purchase was a set of encyclopaedias from the 'tally man', something I think that says more about him than a thousand words. He loved to learn and he loved to teach, and every time he learned something, he would pass it on to my brother and myself.

      My dad's simplistic way of teaching is ingrained in me, I just can't help myself, lol. It's not because I underestimate the intellect of my readers or former students, it's because I want to explain 'it' in the same way I would like it explained to me.

      Tis true I was an unconventional English lecturer, but FWIW, my students loved me! I explained the whole concept of Romanticism by showing them an episode of Black Adder! (It was the one with Byron, Shelley and Samuel Johnson, lol).

      But, let's get back to your bizarre accusation. How does 'a love of the movies' make my opinions worthless?

    5. For anyone who is interested, my style of writing, if I have one, is stream of consciousness(interior monologue)as practiced by Virginia Woolf and John Lennon! It is described as a tool or a device, but in my case it's more of a 'just can't help it'.

    6. Anon at 12:43 the office is down sizing and most of the staff is getting sacked but the good news is I'm getting promoted..........and btw everybody in the office thinks Gerry and Kate McCann are liars and bullshitters and Ros is a great writer

  16. OT

  17. OT

    "Like a springboard, Portugal is used as a doorway to other markets. The extensive coastline, capable of absorbing these illegal schemes, contributes much to paving the way for the main transnational narcotics trafficking routes. In the battle against narcotics trafficking, Portugal "is the victim of its geography," William R. Brownfield, Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, said this year in Lisbon."

    Source: Diario de Noticias website, Lisbon, in Portuguese 12 Dec 11 p 13

  18. "At least two Popes took what they knew to their graves."

    Feb. 17, 2006

    1. I don't know if it's just me, but I find men who wear full length lavish gowns slightly disturbing, whether it be pantomime dames or arch bishops. And I'm not being sexist, I am equally disturbed by women who shave their heads and dress in black from head to foot. I just don't get religion.

      Admittedly, my background makes me somewhat biased. Those who wear fancy dress costumes especially, it's as if they have chosen a life of poverty and obedience and want everyone to know about it.

      To believe in something to the extent where you wear a silly hat and ride around in a Popemobile goes to a level of insanity that I cannot even begin to comprehend.

      Whilst I hate to offend my religious readers (if I have any), they would have to agree the whole Vatican set up is a bit iffy. I mean is anyone still buying the 'Pope has a direct line to God'?

      I can see why it worked in the dark ages, when this life was so shit and the promise of paradise was all they had to look forward to. For the plebs and serfs, they were happy to pay as much of their wages as it took to ensure a seat at the celestial table.

      Religion is the most profitable commodity on the globe, they don't actually have to supply anything, other than maybe a few prayer cards and bottles of holy water.

      They are selling the feel good factor, 'take up thy bed and walk', put all your faith in God he will relieve you of all your burdens and woes, the good Lord will do all your worrying for you as long as you keep worshipping him.

      You can kind of see why a lot of people would take that path more travelled, it's a huge weight off for one thing. In the wee small hours when the gin and the drugs just won't work, we need to believe there is a higher power, it can't all just be down to us, the load is too heavy. We need to know that someone greater than we are, is looking after us and our deceased loved ones. continues...

    2. I don't know if it is because Christmas is in the air, but it's made me go all philosophical, and maybe slightly regretting my ill chosen bah humbug words, lol.

      I remember as a mature student being introduced to Nietzsche how astounded I was that anyone, particularly from his era, would be so bold as to announce 'God is Dead'. I immediately headed to Waterstones and bought a pocket sized 'all you need to know about Friedrich Nietzsche, it was actually the beginning of a collection, I bought these pocket books on every philosopher! As a lecturer I used to advise my students to look for books that explained things as if you were 4 years old, go for 'Puffin' books, rather than 'Penguin', lol. Anyone studying Shakespeare should begin with the children's book by Charles and Mary Lamb.

      But I hadn't mean't to knock religion so harshly. For many people it works, it is the comfort they need in those wee small hours. As my dear old feistyIrish mum neared the end, I went and fetched the hospital Priest. Happily, he waited outside the door, because when I told her she said 'tell him to feck off', lol.

    3. Interesting Rosalinda, thank you. It reminds me of:

      “Gott ist tot! Gott bleibt tot! Und wir haben ihn getötet!“

    4. "‘Pope has a direct line to God'?"

      Well, according to Kate McCann he has:

      “I truly believed that if I was able to speak to the Pope, my pleas for Madeleine’s safe return would be channelled more efficiently and effectively to Heaven."

      But the line went dead.

    5. Anonymous @17:43

      “Gott ist tot! Gott bleibt tot! Und wir haben ihn getötet!“

      In contrast, I once read somewhere that 'God is alive and well, and working on a less ambitious project elsewhere in the universe'.

    6. Some of us killed him 22:05, but many keep him alive and influential, in their heads at least.

      Perhaps he has moved onto another project.

    7. Anonymous 12 December 2016 at 17:49

      “"‘Pope has a direct line to God'?"

      “Well, according to Kate McCann he has:…”

      Well, not necessarily so.

      Provided that your quote of what Kate said is correct, your statement is nothing but your inference: it is not what Kate McCann said.

    8. @14:19

      An indirect channel?

    9. Anonymous 13 December 2016 at 14:51

      “An indirect channel?”

      I am 14:19

      Great remark! I cant stop smiling.

      Kate’s statement itself makes me smile as well. She can’t be serious!

    10. @17:28

      It’s in her account of the truth. Mitigating circumstance?

  19. haroldd2 rocks.

    1. So does BlueBag.

    2. Oh my gawd, the occupiers of the cesspit really are a ghastly little coven of maleficent troglodytes. What is their obsession with the way other people live their lives? Could it be because no one gives two hoots how they live theirs?

      What is their problem with gay marriage? How does it impact on them personally? Are they seriously suggesting everyone should be just like them? lol

    3. Lol, fortunately there is suzysu.

    4. BlueBag's a weird one.

      Sort of writes like this.

      If he talks like how he writes.

      He must be.

      The life and soul of the party.



    5. Actually I find Harold, Richard, Bluebag and Verdi's concern for gentlemen's bottoms, quite yucky.

      So too their concern about what goes on in other people's bedrooms. Why does it bother them so much? How does it affect them? Unless they have to use ladders and cameras.......

      Kids who grow up in a home with two parents who love them are the luckiest kids in the world. They don't care if they two dads or two mums, why should anyone else? Their parents wanted them, they chose to have them, they are already ahead of many of their peers!

      Their attitude towards these men and women and their children is actually cruel, why are they trying to stigmatise them instead of embracing them into society? Life is tough enough without such bigotry.

      That for me is the problem with religion, it's all about excluding people and stoning (not in a fun way) the outcasts. They obey the rules, so everyone else should. Even though the rules were made over 2000 years ago.

      If anyone is lucky enough to find love in this world, we should see it as a good thing. In my experience, people who are happy and relaxed with their own sexuality, couldn't give two hoots what anyone else does. Confident heterosexuals aren't threatened in the slightest by alternative families, why should they be?

      Digressing slightly, I see Bennett has laid off the persecuting to take up the preaching, lol. I don't think that will encourage new membership!

  20. OT

    “Denaro will take over the drug and people smuggling Mafia gangs operating in Portugal, Spain and North Africa as well as the multimillion dollar US money laundering cartels centred in Las Vegas, New York and New Orleans.“

  21. OT

    Lying toad.

  22. Hi, Rosalinda, I appreciate your approach to religion.

    Here are just a few thoughts, related to what has been discussed here regarding belief and faith.

    People should of course always be respected for their religious beliefs and their opinions, but religions, political ideologies and socio-political structures as such, that form and shape people’s lives, must constantly be scrutinized, challenged and questioned in all its forms.

    Through our European history people have feared the Catholicism more than the all mighty Pope himself, because the religion in itself constituted an oppressive authoritarian
    system on many levels in all Catholic countries.

    As for Islam, many Muslims today fear Islam for similar reasons, especially in countries where the political power is based on Islamic dogmas.

    When the majority of the DDR citizens finally lost their faith in the communist ideology, Honecker and all his obedient subjects immediately became politically and morally disarmed.

    So, by showing disrespect for religions and political ideologies, which are oppressive, we show in fact respect for those who believe in them, and who are oppressed by them.

    1. I can understand why simple, unquestioning people in the dark ages could accept the concept of blind belief. Even in the 21st century, religion can provide a purposeful and comforting path for those who need to believe there is a higher power than themselves.

      For those reasons I try not to be too harsh on believers. Unfortunately as often happens with people daft enough to have 'faith', they are wide open to exploitation. There is almost an arrogant, 'we can tell them anything attitude', they will believe it, which probably explains why Kate and Gerry targeted the Catholics first.

      As for church hierarchy, for me they it remains the stuff of horror films, a dark sinister organisation that has accumulated vast riches and power.

  23. Oh I love it!! And free is great! =) I've been wanting to make a style like this for some time. I read over your directions and you did a great job! It's a good size that I like as well. Thank you !

  24. When it comes to image management, the tories, with their former bedfellows Saatchi & Saatchi reinvented it . Margaret Thatcher, one of the cleverst businessmen of her age, knew this was a winner. She knew, perverts aside, she was surrounded by men so weak they needed assertiveness training to cross the road alone. Her long term vision, even before the quango scam was to run the government and country like a corporation. What she started has become the model now for advertisers and politicians. Image is everything. When i say everything, i mean everything.
    It's unfortunate that we live in shallow waters now. But it's still deep enough to be infiltrated by sharks. If you accept that he much larger percentage of the population 'haven't got the time' to delve, you can exploit it. People make fast food judgements and asessments so the surfaces of speech and image on the eye is enough for them to draw all the conclusions they need. If you want to sell someone the idea of success, dynamism and prosperity, get someone in tailior made suits, well groomed, and wealthy to do it. If you want to plant the ideas, use key words and punchy lines ( easy to encode therefore easier to decode). Compare David cameron and Michael Foot. One would have a date and heavy petting with the head of a dead pig and declare war on the poor in his corporate suit; the other would fight for the poor, fight for the UK's status quo but dressed like a scarecrow.Enough said.

    Psycholigists and counsellors read non verbal leakage and dress. Every picture tells a story. Advertising was built on psychology ever since an actor with glasses and professor 'overall' told us science had tested a soap powder.Saatchi & Saatchi took to the top of everest.Why is this relevant here ? because Team McCann are receiving all of the above by the same party .The script, key words, repetition, catchprases and wardrobe. All are designed in the wings by the corporation. The question is this for me : If we're seeing it and spotting it, should we be asking if the McCanns are protecting themselves - or the people who are taking so much time and effort to stage it ? They ( the puppet - masters) do it for no other members of the public whatever the plight. I see it as them using the McCanns to protect them.Next question is why- what have they done...

  25. @Bjorn

    Every religion oppresses somebody in the name of their God.When the Vatican relinquishes it's gold and eliminates the need for thousands of compensation payments to the families of child abuse victims, when the Muslims liberate their women, when the Jews end usury and war-funding and when Hindus join the modern world then talk about religion's place. The only religion not exercising any of the above is Buddhism - the one without a God..