Monday, 10 July 2017



I am rapidly approaching my 60th birthday (Monday :( ) and I am sad to say, my beloved laptop is as knackered as myself!  If you are regular visitor and you enjoy my blogs, or even if you don't, lol, please consider a small donation - the monetary equivalent of a birthday card or drink!    

I have been undergoing a bit of a transition recently, as some may have noticed, but I have realised that I cannot let my 'Mcann' blog/commentary go. I think for many it has become a regular port of call, which I am immensely proud of.  I am proud too, that I run a McCann blog, that calls for calm, compassion and consideration for the feelings of those involved.  I'm proud too that people from all sides of the argument can come together here to exchange views civilly and with respect for each other.  As popular as this blog is, it doesn't pay and I would never put up a paywall. I would write regardless, tis true, even if I had to go back to the old feather quill and the back of a discarded shoe, but the laptop is a whole lot easier, especially one not held together with a couple of hairclips and a bandaid.   

Due to the huge volume of comments, I am starting a Part II on the McCann forum wars, beginning with a response to 'Ziggy' who is currently blaming the failure of the authorities to find Madeleine or his alleged abductors, on the onlookers.  

'.....Spare me the 'poor show' on the part of the two tribes of sheep Ziggy, who are you?  The grand overlord?  You are in no position to be wielding the old 'told ya so' axe - those you support have won nothing, in fact, 10 years on, they are probably in the worst position they have ever been in.  They have suffered what will probably be one of the biggest legal losses in history.  The costs of at least 4 teams of lawyers, countless court hearings and appeals for 9+ years will be record breaking, which is probably why their millionaire donors backed out.  

You attempt to shame all commentators Ziggy, by bringing the discussion back to Maddie, is a device used by all 'pro's' and those who shout 'think of the children' when they are looking for a cheer.  Just how much is there to discuss about a 4 year old year child that none of us knew?  The injustice of course lies in her disappearance and who was responsible for it, but that little nugget of truth lies buried in the avalanche of mud that swept over it. 

No-one has forgotten Maddie, Ziggy, especially those so deeply touched by her tragic fate that they took to social media to protest in their thousands.  The abduction story is simply not believable, and threatening people with civil actions and criminal prosecution will never change that.  In fact it has had the opposite effect, all those, like myself who have been the targets of malicious McCann media campaigns, have had no option but to fight back.  

No-one can doubt that the McCanns media campaign was phenomenal, it achieved the impossible, it somehow made child neglect perfectly acceptable and understand, and turned the parents into England's new heroes.  No mean feat, in the spin industry, it was Oscar winning stuff.  

The downside of course, was the McCanns and their minions, made a lot of enemies - some might say they got too greedy.  Given the characters of Gerry, Kate and Clarence, one can imagine the way in which they treated all the journalists desperate for a scoop.  Gerry was almost 'Trumpish' in the way he addressed the media and gave his 'I'm not going to comment on that' [and I know more than you do, tee hee]  when asked about his connection to the first arguido. They cannot blame the fact they are not likeable on anyone Ziggy - it's all them.    

You may think you are taking the higher ground by patronising those of us who discuss this case, but it's not your's to take.  Not least because you comment more than anyone!  

If I remember rightly, you end with a prophecy on social media being policed and/or shut down, and its all the fault of those who have not supported Kate and Gerry.  You appear to be very confused on the whole issue of Freedom of Speech Ziggy.  You are OK with opinion as long as agrees with your own.  You are not Gerry are you?  

You have to take the good with the bad, and if you are an observer of history, you will be aware that the 'bad' is usually short lived.  Websites like the Cesspit, Myths, JATKY2 etc have had their day, their 15 minutes, they haven't been able to build or even sustain their audience, because they are based on negativity and hatred.  Eventually they will sink beneath the mire, and become a distant (unpleasant) memory.  Essentially Ziggy, they are not a threat to anyone, and if they were to be used as an argument to shut down discussion forums, the time has long since passed. 

Times, they are a changing Ziggy.  I expect the police already have ways in which to trace anonymous IP addresses and can probably pick up on antisocial behaviour online, instantly.  But to be honest, what is the point?  Those malcontents bothering the police with the pathetic insults they are hurling at each other, infuriate me.  What a complete and utter waste of police time.


  1. Perhaps something of interest regarding one of the 'forum war' issues.

    Kate McCann (‘madeleine’):

    “A member of staff based at the Millennium restaurant, for example, stated how she saw us there every morning having breakfast with the children. She described in detail what a nice family we were and what a lovely relationship we had with Madeleine. Very kind of her to say so – but we weren’t there. We had breakfast in the Millennium restaurant only once, on our first morning in Praia da Luz, along with all of our friends.”

    1. I have to say this is a curious one. As a mum struggling with 3 toddlers, I would have thought Kate would have welcomed a prepared breakfast and the company of others. A buffet especially, where they can each have exactly what they want, and of course, one of the joys of going on holiday. And given Gerry and Kate's, let's say carefulness with money (no babysitters) why miss the free breakfast?

      Kate wrote Madeleine to 'answer' many of the outstanding questions with her own account of the truth 13:04, one that fits the statements they gave to the Portuguese police at a time when their alibis were very flimsy.

      Quite often in this case, there is absolutely no way at this time to know whether Kate and Gerry went to the Millennium for breakfast each day. Is there room to doubt evidence of the waitress? Sure, she probably deals with lots of people every day. But Kate works on the pompous assumption that non speakers of English are stupid and that her own word is far superior.

      Where there is a she said she said debate, I tend to imagine what I would have done myself in those circumstances. The buggy for sure, must have been a problem, but they were two doctors, renting or buying a cheap buggy was an instant solution and would have saved 7 days of carrying and dragging tired and fractious infants up a hill - which incidentally, couldn't have been good for anyones' tempers.

      Tis true getting 3 lively toddlers bathed and ready to go out, but it is amazing how much the process can be sped up with promises of ice cream. The other couples managed to do it, why not the McCanns?

    2. As you say Rosalinda, "why not the McCanns?" Three toddlers and a non-cooperative husband?

      Cecilia is not a waitress btw.

      "She says that her job is to receive guests at the entrance to the Millenium restaurant and check whether they have to pay for breakfast or whether this is included in their package. She works from 07.00 to 12.00 from Tuesdays to Saturdays. She says that she only attends to guests at breakfast time except on Wednesdays when there is Barbecue Night at the restaurant and when she welcomes guests for dinner, working from 18.00 to 22.00.

      When asked, she says that due to her work she knows most of the guests given that most of them visit the Millenium as it is the only restaurant that serves breakfast.

      When asked, she says that she knows the parents, the siblings and Madeleine. She received them for breakfast on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, she does not know whether they went for breakfast on Sunday or Monday, as these were her days off."


      "She says that the only contact she had with guests was at the entrance to the Millenium restaurant, she did not have a view of the tables or the Buffet area."

    3. Ros 13.38

      Kate McCann (‘madeleine’):

      “A member of staff based at the Millennium restaurant, for example, stated how she saw us there every morning having breakfast with the children. She described in detail what a nice family we were and what a lovely relationship we had with Madeleine. Very kind of her to say so – but we weren’t there. We had breakfast in the Millennium restaurant only once, on our first morning in Praia da Luz, along with all of our friends.”

      - - - - - - - - - - - - -

      Yet the day after Madeleine "disappeared" K & G McCann took the twins to the restaurant for breakfast in front of hundreds of the World's press as "they wanted to keep things as normal as possible for the twins".

      So how is going to a restaurant for breakfast they never went to except for one morning according to KM in "madeleine" keeping things normal for the twins.

      I think someone may have been telling porkies, why say you've been going to breakfast every morning was normal for the twins when she contradicts herself in her own book? So why did they not actually go to breakfast every morning but pretended they did. Was it because they were one child short and they didn't want anyone to notice so they had breakfast in their apartment for the remaining days.

    4. Anonymous @17:55

      "Yet the day after Madeleine "disappeared" K & G McCann took the twins to the restaurant for breakfast in front of hundreds of the World's press as "they wanted to keep things as normal as possible for the twins".

      That's news to me. Can you provide a link?

    5. Anon 12 July 19.32

      Don't tell me you were asleep all over the weekend following Madeleine's "abduction".

      Didn't you see the press call outside the restaurant with the twins being paraded before they went into breakfast for a photo call with all the press on the grass with hundreds of flashbulbs going off - and the McCanns telling the press they wanted to keep things "normal" for the twins. It was all over the news and the newspapers.

      I suppose you were asleep also when the OC opened the creche especially for the McCanns on the Sunday (6th May) when it's usually closed. That was the day my eyes were opened that parents of an "abducted" child would put their remaining children into a creche out of the way when they supposedly didn't know at that point who may have "abducted" Madeleine. It seems they weren't that concerned, unless of course Madeleine hadn't been "abducted".

  2. REPLY to Jane from previous blog:

    I accept your scolding with humility Jane, I did have mischief on my mind - not pure evil please understand, but I do enjoy a bit of 'verbal jousting'. I go under the assumption that other people take online banter as I do, and that 'slights' from the past are not stored up and festering. I half expected them to join in and have a laugh, boy did I misjudge that!

    Unfortunately, without the benefit of body language, much that I say online is taken far too seriously, ergo I don't know most of the people I upset or even why. I had no intention of upsetting CF, on occasion 'she gets it', but before any discussion could get underway, I was pounced on from every direction. I felt like cornered tiger!

    Nevertheless, I am sorry to hear that Ben Thompson has taken over MMM. To be fair it was inevitable, he hates me, they hate me, they both hate Bennett, lol, so I'm not quite going to accept responsibility for that.

    He is a nasty piece of work, and who knows what kind of justice he is seeking in this case. Sadly, I fear it includes pitchforks and public executions.

    You have my sympathy with regard to the 'sleuthing' discussions Jane. I have to say, I spent many years addicted to forums that were as dedicated to solving the puzzle as I was. I liked the forums because it was interesting to see so many different perspectives, for a while anyway.

    I am happy to discuss any puzzling aspects of this case, and if I don't know the answer, I have many super informed readers who do.

  3. It seems very strange to me that CMOMM instigated this "Ben Thompson is Andrew" business and made a "forum war" out if which then spilled over to Twitter. Andrew gets goaded from all angles with no support from MMM. Ben remains very quiet about it all but joins MMM with some of his "friends" whilst Andrew takes the heat and subsequently gets banned. So was this part of the plan? A ban and infiltrate exercise. Either way, Ben has another platform and Tony Bennett must be ecstatic that his number 2 nemesis ( I would say you and Sonia are number 1 LOL ) is out the picture. I think MMM are being taken for a ride but unfortunately are too stupid or just blind to actually see it.


  4. "Gerry was almost 'Trumpish' in the way he addressed the media and gave his 'I'm not going to comment on that'" - Ros

    Cheap and lazy and does Ros no credit whatsoever. Ros should stick to the facts rather than the slurs. BTW, I cannot imagine Trump being an I'm-not-going-to-comment-on-that person!

  5. Thank you Rosalinda, I wasn't really scolding you (I hope not anyway) more trying to remind you that the politics is murky and I think Candyfloss has had a lot to deal with, not just the prodigal son but also BT and his crew, whose agenda I haven't fathomed yet but suffice is to say I'm pretty sure they've got one.

    I also feel quite ambivalent towards TB, he is not someone I feel any real affection for but I also feel no antipathy towards him and I don't like to see anyone be rounded on or ganged up on. Similarly, I always felt JH didn't offer support to those who were systematically bullied on CMoMM and I personally felt let down but I don't think she has done anything to deserve being harassed on Twitter or have the threat of exposure looming over her head, to me that's just cruel and I wouldn't want anything to do with someone who hounds someone with such relish or lack of propriety.

    Regards the sleuthing, I think I'm done with it now. Maybe that will change but I feel I've learnt enough about the case to know who I do and don't trust and I think there's only so far you can go with the evidence available. I wanted to write on the case because I hoped that the more rational, level headed people joined in the discussion then that would pressurise the powers that be into exposing the truth. Sadly, I think there are too many saboteurs and it's emotionally too sapping to constantly be associated with people like that. I do agree with Ziggy that the climate in this country is moving away from freedom of speech - look at Leveson.

    On an optimistic note there has been a great deal of good work done by a wealth of people and I hope that won't be overshadowed by the antics of a handful of trouble makers and that these people will encounter resistance and ultimately failure - let's hope that good will prevail. Who we need right now is John Wayne and definitely not Ben Thompson. I'm referring to BT of Wild West fame and not the other one.

    1. Candyfloss needs to lighten up or she will go completely barmy. The threat of exposure, whatever that exposure might be is a nasty device use to cause maximum stress and fear. And ffs, what can the exposure be? lol? Is CF the Duchess of Cornwall, did she have a one night stand with Gerry? We can imagine all sorts, but its just as likely her nets could do with a wash.

      It astounds me that people on forums truly believe that they are more important than they are. They believe people online are just waiting for snippet of information about their personal lives in order to troll them online and stalk them in their homes. Why they think they are more prone to online weirdos than the average 'A' lister, is beyond me.

      It may appear Bennett is being bullied Jane, and believe me, I am as anti bullying as yourself, but Bennett deserves all the criticism he gets. He is a cruel and callous man Jane. His first involvement in this case was a private legal action to have the McCann twins taken into care.

      He has for many years stalked and hounded those who's names appeared as witnesses in the PJ files, the Smith family especially, who they have accused of all sorts. Bennett is absolutely shameless in his complete disregard for the distress he causes his victims. His word means nothing and when he sinks his teeth into a target, he will never stop. I think some of us feel obligated to stop him Jane.

    2. Ros 16.57

      Not forgetting Bennett discounting Mrs Fenn's statement as well as if she was lying about what she heard and on what day. Although Mrs Fenn is now dead it must be a huge burden for her family to carry on with knowing that she's been discredited as some sort of delusional old biddy.

  6. Jill has never hidden her identity so what threat of exposure hangs over her head?

  7. Well, I bring news from candyfloss's forum (MMM). I lurk there. As I suspect you know, that forum has a gigantic set of 'secret' threads, running to literally thousands of posts, bashing CMOMM in general and 'dictator' Tony Bennett in particular. Poor old Madeleine rarely gets a mention. In the last 24 hours the natives over there have been very restless. I can confirm that 'Andrew' has been banned by a disconsolate candyfloss, who once said she 'loved him' LOL, while nannygroves, dogsdon'tlie, costello, DeeCoy and several others have at last sussed that 'Andrew' IS Ben Thompson. Some are furious at how weak candyfloss has been in dealing with the 'Andrew' problem and are lamenting the forum's plummeting reputation. More later

    1. And I shall look forward to it 16:49!

      I'm not at all convinced Andrew is Ben though, though to be fair I have never seen Ben posting in a non-hostile, non-
      confrontational way. I never saw how he interacted on the facebook pages.

      I have to say, I am kicking myself, got chucked out just as things were hotting up! Doh!

  8. @ Anonymous 10 Jul, 1304 - What a very good first post on this thread. Indeed, GM & KM took both breakfast and lunch in their apartment from Monday breakfast onwards. Coincidentally on the Sunday night they and their Tapas 7 friends suddenly abandoned their plans to eat at the Millennium and insistently demanded that they have a table reserved to themselves at the Tapas restaurant. When you add those developments to the research which tends to show that the so-called 'Last Photo' was taken Sunday lunchtime, and there is no other photo of Madeleine for the rest of the week (the doubtful Tennis Balls photo excepted), it is easy to understand why some might want to look much more closely at what happened on the Sunday, rather than what happened on the Thursday

    1. Simon Stepple @17:03

      I don't do forums, but I do agree with you.


    2. A few points because all this is all getting quite frustrating

      1- Ben in not Andrew and Andrew is therefore not Ben
      2- I agree Ros, people should not waste police time because of fights . In this case and since both Jill and Tony accused Ben of several crimes he did not commit , circulated his picture with a list of alleged crimes , the police should be involved . Time to stop Tony and Jill from making serious false allegations that may affect people's work and family . All Ben Thompson did was to post a very factual text regarding Mrs Fenn and the Smiths statements . That was enough to send Tony into a spin and wonderland world where anyone is everyone . At some point there has to be accountability and this is one of those occasions . Why he then hides behind Jill's skirt when the going gets tough is a mystery .

      3 last photo , can we stop with this nonsense the last photo was taken on Sunday as if it is a fact ? The problem here is a few big names trying to force their theories on people . It's frustrating . For clarity , the boat instructors were interviewed by the PJ and they were satisfied that Madeleine was there on Thursday morning . Enough of this no neglect theories forced on people , death on Sunday etc , etc . There are no mentors here . Just stick to the facts instead of making things up and admit these are theories ,not facts.

      Rant over . Thank you for Reading .

    3. Anonymous at 20:04

      Who said "death on Sunday"?

      No one forces me into anything and I'm sure I'm not the only one. "There are no mentors here."

    4. I've heard that phrase "Hiding behind Jill's skirt before - by someone on Twitter with a potty mouth I seem to recall. What concerns me most of all is you hunt in packs and all endorse BT as if you know him personally. If you do know him personally, that raises a shed load of other questions - but at least you kept your rant clean on this occasion, so I guess we just need to be grateful for small mercies...

    5. Anonymous 10 July 2017 at 20:04

      “All Ben Thompson did was to post a very factual text regarding Mrs Fenn and the Smiths statements.”

      Could you kindly post a link to the “very factual text” referred to?

      Many thanks.


  9. SS @ 17.03

    Is that you again, Tony?

  10. You're shit - and you know it.

  11. '' beginning with a response to 'Ziggy' who is currently blaming the failure of the authorities to find Madeleine or his alleged abductors, on the onlookers. ''

    I hope you mean't 'her' rather than 'his'.I don't have any abductors. I blame the failure of the authorities on the authorities.I blame the crass stupidity and bickering on those who engage in it.Unless you can quote otherwise( as fact).

    ''.....Spare me the 'poor show' on the part of the two tribes of sheep Ziggy, who are you? The grand overlord? You are in no position to be wielding the old 'told ya so' axe - those you support have won nothing''

    Spare me the childishness.You keep telling us you're educated.There's a huge difference between 'grand overlord' and someone who stands back to view two sides of something and attempts to balance them.Cheap jibes at me speak more about you.Who do I support ? All i call for is evidence.I support justice.

    ''You attempt to shame all commentators Ziggy, by bringing the discussion back to Maddie, is a device used by all 'pro's' and those who shout 'think of the children' when they are looking for a cheer''

    Not all.There's a minority who question things and comment in a calm and balanced way.They're needles in a haystack.Why is bringing the discussion back to Maddie seen by you as a device ?I make no apologies for it.And i don't even have a degree in 'humanities'. The irony is priceless there. I'm not a pro and i'm not an anti. I won't hate, that's all.I need a good reason before i do that.

    As for the tired, cobweb-covered argument about the McCanns media machine, you can't have it both ways just because you can't face them being innocent of their daughter's death.You blame Mitchell, who was sent in by his Government but you blame the McCanns too.And still you're convinced that you have the ability to comment on the 'character' of two strangers based on TV interviews conducted under pressure.They 'lost' in their fight to shut down Amaral because he couldn't support his accusations.That doesn't make them killers.That particular fight isn't over yet.

    '' You appear to be very confused on the whole issue of Freedom of Speech Ziggy. You are OK with opinion as long as agrees with your own. You are not Gerry are you? ''

    I'm not confused.Not as confused as the Portuguese judge who spoke broken biscuits and wants no rules to protect anyone slandered. I'm ok with opinions that don't slander and defame without evidence.That kind of free speech is hate speech and doesn't belong in the public domain.

    ''You have to take the good with the bad, and if you are an observer of history, you will be aware that the 'bad' is usually short lived.''

    I believe that two world wars spanned around 10 years on aggregate.The war on terrors taken longer and shows now sign of stopping any time soon.The war on the people is decades old.Rights have been eroded for 40 years and are still being eroded.Privacy and free speech / thought are the latest.

    The CIA went on record 15 years ago applauding how much their 'spying' budget had been cut thanks to Facebook. Snowden told us in the UK about what is on the coast of Bude, Cornwall. It isn't about police anymore. They operate as mere foot soldiers and are armed like storm troopers.They swear an oath to the crown, not us.

    Before signing off, i invite you to comment on a 5 minute media interview of Gerry McCann.Note that he is free of Clarence Mitchell.I'll leave the body language experts to their own devices if they want to turn the volume down.

    1. More dissent in the ranks on candyfloss's place

      costello What I am really struggling with here is why did Andrew sign up to twitter…hmmm afaik he often mentioned he did not understand FB or twitter – something is not right and it does seem so obvious


      Hi Costello I’m struggling a bit with this one, I agree, Andrew always stated he didn’t do FB or Twitter but then joined Twitter. I will be blunt here, do you think after all Andrew may be Ben?

      Hi Ben, if you're looking in (you are!)...You can fool some of the people all of the time, and you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. Own up!

    2. Costello is a sly little runt. Always PM'ing to bad mouth other members. "I think X can't be trusted. Y has multiple ID's. Z is a fake". Tries to get others to do her dirty work whilst sits back with a mouthful of butter that won't melt. Watch out for that one.

    3. Is there a title to that video that I can look up Ziggy, I can't c/p that link.

    4. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton 11 July 2017 at 10:42

      2007 08 25 Gerry McCann attacks media in Edinburgh BBC

      Good luck and good wishes.


  12. Anonymous 10 July 2017 at 20:04 Unless you ARE Ben Thompson in one of his hundreds of disguises, I think you'll find that Ros here has a much better understanding of Ben Thompson's character than you do. Have you ever read one of his many menacing, expletive-ridden rants?

    1. If as you say Ben has hundreds of guises, then you will have no problem naming at least 100. All I see is a hatchet job being done, and not one scrap of evidence to back up these claims.

  13. I actually feel sorry for Andrew. At least he was always honest and upfront about things and said it how it was. Everyone loved him whilst he was there but now revel in slandering him when he's there no longer. The grannies do like to get those knives out! Poor guy is better off out of it. I won't be posting on that forum anymore. Not that I did much anyway lol. It all gets a bit much IMHO.

    1. I've been trying to work out why Andrew got banned? Did Candy finally succumb to TB's wishes after all these years? It actually appears that Andrew was being harassed on Twitter by someone so he rang said person up to confront them? There must be more to it than that surely? Is it a forum banning offence these days to pick up the phone?

    2. I think Candyfloss just had enough anon 22:53. The easiest way to stop all the Ben/Andrew/Bennett/Havern/CMOMM/MMM saga was to kick out Andrew I guess. Anything for a quiet life on MMM. As Roz well knows. Lol!

    3. I gave Andrew refuge here when he got banned before - I have a great deal of sympathy for those on forums who are cut off by owners and admin of forums and have no means of reply. However, as soon as CF relented he rejoined the pack and has been snapping at my ankles ever since.

      Andrew is similar to Ben in that he too portrays himself as a troubled 'young' man who can't handle his liquor. They both display the needy and dysfunctional behaviour of 'bad boys', a trait that appeals to similarly dysfunctional needy women.

      To be honest, I have never paid much attention to either of them, so couldn't say one way or the other if they one and the same. I would say however, that Ben is capable of writing long, intricate articles on the McCann case and people he hates and he is forceful and dominant. Andrew on the other hand, writes little of substance and is submissive, especially with the grannies on MMM. As I say, I have never seen Ben interact 'normally', so I don't have a 'base line' to form any sort of judgment.

      I think the answer to your question 22:53 comes in the post that followed yours! Anything for a quiet life. Candyfloss is completely out of her depth at the moment, she doesn't have the strength of character to run her forum as she would like, therefore she is prey to more dominant personalities. As host, it is up to her to set the guidelines, and trust her own instincts. Her forum can be anything she wants it to be she just has to make her mind up.

  14. Wow! @ at 20:04 One can just see and feel the envy and jealousy pouring out of your soul.

    You said "The problem here is a few big names trying to force their theories on people. It's frustrating".

    So who are the 'big few names' trying to 'force their theories' on us? PeterMac, whose fact-packed e-book, free by the way, has brilliant analyses of most of the key evidential points. Peter Hyatt, a recognised authority on Statement Analysis. HideHo, who packs her hundreds of videos with direct quotes and analysis. Tony Bennett, with his pages and pages (and pages and pages) of evidence. Richard D Hall, with 17 hours of documented, factual material, building up an argument, step by step. Tania Cadogan, another Statement Analyst who can see through the McCann deceptions. Jill Havern, one of the most knowledgeable individuals on the case. These are probably some of the so-called 'big names' you are talking about. They have years and years of dedicated research about Maddie to their credit. And - surprise, surprise - they all come to more or less the same conclusion about when Madeleine died. And what exactly have you researched and produced? Do tell. Jealous much?

    1. The names mentioned above all have their own and collective agenda on the Madeleine McCann case. Which is basically to distort the "truth".

    2. Jealousy ? See , this is your problem . Stating unsubstantiated theories as fact and calling it " research " . No wonder some have the need to think everybody is Andrew or Ben . It's far more convenient to think one has only one critic instead of many .

    3. Kudos to you 22:14, that you still take all this 'work' so seriously. Except, all the WORK was done by Goncalo Amaral and his team in the summer of 2007, and eloquently explained in his book The Truth of the Lie. And of course made available in the very detailed files released by the PJ.

      All those 'big' names you have mentioned have merely studied the book and files in the same way as thousands of others, but have taken their new found hobby way too far. These armchair detectives believe they know more than Goncalo Amaral and all the investigations put together. Now take a few moments to think about just how delusional that is.

      I freely admit, for several years I too was an 'obsessive', nodding off to sleep contemplating whether the shutters were up or down, got me through a very painful period in my life. This is a gripping case, and many of us were gripped, but we have never tried to force ourselves into the official police investigation. To my mind, these 'big' names are no more than over enthusiastic Agatha Christie fans stalking the poor woman to tell her 'who dun it'.

      That they take themselves so seriously is a joke, that others take them seriously is however troubling. For those who lack the patience to hold out for the truth, the theories of Bennett, Hall, HideHo et al, are a quick fix. Especially for those who want to believe smug, middleclass professionals lead secret lives of sex and debauchery. Some people are so indoctrinated with the myths surrounding paedophilia, they will believe anything. That what they are accusing the McCanns and the friends of, is completely unheard of, anywhere in the world, matters not. Bennett, Hall, HideHo have PROVED it.

  15. Now that the Cesspit is on it's last legs thanks to the combined efforts of Havern and Bennett it seems the mutant offspring MMM aka Cesspit No2 has taken over the mantle of the absurd, banal and toxic.
    Thanks to the ever stirring costello,we know Andrew is back as Johnny H to continue his spat with Ben to see who is the biggest weirdo.
    LeeT.G. takes her hate for the Sun newspaper and Ros to a higher creepy level,with her ranting.The clueless Dopey(Freedom) or Nurse Ratched of course are incapable of challenging her venomous hate filled posts.
    Dimwit of the decade must be Nannygroves who believes T.Bennett is genuine and Cristobell is fake.She also states Ros has multiple aliases and another blog site.She bases this on her "gut feeling" as she is a physchology professional.
    Nannygroves is to MMM what Aquila was in her prime to CMOMM,box office poison.

    1. LOL, many thanks for all the gossip ;). Is Ben actually posting there as himself? Has he poisoned yet another facebook book?

      Lee T.G. is another coward 23:00, who clearly doesn't have the intellect or vocabulary to express the real reasons for her rage. Perhaps, she's tigger, lol.

      Nanny Groves sounds hilarious, Bennett in a long dress and grey wig perhaps? lol. Such is life I am hated (to a scary degree) by so many, who knows, ha ha.

      The idea that I would run another blog under an alias, or even post under multiple aliases is absurd on many levels. Does she nothing about me? lol. I am far too vain and narcissistic NOT to put my name to anything I write. I have suitcases filled with manuscripts and hardbacked books full of my scribblings. I am even proud of my pen name Cristobell. Tis true, I am not so proud of my older blogs, as they are not, imo, as polished as they are now, but I would never delete them! I live in hope that one day in the future, a descendant or even an admirer of my writing takes the time and trouble to 'look me up'. My vow of honesty and integrity serves me well.

      I consider it cowardly to use anonymity to attack people - it is cowardly and dishonourable - my lowest insult btw. People can call me whatever they like, I really don't care, but I am no coward. Among my early reading, was the lives of saints and martyrs (not my choice), and I had a rebellious streak anyway. My first heroine and role model was Joan of Arc, aged 14, I too was prepared to be burnt at the stake rather than deny my beliefs. Of course, at the time I didn't know Joan of Arc was completely barmy, and I hadn't put too much thought into the whole burning thing, but the principles where there. Well up until 6 months later, when I discovered Boys!

      But I jest, this psychology professional really needs to go back to page 1 of the Idiot's Guide, if she believes I could have the restraint to write as anyone other than myself. I have a very unique and distinctive writing style, one that is beyond my control - even my formal letters are informal, I can't disguise it even if I wanted to. The 'Unbound' part of this blog's title seems to have gone right over the head of this psychology professional, I have the freedom to say as I want.

    2. Ben is posting as Pseudo Nym ably supported by a back up poster called SadeElisha in the same way plebgate did for Bennett on CMOMM.

  16. Now that the experts (I know loooool) at CMOMM have crowed that they have "pretty much solved" the case I look forward to them filling in the how, why and what. We know the where and god knows the when is being forced down our throats like their lives depend on it.

    1. Respect for posting under 'StopTheMyths' as I hope has been clear many times, I have no objection to debate with 'the enemy', as long as it is civil and constructive.

      Firstly, let me join you in Loooool at CMoMM's boasts. From a psychological perspective it would make an interesting study of delusion and group hypnosis, but from a layman's perspective it is hilarious.

      They do indeed have problems filling in the how, why and what - they have created such a tangled web, they have cast of thousands! How do they turn 17 hours of documentary (torture) into something interesting and worth watching?

      They will need a little more than '2 degrees of separation' to tie their narrative together. Eg. The Smiths are Irish and the McCanns have Irish relatives, ergo the Smiths have good reason to make false statements.

      I hear you on 'their lives depend on it' - it is bizarre on every level.

    2. Not the Queen of Sheba11 July 2017 at 13:04

      I don't think that I've heard even that tenuous link as a reason for false statements - only that people lie sometimes. Yes they do, but there's nothing to show that the Smiths did.

    3. Thank you Ros. The posts listing the cesspit's esteemed "names" do crack me up. Like they are respected household names or widely revered social commentators and we plebs should sit in silence and wait for their next pearl of wisdom they generously allow us to benefit from. A decent cartoonist could sum it up better than words can.

    4. People do indeed lie Sheba (if you don't mind my calling you that), but not in cases where they would face several years in prison for perverting the course of justice. And seriously, would a father ask that of his teenage daughter? It is absolutely absurd, and I am so sorry that this family have had so much intrusion from these creeps.

      Bennett makes up lies like the accusers in the Salem Witch Trials, I sometimes wonder if he is some kind of demon himself.

    5. I am embarrassed on behalf of all the 13:17, they have each painted themselves into corners they cannot now get out of. Textusa is left with laughable 'swinging' theory, Bennett with his paedophile gangs, Petermac with last photo and HideHo with her deranged idea that Maddie died earlier in the week and they all carried on with their holiday regardless.

      Each is nonsense and will never go any further than they are right now. This is the end of the journey for the 'big' names, their crazy theories have limited appeal, and they will never compare to the truth, which is still awaited.

      I too would love to see a cartoon image that captured this moment. I am presently re-watching The Tudors, and it brings to mind the part where Henry turns and all the Boleyns are rounded up. It also for some reason, brings to mind the final scenes of The Godfather, when the drop dead gorgeous, though maniacal killer, Michael Corleone got payback.

      Well I don't know how I took discussion of the cesspit via the Middle Ages and the Mafia, but I am struggling to find a scenario that would suit. Now I wonder if I can bring in the Borgias, lol.

      OK. The nearest thing I can find is 'Mean Girls' - gotta love Lindsay Lohan. The women in these forums, some men, but mostly women, remind me of every bitch I have ever known and worked with. From schooldays and throughout my adult life, and I doubt very much I'm the only one. They form little cliques and pick on the outsider, it is the premise of almost every teen movie.

      And you would think that they might mellow with age, but they don't, the years have them even more bitter and vindictive.

      But we were of course talking about esteemed names. I am not sure Bennett could be esteemed in any way shape of form. The creepy religious nut from over the pond, is simply skin crawlingly desperate, so too the tedious deconstruction of the English language by Tania hobknob. They are not experts on anything, other than the bizarre practice of analysing words looking for sexually deviant meanings.

      But I have waffled, thank you for your patience.

  17. Ziggy: the reason the scroll function was invented.

    1. Anonymous 10 July 2017 at 23:29

      "Ziggy: the reason the scroll function was invented."

      Not so: Ziggmund had nothing to do with my inventing the scroll function, comments like yours had.



    2. YOU invented it? I'm so impressed! Well done, er, anonymous/T. Thought you might want to put your name out there though not just T?

  18. Anybody actually heard anything from Tony or Jill recently? I've heard that Ben Thompson has got the boys in blue involved.

    1. If he has, I haven't heard anything.

    2. Don't know about that but I hope he has. Accusations of criminality should be made to the police not put on Twitter and forums. That is classed as malicious communications.

    3. Why don't you comment on your own Forum, Jill Havern? What are you hiding from over there? I don't know if BT did get the police involved or not. He said he did so let's see. You do deserve a knock on the door and a slapped wrist though Jill with your atrocious stalking behaviour.

    4. Hi JH. Great work on getting rid of 'Andrew' from the MMM forum. He took the bait with the Ben Thompson stuff and then sending your friend in to troll him as well was priceless. Very cunning but excellent planning. You always get there with perseverance and hard work. I salute you and look forward to seeing what else you have up your sleeve. Don't mess with the Havern. Lol.

    5. One wonders what the police will make of Bullyboy Ben complaining about Bullyboy Bennett? Jeez, what a pair of big girls blouses. Both believe they have a divine right to 'name', 'shame' and vilify whoever they like.

      Ben for example, who I had never heard of, has written many long and malicious diatribes about myself, including degrading graphics. The same can be said of Bennett and his gang, who have been equally rancid in their attacks, so I hope I may be forgiven for having no sympathy. They are both bullies and they are wasting police time. But then again, haven't they always? It's an extreme form of attention seeking, but seems to work for them.

    6. Jill, thank you for having the courage to post here and in your own name. I'm pretty sure you never wanted any of this - maybe it is time to start looking at the bigger picture?

    7. Diatribes and pictures are open to subjective interpretation. Accusations of criminality are not. Simple as that.

    8. I suspect Jill has posted here because this is the most widely read McCann commentary, followed by antis, pros and professionals. My open door policy has created a forum where 'everyone' can have a voice.

      I am sure Jill will not mind a few questions, but at this point, I would ask that Jill, like every other contributor, be treated with courtesy and respect. There is never any excuse for bad manners.

    9. I don't know or really care what the accusations are 13:37 and I doubt anyone outside of Ben and the dozy women like Zora who follow him, care.

      It is a little late for Ben to start worrying about his reputation now - his thuggish anti social behaviour is all over the internet. He wanted infamy - he's got it. Now he is blaming Bennett, but such is his character he will always blame anyone other than himself.

    10. Then why comment at all, if you don't even know what the accusations were? I'm not going to repeat them but there were many serious crimes laid at his feet. Lawbreaking is lawbreaking regardless of who you like and I really can't simplify it more than that.

    11. Are you saying I shouldn't comment on my own blog? Good heavens, lol.

      If the accusations are false, why doesn't Ben simply issue a statement refuting them, I know I would. The better argument will always win. The only time you need to bring in lawyers is when a dispute is legally right but morally wrong. That's why lawyers spend their lives looking for loopholes.

      Ben Thompson has the means at his disposal to write a rational argument that will put to bed once for and all, any false allegations against him. He has his own blog! And apparently he is top poster on MMM! Fill yer boots Ben, the world awaits.

      Right now, he is acting like a whiny biatch, which is hilarious for those who have often been threatened by his macho fist, but when mummy dries his copious tears, he will have to deal with it himself.

      Should add, I suspect he has posted on here in the past - possibly NotTextusa?

      I too have been accused of heinous crimes online, not least one evening when I suggested to anti Halal meat activist, that might be happier if he just went veggie, when amongst other things, I was accused of being a paedophile. The far right are completely devoid of humour.

      Ben must ask himself what satisfaction he will get if Bennett and Havern are visited by the boys in blue? What is the likelihood of them being charged and what will they be charged with? Is it a civil or criminal offence. If civil, he will need very deep pockets, even if there were Legal Aid, this wouldn't qualify.

      How does he feel at wasting police time when there is far more serious law breaking going on all around us. Will his point be proved in a Court of law, or will he just reveal what an enormous arse his is?

      This isn't the turn of the 19th century 15:22, if this, err, gentleman, wants to restore his reputation, he will have to work on it himself by behaving in a civil and courteous manner. That I'm afraid is his downfall. He is not capable of it.

    12. Between Jill, Tony, and their cohorts, they have directly accused Ben of being guilty of sexual assault, fraud, blackmail, threats to kill, threats to maim, and have encouraged others to do the same. I'd say that is indeed a matter for the police, wouldn't you Roz? I seem to remember you complaining repeatedly about a pro making the ridiculous claim you were once a prostitute. The only evidence of which came from you. These claims from Jill and Tony seemed to stem from Ben asking them to stop continually attacking your friend Sonia, and others. I'm surprised you didn't think to ask Sonia what it was all about, seeing as you claim you are both so close. Maybe you could ask her?

    13. Yes looks like someone's badly out of the loop here 16:25 but it's her blog, so she'll comment without knowing the facts.

    14. Are you saying they are coercing others to commit the same crimes, or accuse Ben of them?

      At face value they appear very serious indeed 16:25, which is why I cannot understand Ben's hesitance in refuting them - online where the damage was done.

      Words can at times sound heinous 16:25, and are often taken as more powerful than they really are. But ultimately, they are just words.

      Along many of the accusations hurled at me, was the proven fact that I was a maker of snuff movies. I wasn't bothered by it, because I am confident in the fact, that before a policeman or a Judge, absolutely no-one would believe it.

      These claims seem to stem from Ben asking them to stop attacking my friend Sonia. OK. Kudos to Ben for stepping in as macho protector, but I seriously do not see my friend Sonia as the maiden in distress.

      Who asked him to step in? Sonia doesn't give two hoots what Bennett says about her, like myself, she thinks he's barmy. From what I can see Ben made an idiot of himself, he attacked people who are just as nasty, vicious and spiteful as himself. Apparently, his angry young man, butch persona didn't scare them off. They are each reaping exactly what they have sown.

    15. He has refuted them Roz.. many times.. which only served to intensify the lies from Jill and Tony. Perhaps if you actually looked around you instead of playing the part of know-it-all, you would have seen that for yourself. He also said that due to Jill and Tony's continuing claims, the police were now dealing with the situation, which given the gravity of the claims made by Jill and Tony, and their refusal to stop.. appears to be the only way for him to clear his name, and see to it those who made these claims are stopped and dealt with accordingly. It is one thing to engage in squabbles.. it is an entirely different matter to behave in an illegal manner to harm another.

    16. Yeh, I don't exactly see 'secret machinations of Tony Bennett' as a headline grabber. If he were a celebrity, a politician, or even his namesake, the singer, it wouldn't make a ripple anywhere.

      The story here is Madeleine McCann, with every single one of the main characters, those on the periphery and those who jumped on the bandwagon, a zillion times more interesting than Tony Bennett. He has tried desperately to insert himself into this case for 10 years but it just ain't happening. No-one is going to buy a tabloid because his ugly mug is on the front page or watch a McCann video with him as the star. He really does flatter himself if he thinks Sonia or I, have any interest in him. We have far bigger and more interesting fish to fry.

    17. You say you have no interest in Tony, yet continually write blogs about him and discuss him obsessively. You're just out to make a quick buck from the misery of others, you truly are a vile person. As for you being a great writer, I doubt you could write your own name without a spelling or grammatical error. "Ce la vie"

    18. I took it that Candyfloss had also got pc plod to Bennett because of posts such as "we know where you live".The police in forumworld obviously are not too busy!

    19. I think they are a load of namby pamby attention seekers, who should be ashamed of themselves for wasting police time. They have all got themselves into a position where literally no-one believes them, and outside their own little circle no-one cares.

      The police won't clear Ben's reputation anymore than lack of arrest, has cleared the McCanns. The only person capable of cleaning up his diabolical online name, is Ben himself. There won't be any sympathy from me 17:30, Ben is a bully who has had the tables turned on him.

      His hypocrisy over allegations of criminal acts is astounding - especially given everything he has accused the McCanns of. Child murder and much, much more. That he is now claiming the same victim status as all those he has stalked and hounded over the years, does have a certain irony.

    20. 17:58, I don't write about Tony continuously, it is quite a while since he had a mention, and its only because there is no news at the moment. He really ought to enjoy it, he will back in obscurity soon enough.

      I take it you are one of the spell checkers from MMM? Chateleine perhaps? Pretty pathetic that you are too cowardly to use your MMM name. This double level of anonymity, is a tad paranoid, lol.

    21. 19:14. 'I know where you live' emails do indeed sound dreadfully menacing. However, if you think about them rationally, they are ridiculous. Should the recipient of such an email, God forbid, ever be attacked or intruded on, said predator has left their calling card. They would be picked up immediately. You are far more likely to have your head backed off in your local supermarket by schizophrenic or delusional psychopath who's drugs, care etc, has been abandoned due to NHS cuts. The idea that a misfit, saddoe, loner in a bedsit 500 miles away, will go to the trouble of climbing into the bedroom window of a grumpy old woman on the net who disagreed with him on a forum, is delusional in itself.

      It is very doubtful that Ben, CF, Jill or Bennett are in need of 24/7 police protection, and unlikely anyone is going to take pot shots at them from a grassy knoll. Naturally, they would have us believe they are THAT important to the whole scheme of things, bless 'em. However, given their curious and somewhat delusional imaginations, they are determined to write themselves into the plot, sexing up the back stories with sinister threats obviously. Each is the holder of the world's greatest secret (McCann wise) and everyone is in hot pursuit - they wish. Lol.

      Unfortunately, for Bennett, Hall, Thompson, HideHo, Jill, CF, Textusa (enormous LOL) and the weirdo from the American mid west, the naughty little dawg, has pulled back the curtain and everyone can see the wizard isn't real.

      I kind of apologise to CF here. She doesn't herself purport a theory as far as I know - she merely adjudicates and endeavours to remain impartial. Noble intentions possibly, but one she is incapable of handling.

      I have had suspicions about CF's (seeming) protection of Tony Bennett, and I could add Freedom to that too. They were especially sensitive when I made suggestions that the Madeleine Foundation may have been fraudulent. They are apparently, happy to accuse TB of most things, but not financial corruption.

      I have suspected for a long while, though of course, I was far to polite to say, that CF and Freedom, may, like Jill, have been similarly conned by Mr. Bennett. That is, they are still hanging on in there for some sort of return on the money they at have invested. They simply cannot believe that the devout Christian and lifelong do gooder, could be nothing more than a lowlife conman. Acknowledging that would of course, make anyone feel totally stupid. I kinda see why they are trying to hang on in there, Bennett is still, no doubt, persuading them that the Richard Hall documentaries will go viral, and he will rightfully take his place as the world renowned expert on everything McCann.

      To me, it is endlessly fascinating that wise women can buy into shit like that, but it happens all the time. In most cases the guy is attractive and personable, but for some women, authoritative works too. It all depends on how low their esteem is. I'm not knocking them btw, just pointing out that predators like Bennett hone in on the vulnerable - its one of the reasons I despise him.

    22. I wonder if you could find just one post, tweet or comment where Ben accuses the McCanns of murder? I'm a member of his group, he and his admin always remove any accusations of murder. He's actually stated several times on his group that he doesn't think Madeleine was murdered.

    23. "Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton11 July 2017 at 23:17
      17:58, I don't write about Tony continuously, it is quite a while since he had a mention, and its only because there is no news at the moment. He really ought to enjoy it, he will back in obscurity soon enough."

      Quite a while? You wrote about him in the blog before this one. Face facts Roz, you need him to exist.

    24. 00:33. Unfortunately for Ben he has set his standards and reputation so low, that when he makes even minor concessions towards civility and decency it is overlooked. You can't blame me for that - like many, I expect zilch from him and that's usually what he delivers.

  19. @ Anonymous 22.31 PeterMac and others are 'distorting the 'TRUTH'? So you KNOW the truth? Tell us what it is then.

    @ Anonymous23.20 The 'Cesspit' on its "last legs"? Funny that, when I last looked a few minutes ago they had 230 folk online. Candy and others boasted back in the summer of 2015, when the 'Great Rift' occurred, that CMOMM would soon be 'finished' and die within months. MMM's stats have only looked good because Ben Thompson was their 'top' poster. Oops! I meant to say 'Andrew'. Sorry.

    1. Kudos to CMoMM that they have still have a large audience, and fair dues, I do look in there for up to date Madeleine news - they have always been quick off the mark with that.

      And there is much of interest on the website, once you sort the wheat from the chaff. The problem is the good has been overtaken by the misleading and the sheer nonsense - the site is led by ego, rather than common sense.

      However, it must be said forum wars also cause a surge in hits, here just as anywhere else. Though everyone denies it, watching people bitching and fighting is entertaining - see Jerry Springer! The problem is the forums discuss all the 'juicy' stuff behind closed doors, doh!

  20. I will say one thing, and one thing only about all this, and as CF has denied me the right of reply on her forum, I will say it here, if I may:

    JohnnyH Yesterday at 11:42 pm

    Hello Nuala. A familiar name from over the years.

    No-one, absolutely no-one, would remember me except Bennett. Cos I humiliated him over his Smithman nonsense on CMOMM.

    I stopped posting anywhere much a very long time ago, so only Bennett would still remember me.


    1. Nuala. Has CF banned you? Why? I remember that episode well when you made a prize-winning turnip out of Tony. Bravo girl.

    2. Err you posted the other day on MMM, Nuala? Lol.

    3. Anonymous 11 July 2017 at 10:37

      No, she hasn't banned me, but she's locked the threads.

      Anonymous 11 July 2017 at 10:46

      Yes, so what?


    4. Ah Nuala, from the post that follows your's, it would appear many remembered you, you are applauded for making a prize-winning turnip out of Tony! I am sorry that you have been banned from MMM, but you are welcome here :)

    5. Thank you Ros, as you'll see from my message above at 12:28 though, I haven't been banned from MMM, but the relevant threads are locked so I can't reply to them.


    6. That old locking of the thread, end of discussion tyranny, used to drive me demented Nuala! I can't think of anything more frustrating! And a real power trip for those that pull the plug whenever they want. Grrrr.

      I am glad you are not banned Nuala, but I imagine at the moment you are tiptoing on ice! Kind wishes.

    7. I have just had a look at the only part of MMM I can see, the hello and welcome. Last post on there from poisonous old trout costello (with a small c) interrogating newbie Johnny H. Presumably whilst Nurse Ratchett and her faithful assistant prepare the lobotomy tools, lol.

    8. Costello had a run in with Andrew/Jonny H a few months ago about a pm she sent him about another poster.(she does that alot).He outed her as a backstabber and she has never forgiven him.She is a snitch, big time.Not to be trusted.

    9. Excuse me. So Ben is Andrew, Andrew is Ben and all the other ID's that Mr Bennett mentioned. Andrew is now Johnny H? Is everyone Andrew / Ben?

  21. Anonymous10 July 2017 at 23:29

    ''Ziggy: the reason the scroll function was invented.''

    Denial : the reason the scroll function was invented.

    Denial : the reason 'evidence' was invented.

    Haters : the reason Prozac was invented.

  22. I'm a member of both MMM and CMOMM but I very rarely post on either anymore. I do visit every other day or so to have a read though. The problem I can see is that is really nothing to discuss about Madeleine anymore. Until there is a significant breakthrough and a conclusion is on the cards then everyone is just flapping around in circles getting dizzy and frustated. Which then just spills over to having tit for tat forum wars and he said, she said stuff. CMOMM went all very strange several years ago and MMM is heading that way. MMM would actually be a great forum if it rebranded and didn't actually talk about the Mccann case at all. The anger, the fall outs, the nastiness, the fights are all to do with that sadly. CMOMM is a lost cause but maybe MMM could actually salvage their reputation and move on. Just my thoughts as ever. Thanks, Roz.

    1. Always happy to hear your thoughts 09:33 and they are interesting, MMM might do well to change their slant, but it is the Madeleine case that brought them together, so it might prove tricky.

      I agree the Madeleine case does seem to arouse extreme negative emotions. It puzzles me that people can be enraged to that degree about a subject they discuss on the internet. They must lead very charmed lives if that is all they have to worry about!

      Some people I think have difficulty separating their online personas and reality. What most of them are defending are avatars, they are not even their real faces!

      I think it is ridiculous on every level, to give creepy people on the internet any power whatsoever over the way which in which you live your life. And if you react with fear, that is exactly what you are doing.

      I personally do not have the power to stop people hating me and writing nasty things on the internet - and I've lived with it for 10 years. The only power I have is the way in which I react to it. Ben Thompson may have considered his long winded personal attack on me a masterpiece, but I couldn't be arsed to read it! How does that make you feel Ben?

      Sorry, 09:33, I'm not calling you Ben, but I know he looks in :)

  23. Linda - I'm struggling with this one? You're very friendly with Sonia, as is Ben Thompson. However both you and Ben appear to despise each other. But all 3 of you really despise Anthony Bennett. So what gives?

    A confused reader.

    1. LOL 'confused'. Have you never had a friend who likes someone you don't? I don't ask that kind of loyalty from my friends, and I certainly wouldn't ask it of a professional journalist!

    2. That's different, Rosalind. Apparently both Sonia and Ben are privy to "sensitive" information about Tony B working with the shills. Personally I just wish they'd spit it out and be done with it. Are you not in the loop regarding that apparent bombshell then?

    3. No, I'm not in the loop on that one, though seriously 16:22, does anybody real care about Tony Bennett working with shills? and that not caring includes Sonia btw. Tony is a bit player who has lost his pull 16:22, he probably put out the rumours himself.

      Ditto Ben, his 'truth' is also past it's sell by date. When the real facts actually come out, all the genuine experts will be vying for top place on the best seller lists. People who write far more articulately and eloquently and who don't abuse their readers.

  24. Can somebody help me here? Why has Andrew been banned from MMM? He WAS MMM. TB got him banned ages ago accusing him of death threats with no evidence to support it so he was rightly allowed back. And now he has been banned again for allegedly being Ben Thompson but has been vocal from what I can see in denying that? But Ben Thompson is now a member there. WTF is actually going on? Sue.

  25. ............ so the Grt British public is yet again, digging into it's pockets & conscience to save baby Charlie Gard. All sounds so familiar.

    This type of whipped up hype has not really been a gradual process, starting with the McCann saga, but it was the start of where individuals opinions can be vented on social media.

    That is all that is new.

    Hype has been sadly misguided. :( Look what money and hype have done for both Madeleine & Charlie

    NOTHING, other than prolong the agony.

    RIP Little ones.

  26. Hi Sue, I would quite like to know the answer to that too! Is it official? Is Ben Thompson now a member of MMM? Under what name?

    Once again Andrew has my sympathy, in that he has no platform to reply. Ben of course has his own blog, and now it would seem MMM. If you are reading Andrew, please do enlighten us, and accept this invitation in the spirit in which it is given. Many are intrigued and they would like to hear it 'straight from the horse's mouth'.

    1. As long as it's not on a 'drinking night.' I just couldn't stand the pain.

    2. Pseudo nym is Ben Thompson.

      Got Candy eating Candy out of his hand already and allowed freedom by Freedom.

      Although it's very bizarre. That forum will go under within 2 months. Unless the knitting thread really takes off. Lol.

    3. Please address him by as Johnny H or it is no deal!

  27. Dear Agatha Cristobell
    I am illiterate and thick as a whale omelette.
    But I see this has never stopped YOU from pretending to be an author.
    I find that very encouraging and for anyone else like you who has no discernible talent.
    Many thanks.

  28. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton11 July 2017 at 10:42

    ''Is there a title to that video that I can look up Ziggy, I can't c/p that link.''

    Type on Google or youtube ' 2007 08 25 Gerry McCann attacks media in Edinburgh BBC '

    5 years later both parents interviewed and questions asked that have been asked by the doubters

    ' McCann's Irish RTE Late Late Show Interview May 13 2011'

    and finally, an example of the dangers of letting the case abduct your mind -

    'Trying to convince your family and friends about the McCann truth'
    ( he's a lunatic who needs to get out more)

  29. Andrew is not Ben Thompson or vice versa. I would like to know why this was orchestrated by Bennett and Jill though? Andrew got banned for ringing up Jill's friend (allegedly) who stalked him on Twitter. He admitted that he called his work or something and was banned immediately. AFAIK then the MMM forum was not mentioned at all ever. So he gets banned and then Ben and a few of his friends join the MMM forum. Although they did before the banning. Didn't say anything but now he's gone, they're a bit more vocal. Talk about another mystery. What does Andrew know that bothers Bennett and Jill so much that he had to be removed. And why has Ben popped up saying nothing of substance? Poor Candy has been made a fool of but she has more important issues on a personal level to deal with.

    1. Ben posts on MMM as Pseudo Nym though last night he stated he was not going to post on the Andrew is Ben,Ben is Andrew issue.That was after he stronly insinuated it was Andrew rather than himself who had called Baldy with death threats.Andrew then replied as Johnny H.As I was getting the popcorn out Dopey and Nurse Ratched pulled the plug on the thread so it was back to Minis knitting and embroidery

    2. @19:00. Are you okay?

      Give "baldy" a kiss anyway if you can.

      Thanks. Strange person.

    3. As Ros said it is like watching the Jerry Springer show,brilliant.
      Rolling on the floor laughing

    4. I think it was Andrew who called Bennett, but I don't think there were any death threats.

      What a shame the plug was plugged - just as it was getting interesting, lol..... )

  30. 2 for the price of 1 anon 18:19. Although it didn't quite work out like that. Andrew was a thorn and had been for years now. Ben as well but more recently. So enough mud chucked that they're the same person might just stick. Andrew gets shown the door but Ben T remains, so not really worked after all that. Next stage please?

  31. To all above who have been engaged in childish antics: For crying out loud will people stop excusing Andrew's dreadful behaviour that there is absolutely no justification for whatsoever. To try and perpetuate this phoney feud by now blaming Jill, Tony or anyone else for Andrew's state of exile is clearly fallacious or dumb or probably both. Just to clarify, Andrew hounded, harassed and intimidated not just Jill and Tony but others also. It's clear there is an orchestrated attempt to deflect away from any scrutiny of the behaviour of Andrew, Ben or his cronies by keeping the focus on Jill and Tony. It doesn't wash.

    1. Wet behind the ears, Jane/doc?

      What do you actually know? Apart from nothing?

  32. Jane Cook. Formerly "what's up doc" on the MMM forum but left after getting out her depth.

  33. Jane Cook. You're either a bit late and wet behind the ears, very stupid and dumb or part of the TB circus that goes on and on?

    I hope you can explain?

    1. Yawn - predictable ad hominem attacks. I hope you were not seriously trying to engage me in discourse after giving me three options, one of which is 'I'm very stupid and dumb! You might want to work on your opening gambit, if you genuinely want to discuss and not just insult.

      Well done Tweedle dee for working out I was What's_up_doc - I went out of my way to conceal that didn't I! I'll let you get back to working out which expletives you want to tweet tomorrow - so many to choose from. Another busy day ahead...

    2. Jane. I applaud you anyway. You had a lot of good members fooled. Until your last 2/3 posts on MMM. And then all became clear.

    3. Actually I'm bored, so I decided to answer your question. Have you ever read Aice in Wonderland?

      Chapter 4: Tweedledum and Tweedledee

      Alice approaches the portly twins Tweedledee and Tweedledum, who stand side by side with their arms around each other’s shoulders. Upon seeing them, Alice begins reciting a poem that she knows about them. The poem describes Tweedledee and Tweedledum fighting over a broken rattle until a crow frightens them, causing them to forget their argument. They deny that this has ever happened, and though they ignore Alice’s questions about how to get out of the wood, they do extend their hands to her in greeting. Alice does not want to choose one over the other, so she grabs each man’s hand and the three begin dancing in a ring. After a short dance, they stop, and though Alice continues to ask how to get out of the wood, Tweedledee and Tweedledum ignore her.

      Tweedledee begins reciting “The Walrus and the Carpenter,” a poem that describes the story of a Walrus and a Carpenter who trick a group of young oysters into leaving their home underwater and coming to shore with them. Once the oysters get to shore, the Walrus and the Carpenter eat them. When Tweedledee finishes, Alice states that she prefers the Walrus because he feels sympathy for the oysters. Tweedledee points out that the Walrus ate more oysters than the Carpenter, and Alice changes her mind, stating her new preference for the Carpenter. Tweedledum observes that the Carpenter ate as many oysters as he could, which causes Alice to doubt her feelings.
      As she tries to sort out her feelings, Alice becomes distracted by the Red King sleeping under a tree and snoring like a train engine. Tweedledee tells Alice that the Red King is dreaming about her, and if he stops, she will vanish. Alice starts to cry at the thought that she is real, and Tweedledee and Tweedledum try to comfort her by telling her that her tears are not real.
      Alice decides that Tweedledum and Tweedledee are talking nonsense and that she is indeed real. Alice changes the subject and starts to leave when Tweedledee grabs her wrists and points to a broken rattle on the ground. Tweedledum recognizes it as his new rattle, and explodes in anger while Tweedledee cowers in fear. Tweedledee calms down and the two agree to a battle to determine ownership of the rattle. Alice helps them put on their battle gear, but before they can begin fighting, a great crow comes and scares them off, and Alice slips away into the wood alone.

  34. This nannygroves poster on MMM is quite a sleuth.She is adamant the Cristobell is mostly on her own here and is in fact the poster JJ because C/bell and JJ spelled Leveson the same wrong way.With this gift for research no wonder she thinks Bennett is the real deal.Iam guessing that she is on day release and only posts when her monitors are having a break.
    Let us hope that the angriest poster ever Lee T.G. is secured very tightly to an immovable object because if anyone mentions the Sun to her again she may internaly combust.Then again,no great loss to humanity.

    1. LOL 19:59, so she thinks I am here talking to myself Is it even possible for one person to write that many posts under that many guises? And what would be the point? I struggle to keep up with the comments as it is.

      It is very easy to pick up a spelling error, especially on a forum, where you follow the spelling used in the post before - we all do it! There is nothing sinister there. I'm flattered nevertheless, JJ is one of my star posters, his knowledge of the McCann case is legendary.

      As for Lee T.G. I only had brief contact with her, I don't think she was a member last time I paid a visit. My first opinion was that she could do with some work on her social skills, lol, not the kind of person I would ever associate with.

  35. Gordon bennett11 July 2017 at 20:12

    Who cares!

    1. Well you obviously otherwise why are you visiting here and posting!

    2. I hope you're not related to Tony, Gordon - I think for some on here any old Bennett would do.

  36. The fight is finally over?

    By Tracey Kandohla
    11th July 2017

    'The family pal said: “Realistically a European Court appeal was never going to succeed plus it would be too expensive to launch. It seems Mr Amaral, regrettably, has won once and for all. The fight is finally over.

    “It means he can continue to spout his malicious lies about Kate and Gerry being involved in a cover up of their daughter’s death, which is almost laughable if it wasn’t so hurtful and damaging in the hunt for Madeleine.'

    1. Great news! Really uplifting. A quiet, dignified man who stood his ground and won.

    2. Many thanks for that 20:52, it would appear justice has finally been done, in the outrageous financial claims of the McCanns at least.

      Goncalo Amaral is now free to voice his opinions on the events of the summer of 2007, just as the McCanns have always been - and quite right too. Since when is it acceptable to ban one side of a story?

      Tracey Kandhola, unsurprisingly, call the results of Goncalo and the PJ's investigation malicious lies, but in 10 years, neither the McCanns nor any investigating force has proved those alleged lies, malicious.

      Where is the abductor, Where is proof of abduction, Where is anything that confirms once and for all that the parents weren't involved in Madeleine's disappearance?

      If Operation Grange are acting for and on behalf of Madeleine in order to lift suspicion from them, they have done an absolutely crap job. There is more suspicion hanging over the McCanns than there was when Operation Grange began.

      Their big revelation, via BBC's Crimewatch, was an e-fit that was a dead ringer for Gerry McCann. They then went on to very publically dig up and search with cadaver dogs, areas in the vicinity of Apartment 5A. The abduction story is rubbish, the burglar one, even worse. In the entire course of 10 years, there simply is no believable story that exonerates the parents. At one point, they even asked moi for a plotline, using subterfuge of course, lol - but much as I could give them one, I won't.

      I see TK is skirting around the real issues, as usual, lol. She is doing her utmost to convince her readers the parents are somehow victims of Goncalo Amaral because the Courts have found in the favour of Freedom of Speech, rather than the greed driven former suspects who wanted the detective who searched for their daughter to live in misery and fear.

      I have no doubt not being awarded £1.25m and everything Goncalo Amaral earns for the rest of his life, does hurt like hell. I am pretty sure there are former suspects the world over who would like very much to be awarded all the personal possessions and worldly goods of the detectives who investigated them, but the moral fabric of society has not yet sunk that low.

      As for the hunt for Madeleine (hunt is a new one), TK is as deluded as maniacal ones handing her instructions. Hunting for a stolen child is pure unadulterated mythology, which I suppose, ten years on, is where we are. Lets dispense with any semblance of reality and imagine Madeline imprisoned by dragons or dwarves.

      Unfortunately, even if they got JK Rowling to write the script, the McCanns are not going to create a new missing Madeleine phenomena. When Scotland Yard are using heavy machinery to dig up the immediate area surrounding the parents apartment, they are not looking for a stranger abductor or a princess locked in a tower scenario.


    3. Some might see the McCanns' 'never give up on Madeleine' philosophy as admirable. I don't. Not just because imo, they know she is dead, but because they have created a living hell for their surviving kids and for all their family and friends.

      Because they won't move on, no-one else can. And that includes their surviving kids who have grown up in the shadow of their missing sister. Those psychologists advising should have had decency and professional ethics to point out that it was/is wrong on every level to idolatrize a sibling who isn't there.

      With the McCanns I never really know whether to blame them personally for all the batshit crazy decisions they have made, or the money grabbing slimeballs who advise them.

      The last few shreds of me that still has faith in human nature, wants to believe that the parents, as narcissistic as they are, would not deliberately hurt their children. We actually have no idea what goes on behind closed doors and we have no idea how the McCanns treat Madeleine's loss as a family. It would be wrong therefore to speculate on the family dynamics, but I hope they are honest with the children and each other.

      For the purposes of the outside world, the experts they consult are probably telling them exactly what they want to hear (you are great parents, you NEVER do anything wrong etc), to such an extent that the actual advice they say they are receiving becomes a fuzzy area. That's why many of us are left hanging with 'you cannot be serious, the psychologist told you that!' much like those present in the Lisbon courtroom when Sigmund Quack was called to give evidence. All it needs is sanity to understand that you do not tell small children, there's every likelihood a monster may climb in your bedroom window and take you'. Is that too much to ask of a child psychologist?

      Gerry of course, has the kind of character that ensures any expert witness he employs will hold the exact same opinions as himself. Coincidence? maybe, but I doubt Gerry suffers fools gladly, and by fools I mean anyone who disagrees with him.

      But I have digressed. The most hurtful part of the McCann loss to Goncalo Amaral is the huge, and I would wager, record breaking legal bill they now face. So far, the full amount has been kept under cover, but will probably make headlines once it is revealed.

      And it is doubtful it will gain the McCanns any sympathy, let alone new donations. Most will probably be appalled that the parents gambled the huge gift they were given by the public on such a shallow and narcissistic cause, purely for their own names and reputations and not to find Madeleine.

      Now the ECHR has ruled against them, the McCanns will have to pay the piper, quite literally, and possibly to the tune of millions. Perhaps like Al Capone, their crimes (if there are any) won't catch them up, but their financial indiscrepancies will.

    4. THE ECHR haven't ruled against the McCanns Roz. The case didn't even reach the ECHR. Do you ever get anything right?

    5. The McCanns would have had to pay Goncalo Amaral's legal fees regardless. Had they been granted an appeal to the ECHR,the case would have been against Portugal, not GA. Not only can you not write right, the content of that which you write, isn't right either. One could say, you're not awight, right?

    6. The ECHR has not ruled against the McCanns. The McCanns have decided not to take their "fight" to the ECHR.

    7. Ros says: "the McCanns will have to pay the piper, quite literally, and possibly to the tune of millions."

      Perhaps you would like to explain how you work that out? It may be what you want to believe but it is just not true.

  37. Gordon Bennett11 July 2017 at 22:01

    @ 20.52
    Now that's news,not all this forum wars rubbish and drama queens jockeying for position.

  38. Jane Cook11 July 2017 at 19:07

    Well said.All names mentioned, and those involved who aren't mentioned, have little or no importance to anyone or anything except themselves,hence my claim above that that's what they've done for years now - hijacked a tragedy, attempted a mixture of pop psychology, mime reading and invention in an attempt to claim star status online and fame offline. Generally, there are those laughingly referred to as legends and experts whose posts are welcomed with the same effusive overtures as the Magna Carta. It matters not if they attempt to abuse anyone that dismantles their opinions with logic or that they resort to imbecilic and juvenile insults to spit at whoever opposes them, just so long as their original position has the McCanns as evil liars and/ or killers and Amaral as misunderstood hero. They epitomize the nasty psychic contagion people politely call 'going viral'. None of it contributes anything other than confusion and stupidity that has nothing of any value to contribute to the case of a missing child.

    Gordon bennett11 July 2017 at 20:12

    ''Who cares!''

    Short and to the point.Good point.

    Anonymous11 July 2017 at 20:52

    ''The fight is finally over?''

    Sad if it is.But then a libel case is just a libel case.Pulp fiction will always have an audience.This case has inspired mountains of it.It( the libel case) will be remembered in years to come as 'the crux' of the case to the 'he was getting to close' brigade.Little will be considered regarding the author's assertions that the case would be solved when the 'political will of two countries is there' (which implies a Government cover up more so than two guilty parents).He was replaced by a man who had been overseer of the Casa Pia paedophile abuse investigation which had fought for decades to protect the highest rollers in Portugal, including politicians, police and magistrates only a couple of years before. Coincidence, I'm sure.But that wouldn't sell as many books- even though actual facts closed the case and people went to jail.

  39. To Anonymous 11 July 2017 at 19:59
    Gosh! If I am 'the angriest poster ever' then you must have missed an awful lot this past ten years.
    As for The Sun, well, hardly the most popular organ is it, given its reputation for fake news and host for wannabe celebrity 'authors'?
    Regards 'no great loss to humanity', as an outsider, what would you know about that?


    A source close to the couple believe the lack of action by Maddie’s parents and their legal team indicates “the end of the road” in a bitter eight year fight against their tormentor.

    The family pal said: “Realistically a European Court appeal was never going to succeed plus it would be too expensive to launch. It seems Mr Amaral, regrettably, has won once and for all. The fight is finally over."

    Kate and Gerry’s spokesman Clarence Mitchell today declined to comment on their failure to challenge Mr Amaral in the European Court, saying: “Anything on the legal side is up to their Portuguese lawyer to comment on.”’


    ‘As Warren Buffet, American business magnate, investor and philanthropist, once said. “It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you’ll do things differently.”


    As part of our reputation management package we provide a specialist media training service headed up up by former national BBC presenter Clarence Mitchell. With the media landscape now characterised by 24/7, with multiple channels, global reach and where everyone can express a view on your business, it is more important than ever to be prepared if you hit the headlines for the wrong reasons.’


    Sensing too well when the journey is done?

  41. "Sensing too well when the journey is done?"

    Good question.




    "His public affairs clients have included the Iraqi Prime Minister, the Government of Iceland, Microsoft, Bank of America, Lloyds Banking Group, Heineken, Hewlett Packard and Costa Cruises.

    Within his crisis management portfolio, Clarence provided strategic counsel to Costa’s Chairman and CEO during the Costa Concordia cruise liner disaster in Italy in January 2012. He also chaired a seminar on UK police-media relations post Leveson for the Metropolitan Police Senior Leadership Group, co-presenting with the Met Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe.

    Prior to his move into public relations, as a senior civil servant, he was Director of the Government’s Media Monitoring Unit, based within the Cabinet Office, leading a 30-strong team of Information Officers advising No 10 Downing Street and all of the major Departments of State on how best to respond to the 24/7 news agenda. He was seconded to the Foreign Office in 2007 to assist the McCann family with media handling following the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine in Portugal."

    1. He is a posh ambulance chaser so .

    2. Hello Frances, word is you've been telling porkies to Jill Havern, and that she will tell the police it was you who told her lies about Ben. Your spite knows no bounds.

    3. Anonymous12 July 2017 at 19:52

      Hello Frances, word is you've been telling porkies to Jill Havern, and that she will tell the police it was you who told her lies about Ben. Your spite knows no bounds.

      Please don't lie. Frances has said no such thing. And I have said no such thing either.

    4. "Please don't lie"

      Pity you didn't take your own advice before you took it upon yourself to write what you did about Ben and others. If I were you I'd be apologizing but I can see how you're in a situation where if you do admit you lied you'll lose the trust of everyone. Difficult one for you now I'm sure.

    5. I've got nothing to apologize for. The truth will out.

    6. Jill Havern doesn't know the meaning of the word truth.

    7. Jill Havern – CMOMM 12 July 2017 at 21:01, 22:21

      You are a welcome guest on this blog AFAIC. Courtesy, unlike ad hominem remarks, is sometimes in short supply as you must know from your own forum.



    8. Anonymous 12 July 2017 at 23:03

      “Jill Havern doesn't know the meaning of the word truth.”

      I shouldn’t think you know whereof you speak. Regardless of what you were thinking, I find your remark is unnecessarily offensive.

      No, I’m not a friend of Jill Havern’s.


    9. Not the Queen of Sheba13 July 2017 at 11:23

      Anonymous at 10.48; how true. Goodness knows why Verdi is allowed to be so rude to contributors.

      By the way, both Jill and Tony haven't posted for days. I wonder why.

    10. Lovely to see your eternally charming self T, and I agree, there is no need for rudeness. One wonders how they greet people and interact in the real world, for some reason, the Jeremy Kyle show comes to mind.

    11. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton 13 July 2017 at 11:33

      “Lovely to see your eternally charming self T…”

      I appreciate you kind words and your efforts with your blog, Rosalinda. ‘Eternally’ gives me something to think about, and think about it I will.

      Who is Jeremy Kyle? :0)

      Interesting how 13 becomes 11:33 (the date and time of your post). :)




  43. At least the PJGA will now be able to donate funds to a children's charity. So someone benefits.

    1. Anonymous 12 July 2017 at 13:01



  44. Gordon Bennett12 July 2017 at 13:55

    Just had a glance at one of the forums most go on about here and if that photo is current, then Freedom is a looker.

    And @ 02.54 . Made me laugh.

    1. @ Gordon Bennett

      perhaps you could provide a link to what you are on about (photo)?

  45. Gordon Bennett12 July 2017 at 15:12

    The photo I mean is Freedom`s picture or avatar whatever you want to call it,if indeed that is a genuine photo of her/him.
    I wouldn`t usually make reference to how someone looks,but from what I have been reading here, they are all a bunch of old grannies on that forum.
    Even allowing for normal (humorous ) exaggeration, that is patently not the case.

    1. Well you patently did make a comment about someone's appearance - the relevance is beyond me - unfortunate that you made a stupid mistake.

      Plenty of photos here for the looker.

  46. Not the Queen of Sheba12 July 2017 at 16:50

    Sorry to disappoint you but that is a photo of the actress Kirsten Dunst from the Spider Man trilogy last decade.

    1. Gordon Bennett12 July 2017 at 18:21

      @ 16.50
      Oh well you can tell I`m not a film buff.
      No point me joining that forum then in the hope of a date.
      Maybe Freedom`s a man lol and I`m definitely not that way inclined.
      like someone else I know of.Lol

    2. @ Gordon Bennett12 July 2017 at 18:21

      what relevance has your personal taste in relationships got to do with anything?

    3. Gordon Bennett12 July 2017 at 19:54

      @ 18.44
      Nothing, but then again what has forum wars got to do with anything and there are reams of it here?

    4. @ Gordon Bennett12 July 2017 at 19:54

      There are forum wars going on - that is the subject of this blog - is that beyond your comprehension, although you came here to salivate over a photo in an avatar. " if that photo is current, then Freedom is a looker."

      Perhaps there are other places that would appreciate you better!

    5. Anonymous 12 July 2017 at 19:59

      "How people change eh?"

      Indeed. :)


    6. T @11:01

  47. Strange - I remember how anything published in the Sun and especially by Tracey Kandohla was rubbish, wrong, Mccann propaganda, pink Clarrie nonsense, not to be believed, lies etc etc.

    How people change eh?

    1. @19:03

      Tracey Kandohla's "Mr Amaral claimed in a TV documentary and his bestselling 2008 book that the parents had killed Maddie" is a lie.

      Propaganda, but not McCann per se.


      Q: Are you gonna continue to fight him [Amaral]?
      Gerry McCann: ...the short anwer is, we have to... we will be appealing...

      "How people change eh?"

    2. I always thought that was bravado on the part of Gerry 19:59. Had they been able to, they would have pulled out of the last trial and indeed they tried to. I doubt they have had the appetite for the ECHR.

  48. @ Anonymous12 July 2017 at 19:59

    My apologies - I really really didn't mean to criticise such an avid Sun reader/believer like what you are (sic).

    Erm don't forget - Ros was in the Sun. How accurate was that?

    1. Anonymous 12 July 2017 at 22:08

      In the Sun or in the Moon, if not for Rosalinda, I wouldn't have the pleasure of being able to read your posts, my friend, "Erm don't forget". :)


  49. The Sun, via TK ... who's finger is on the pulse of all things McCann, with great understatement informs us, that Mr & Mrs McCann will not be availing themselves an appeal to ECHR because of 'this&that'

    So they woke up one morning & said to themselves, this is costing us too much & we are on a hiding to nothing. Ya, well .... what about their lawyers, REMEMBER they do listen to lawyers and\or advisers for that matter, telling them to DROP IT! you are not going to win.

    Which generally is more feasible.

    What will it cost them? Generally PR & their public image - nothing, since people have long given up understanding whats going on! Their pockets - ah... now there's another story. Not only have they to pay Costs, that is others lawyers & court, they now have to pay their OWN LAWYERS & accept their expenditure is not going to be refunded.

    But why now, why tell us and in this rather obtuse manner via mouth piece the SUN.

    All is never as it seems, is it. How many weeks has op Grange got left before it requires another injection of funding - which must now be, being assessed & processed!

    Another consideration is all things McCanns go into quiet mode for the long weeks of the school summer vacation period. For the next eight weeks can resume the private life of the family McCann. Until they return .........

    Timing just right for HOW MUCH WILL Grange get this time.

    1. I was actually expecting the case to be closed in September 22:34, but you may be right, they may ask for another extension and more funding.

      The last time the police spoke, both British and Portuguese, we were told nothing. Both confirmed the McCanns were not suspects, and the British offered a bizarre theory about a burglar.

      Bizarre isn't it, ten years of intensive investigations by the police forces of two countries and numerous private eyes, not one of them can come up with an explanation that doesn't include the parents.

      It appears, the dumbest abduction story in mankind's history, has flummoxed Scotland Yard's finest, and ALL the guilty parties will get off scot free.

      It may seem an odd state of affairs, but it probably isn't. If we were aware of the all the huge injustices that take place not just within the government, but throughout the private and public sector, it probably isn't. In the whole scheme of things where does the case of Madeleine fit in, say, in comparison to the Iraq War? I think we would truly go insane if we took on every battle.

      The Madeleine case is a strange one though. If anyone was going for a cover up, why open Operation Grange in a fanfare of publicity? I suspect the McCanns would always have been a thorn in any government's side, but someone could have had a quiet word along the lines of 'pushing for an investigation eh? are you nuts?

      I also wondered if there might have been a bit of spite or GB pride that wanted to prove the Portuguese police wrong. While the Portuguese police named Gerry and Kate as Arguidos, the British Police Agency CEOP were helping them to launch a new search for Madeleine campaign. The two nations, or their police at least were at odds.

      But it's not as simple as that. Several British police agencies were involved, and they clearly didn't agree with each other. While Jim Gamble and CEOP were looking for live abducted child, Mark Harrison from the National Police Improvement Agency (NPIA) was advising the Portuguese police to look at the parents and bring in the specialist blood and cadaver dogs. You can kind of see why Operation Grange would have problems - are they stuck in the middle?

    2. @Anonymous 12 July 2017 at 22:34
      ("But why now, why tell us and in this rather obtuse manner via mouth piece the SUN.") [11th July 2017]

      31 January 2017
      By Tracey Kandohla and Gerard Couzens for MailOnline

      “But a source close to the exasperated couple said: 'I think the fight is finally over. They want to concentrate on finding Madeleine and don't think they have the time or energy to lodge yet another appeal.'”

      A source close to ?

    3. Thanks for replying. In the cold light of day, this isn't about money - but really it is and will have to be. The £12m is the same as the refurbishment of Greville Tower, whatever the rights and wrongs - it comes down to BRASS TACKS - and Op. Grange is NOT VALUE for money. Too much a paperwork exercise that has run out of the ability to read the writings on the wall.

    4. It probably should be about money 08:33, but because the case centres around a cute child and grief stricken parents, anyone who raises the subject will be branded a 'baddie'. The subject is so sensitive, it is possible Operation Grange could get away with NO result for the £12m spent.

      Why £12m and counting has been spent on ONE missing child may forever remain a mystery I fear. No paedophile rings, no people traffickers, no major crime syndicates busted apart, not even one petty criminal who decided one night to steal a child. I sometimes wonder if they keep extending Operation Grange to put off the day they will have to announce they got nothing.

      But I don't want to be mean to the Officers of Operation Grange, I am looking at worst case scenario - the lack of political will to pursue it.

  50. @ Anonymous12 July 2017 at 22:34

    Thats a very good impersonation of andrew - well done.

  51. Question - how many missing child cases in the UK have been "shelved", "put away for ever", "closed without an outcome".

    Answer - none. They may remain cold cases but will be reviewed every so often.

    Why do people happily look forward to OG closing the case?

    They will never do so.

  52. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton12 July 2017 at 22:51

    ''I always thought that was bravado on the part of Gerry 19:59. Had they been able to, they would have pulled out of the last trial and indeed they tried to''

    Or maybe he just meant what he said.They didn't want the first trial let alone the subsequent farce.They asked Amaral to put up or shut up.In other words, if he had the proof to support his assertions lets have a criminal trial-if not, be quiet.He chose a handy middle ground that allowed him to say what he likes as it's only literature-not law.The judge should have inserted 'work of fiction' as part of the garbled nonsense that was declared as a 'ruling'.And Amaral should have too.It would have been cheaper to both parties and tax payers.And, dare I say-more honest

    1. You sound very bitter there Ziggy, you really are taking the pain of the McCanns far too personally.

      Goncalo Amaral did put up Ziggy, he gave his side of the story as the co-ordinator of the original Portuguese investigation. Had he remained on in his job, he probably would have brought charges - perhaps that's why he was removed?

      You seem oblivious to the fact that the McCanns have always had the freedom to say what they like - and they sure did. They began bad mouthing the police, and Goncalo Amaral especially, from the off. They set out to destroy him, not just as a detective, but also as a man.

      Goncalo Amaral had every right to defend himself with a detailed account of the actual investigation, which as we now know, differs considerably from the McCanns account of events. This is a he said, she said situation, except only one side is allowed to speak.

      Why should the McCanns be allowed to say as they please Ziggy, but not Goncalo Amaral?

    2. Is this post a practical joke, stardust? Or an application form to join COMM?

      Where is your evidence for your fictional claim that "they didn't want the first trial let alone the subsequent farce?"

      Answer: You haven't got any because you have invented this claim.

      Where is your evidence for your fictional claim that "they asked Amaral to put up or shut up?"

      Answer: You haven't got any because it is your imagination talking.

      Where is your evidence for your fictional claim that the McCanns said or felt or meant that "if he had the proof to support his assertions lets have a criminal trial-if not, be quiet?"

      Answer: You haven't got any because there isn't any and you invented it.

      Where is your evidence for your statement that Amaral "chose a handy middle ground that allowed him to say what he likes as it's only literature-not law?"

      Answer: You haven't got any because you are fantasizing.

      Now prove me wrong and cite any source for what you've claimed, you disgusting liar.

    3. john blacksmith 13 July 2017 at 00:23

      Morning, john

      Thank you for the points you’ve made. Our Dusty’s substantiation desiderata in things McCann has been accruing indeed.

      “Now prove me wrong and cite any source for what you've claimed, you disgusting liar.”

      In the above quote, the three words after the comma I have to reject as unnecessarily offensive and likely incorrect.

      May I kindly bring to your attention Max Ehrmann’s poem Desiderata?

      Good wishes.



    4. I'm staying out of your discourse with JB, but have to comment on the beautiful Desiderata. I bought a 'scroll' of it many years ago in Covent Garden Market, framed it and hung it in my downstairs loo! I think it would be fair to say I know almost every word by heart, I have always found them of great comfort, especially in the wee small hours when the world is caving in.

      I profess not to be poetry lover, probably because I had to spend an entire semester teaching the drivel of Philip Larkin to an A-level class. Hint to those who set the curriculum, ffs, how are you going to interest kids in poetry with establishment shite from the 1950's? Grr.

      But I do of course love poetry. During my many years as a legal secretary, I had access to judicature paper (judy paper), so I typed up and framed all the poems that have inspired me and are still so relevant no matter how many centuries ago they were written.

      Desiderata of course holds centre stage, it's my go to place when I'm about to blow a fuse! But alongside sits 'If' (Rudyard Kipling) and 'The Road Not Taken' Robert Frost, and a brilliant poem dedicated to Mohammed Ali by my son then aged 13, that won a poetry completion in the USA!

      Casabiana (the boy stood on the burning deck)quite literally reduces me to tears. I have never been able to type it up, by the time I reach 'the noblest thing that perished there, was that young faithful heart' I am blubbing mess.

      I know it may not appear like it on occasion, but I do strive to go placidly aid the noise and haste - sound advice, so too, as far as possible, be on good terms with all persons, but of course, without surrender.

      'Speak your truth, quietly and clearly' and LISTEN to others. Speaking quietly and clearly is indeed the best, and only, way in which to get your truth across. Those who resort to theatrics, PR agencies and spokesmen, need only speak their truth quietly and clearly, so why don't they?

      Thank you for bringing the awesome words of Desiderata to our attention. I think many could do with reading those words T, especially before they put pen to paper or press publish.

      But I will finish with the words of the divine Maya Angelou....

      'I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel'.

      So many people do not understand the power of words, or the effects they can have on other people. In the real world, we have the benefit of the 80% of communication that is missing from the 'written' word, that is the body language, the facial expressions, the tone in the voice.

      I personally find it bizarre that people adopt such a brusque and uncivil tone, when they know others can't see them. Now they must forever live in fear that their real identities might be exposed. There is really no difference between writing nasty, aggressive posts online and the old fashioned poison pen letters. And they justify their behaviour by blaming their targets. The McCanns because they believe they killed their child, and myself, because I have the gall to consider myself a writer, wot wiv my bad gramma an all.

  53. Jane Cook11 July 2017 at 23:05

    That's an interesting post Re Alice. My lovely mum bought me that as my first book when i was a nipper.I kept it in a drawer because i had a football career to plan.I came back to it as a teenager , but in a 'haze' brought about by some 'recreational' experiment I was conducting on my head.It was a very surreal experience.I thought Lewis Carroll was some kind of Victorian hippy ahead of his time back then.But I was stoned.Either way, it's a pretty 'trippy' work and Dodsgon is a bit of an enigma to say the least...

    So, am I to assume that you're saying that Tweedledum and Tweedledee were oblivious to everything around them due to their futile and unnecessary battle to the point they didn't even care about the tearful and confused Alice and that this thread is a rematch ?And that Alice is Madeleine ? If so, i like it. But I'm sure the pitchfork wavers will see that the portly twins alluded to could represent Mr and Mrs McCann and that the giant crow is the evil spectre that manifested from their domestic war and that took little Madeliene 'away' :)

    And..if we contort our minds and reason even further could the' walrus' be the nemesis of the infamous 'egg man'....

    I am the egg man...they are the egg men..I am the walrus ( goo goo g'joob)

    1. ZiggySawdust 12 July 2017 at 23:12

      Morning, Ziggmund, my (egg man

      Felt happy inside on reading your ‘Alice’ post. It’s such a feelin’ that my love I can’t hide.

      You got that somethin'. I wanna hold your hand.

      Tom (now demoted)

      PS Is there perchance a chapter ‘From Charlie to Eric, from Alice to Petra’ in your War and Peace?

    2. My 13 July 2017 at 11:25 post

      …my (egg) man.

      I’m awful.

      You make me dizzy, Miss Ziggy. A jolly nice one (your ‘Alice’ post)! I’ll be thinking about it. I happen to have in my household a very interesting hand-coloured drawing of a scene from AIWL which I think you would appreciate seeing. If an occasion ever arises…



  54. ( part one to John Blacksmith )

    ''Is this post a practical joke, stardust? Or an application form to join COMM?''

    Neither, Blacksmith.

    This is a special moment for yours truly. One of the alleged 'legends' or 'heavyweights' replying to me personally.

    ''Where is your evidence for your fictional claim that "they didn't want the first trial let alone the subsequent farce?"

    Firstly, my claim is a real claim-it's mine, ergo, it exists.I won't go into a linguistic analysis to clarify that further as I'm sure you have a lot of important things to teach others..Just note that it's a claim; an opinion.I don't have the ignorance to preach opinions or claims as facts.My opinion regarding the subsequent farce as I put it is based on the length of time it's taken and amount of brains that have presided over it.The wording of the final ruling, in my opinion, is ridiculous not only with regard to the McCann v Amaral case, but in defamation and libel cases anywhere.The McCanns wanted to stop what they considered were( and are) 'malicious lies'.That's their right.It's anyone's right.When allegations are made against someone the onus is on the accuser to substantiate their claims - not the other way around.If they don't, and go on to say they intend publishing it to a far wider audience, then the accused is within his rights to try and stop that action.It isn't rocket science . This is my claim.I didn't 'invent' it. It merely articulates what I think.

  55. ( part two to John Blacksmith )

    My other 'claim' Re 'put up or shut up' is based on the McCanns and their family repeatedly voicing their collective annoyance at the PJ getting bogged down in red tape when allegedly looking for their daughter and Amaral's new mission to go public with his accusations once his bosses had removed him.I think 'put up or shut up' is clear.If Amaral was prepared to publish his accusations with such conviction then he should have had them charged and his evidence tested in a criminal trial.

    ''Answer: You haven't got any because there isn't any and you invented it. ''

    When someone interprets unambiguous statements they come to a conclusion.That isn't 'inventing' anything.

    'Where is your evidence for your statement that Amaral "chose a handy middle ground that allowed him to say what he likes as it's only literature-not law?"

    My evidence is based on the words of Isabel Duarte, who represented the McCanns. She knows even more about the case than blogging legends. She said :

    “This decision was an appreciation of the law and not the understanding from reading the appeal ruling is that the judges have decided Amaral was entitled to write a book the court calls a literary book...the court is basically saying he had the right to express his opinions.'' ( there's that nasty old 'opinions versus facts' nuisance again).

    ''Answer: You haven't got any because you are fantasizing.''

    I think all mind reading feats should be confined to youtube.

    ''Now prove me wrong and cite any source for what you've claimed, you disgusting liar.''

    Firstly, I'm not disgusting.Secondly, I'm not lying.Your attitude needs some work as does your self control.Am I supposed to feel intimidated by yet another online Chuck Norris ? Forget that. It's difficult to intimidate me on or offline.You impress the wrong people.Don't get carried away with yourself.For future reference, if you want me to answer your questions, let me, rather than answering them for me in advance.If they're rhetorical, just remove the question marks.In the meantime, here's some links.Fill your boots old chum.

    1. 1) ''Where is your evidence for your fictional claim that "they didn't want the first trial let alone the subsequent farce?"

      Asking for evidence is no mystery; it simply means “how do you know what you claim to know is true? In this case you could quote the couple’s words.

      Your reply: “Just note that it's a claim; an opinion.” So you didn’t have any evidence, as I said. You made it up.

      1A) “The wording of the final ruling, in my opinion, is ridiculous.”

      Yes, you’ve said that twice. I didn’t ask for evidence of that.

      2)"Where is your evidence for your fictional claim that "they asked Amaral to put up or shut up?"

      Your reply: “My other 'claim' re 'put up or shut up' is based on the McCanns and their family repeatedly voicing their collective annoyance at the PJ…”

      So they didn’t ask Amaral to put up or shut up, or anything resembling that claim. In fact they never contacted him at all before ambushing him with the writ. So you invented that claim too, as I said.

      3) 'Where is your evidence for your statement that Amaral "chose a handy middle ground that allowed him to say what he likes as it's only literature-not law?"

      Your reply: “My evidence is based on [based on!] the words of Isabel Duarte; she said:“This decision was an appreciation of the law and not the facts…” the rest of the paragraph consists of your own words, not hers. Where is the evidence that "he said what he likes as it’s only literature not law”, or anything resembling it? You invented it.

      4) So having failed to provide a word of evidence you end by listing what you appear to think will provide it.

      You really are kidding, aren’t you? Paolo Reis and Clarence Mitchell? MSM stories? Your “evidence” for the “put up or shut up” claim? Clarence Mitchell, speaking anonymously!

      “Kate and Gerry are going through agony and think it’s high time the police put up or shut up,” said a close family friend. “Either charge them or clear them so that no more time is lost in getting back to looking for a little girl missing for more than eight months.”

      Kate McCann’s book is a source for what she and her husband said. A search under the word “amaral” reveals 60 references. Not one of them contains any words resembling what you’ve claimed they did, said, or felt.

      You are a disgusting liar, as I said.

  56. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton12 July 2017 at 23:46

    ''You sound very bitter there Ziggy, you really are taking the pain of the McCanns far too personally. ''

    You're misinterpreting what I said Ros.I have no need to take anything about this case personally.I won't let it do it to me either as I will never be personally involved with it or anyone involved in it.I feel strongly, as a life rule, that anyone outnumbered or set upon needs some reason introduced to the circumstances. I've always been a scrapper and especially for an underdog. If i'd seen, with my own eyes, that which so many else have claimed they can see, then I wouldn't do it. Sometimes-often, in fact-things are just as they appear; it's only what someone else adds to it that makes it complicated or complex.As for the pain of the McCanns-who can measure that ? I can't.

    I'm not gunning for Amaral or anyone.I'm merely trying to keep it as basic as it began before the 'wars' were declared.There are enough members of the PJ that could support Amaral and take up his cause and get him some justice in terms of proving that his bosses removed him unfairly and for the darker purpose that he has suggested.I admire his determination to save his reputation but I don't admire his technique and tactics.

    As I've said time and again on your blog, just because i state that the evidence against the McCanns is worthless doesn't mean I'm defending them.It's worthless as in shelved.I'd welcome far more debate about why the evidence wasn't considered worthy and why it was shelved and if those who would normally admit it as evidence chose not to.They wouldn't do it unless ordered from 'upstairs' if it was genuinely incriminating.The public trial of the McCanns is distracting from that.It's possible that the dogs evidence in 5A was genuine evidence of a body having previously been there.But that doesn't identify a killer, just a body.

    As for the reading of body language and hidden meanings( all undertaken by people who are already convinced of the McCanns guilt funnily enough), I find that pointless and tedious.The same goes for claims of knowing the character of people you've never met. I could do that and give you a suspect that has far more questions to answer.But that would be hypocritical of me.

    1. You are ignoring the points I made Ziggy. Much of the scandal surrounding the McCanns began with the removed of Goncalo Amaral from the original investigation. This is a major point of contention - many believe GA was removed at the request of the British because he was pursuing the parents - it was the investigation of the parents that was stymied, his colleagues couldn't carry on with it.

      The ONLY way Goncalo Amaral could 'put up' against the huge onslaught of malicious allegations being fed to the press by the McCanns, was to write his own account of what happened in the summer of 2007.

      You completely failed to answer my question Ziggy, why shouldn't Goncalo Amaral have the right to tell his side of the story?

  57. I like your analysis Ziggy, it's better than mine! I don't want to say too much because I like the fact that it is open to interpretation but it was brought to mind by the two anonymous posters one of whom took relish in revealing my identity (a key theme is identity: is Alice real? ) the other who tried to attach me with random, ad hominem attacks (logic and reasoning is another theme). So Logic, reasoning and idenity are key themes and what's important is that despite obfuscation, emotional blackmail and manipulation, Alice realises she is real and manages to get out of the woods, leaving Tweedledee and Tweedledum behind. I wanted Tweedledum and Tweedledee to know that good reasoning and truth will prevail.

    Your analysis is brilliant and I can see the metaphor for so much connected to this case and I like the idea that Madeleine is Alice. I'm going to re-read the book now!

  58. Gordon Bennett13 July 2017 at 09:08

    @ 22.17
    Had a gander at that other forum and you sound very similar to that Verdi character who seems to like laying down the law to everyone,especially newcomers.
    But then again I suppose all places, has someone like that.
    They probably have someone like me too,lol.

  59. Gordon you sound like a sweetie and there's nothing wrong in paying someone a compliment. BTW they are definitely not a bunch of Grannies and the Acorn Antiques reputation is not deserved, IMO! It is definitely more Crossroads Motel than Bates Motel but that's a good thing. I doubt that they have someone like you, Gordon - don't be bashful and give it a go. I don't think you'll find romance but hey, I'm sure you will get a warm welcome. BTW, you are not Basilwithabrush from CMoMM are you, as you sound familiar?

    1. I too am charmed Jane, a warm welcome to you here as well Gordon. I'm not quite sure what 'someone like me' is, but I like him already for his use of the word 'gander'! Could there be a touch of the Irish in there?

  60. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton13 July 2017 at 10:37

    I'm not missing the point, Ros.

    The point that sparked the libel case was the validity of Amaral's assertions regarding the parents being responsible for their child's death-or aware of an accidental death, and getting rid of her body and constructing an abduction story. Each one of those accusations are serious.Further, he implicated the Tapas gang in his assertion that their 'pact of silence' was because they were 'in on it'.All of this is a matter of interpretation of the event early on in the investigation.The 'fake abduction' theory may well be right or may be wrong.Evidence would decide. Amaral was removed by his bosses at the request of the met who answer to their bigger bosses.So, it was higher up than the Met where that decision was born.Was he removed too soon and unfairly ? I'd have to say yes he was.The decision also put him in a negative light.To onlookers and observers it was seen as an act reflecting a vote of no confidence in him, therefore, by extension, the PJ's methods.

    When the Met took control, it suddenly became more circus and PR exercise than investigation. So called 'leads' never looked convincing.That has never improved to this day.When the dogs were brought in that caused more confusion.I believe that was a stunt organised from the UK side of the cover up : bring in dogs with impressive strike rates to find evidence, then shelve said evidence to demonstrate all physical evidence failed to nail any perpetrators convincingly.Mark Harrison isn't called into serious investigations for his alleged brains, he's part of the same spin team as Mitchell and Brunt.He's a tabloid copper-cum-psychologist.
    It all added up, officially, to 'nothing to see here'.That cleared everyone but planted more than enough seeds of suspicion that would eventually bear the fruit that has become the 'get McCann' game.All that effort was to achieve a whitewash not a solution.It's kept the majority of eyes and pointed fingers aimed at the parents but no evidence will take them to the dock.I'm playing Devil's advocate when i say 'prove it' because that's the exact position.Without the adequate proof or evidence nobody can say anything is a fact.That's why it's 10 years gone now.It rendered Amaral's theory and accusations as malicious as the resultant situation placed the parents as victims of an abduction of their child and the attacks of Amaral on top of it.When they call his allegations malicious they can point to the ongoing state of the investigation. When Amaral supporters call the parents malicious they can only voice the suspicions they agree with.

    I maintain the view that people above the police forces of both countries killed the case and not to defend the UK's so called good name.But it was to defend something.Someone somewhere was over a barrel.

    1. Let's clear a couple of things up. You refer throughout to GA's theory, then you claim GA is 'claiming as fact' the parents were involved. Do you understand the word theory?

      Fortunately, the very well educated Goncalo Amaral does know the meaning, and his book, The Truth of the Lie' (have you read it yet?) recounts the FACTS of the 2007 investigation and GA presents his THEORY based on those facts. The facts of the 2007 investigation cannot be disputed, the files are online!

      Goncalo Amaral was removed by his bosses at the request of the Met. Wow, that's pretty inside information you have there Ziggy. So it was the Met, who answer to their bigger bosses, who obstructed the investigation? Thereafter the Met took control and turned it into a circus. Really? I've been around a while, but that's news to me. Nothing to do with the McCann publicity machine then?

      They then brought in the dogs, to keep the publicity going, and then shelved the evidence of the dogs, because it was job done. Err, confused here Ziggy. And Mark Harrison is not the highly respected expert with an impressive career, he's a 'tabloid copper-cum-psychologist'. Ooh low blow there Ziggy, what reason could you possibly have for such a low opinion of him?

      And 'nothing to see here' - is that going to take over from 'Noooooo Evidence' lol. I always have a sharp intake of breath and an 'Ooh wrong move' when I hear 'suspects' say 'Prove it'. That has got to antagonise those investigating them. I know it would me.

      I have to say Ziggy, your obsession with GA is a tad bizarre. You seem totally unable or unwilling to see just how much the parents themselves have aroused suspicion.

      Their behaviour is not normal. Now I know there is no such thing as normal in circumstances such as these, but the majority of us are pretty darn certain that's not it.

      It is astounding that ten years on, the parents are still blaming their unpopularity on Goncalo Amaral. They have been given endless opportunities over the years to show their human side. The use of spokesmen, family friends, unknown sources, to comment in the media, is not endearing. They are too aloof even, to answer their followers on Facebook in person, they use an unknown host, who speaks on their behalf. Their fear of being attacked on social media borders on paranoia, even politicians and celebrities who are 'despised' have twitter accounts.

      Your final paragraph Ziggy is basically, you got nothing, but will go along with anything that clears the parents.

  61. Is Ben Thompson winning his battle against the evil 'pro-McCann government shills' over on CMOMM? I ask because neither Jill Havern nor Tony Bennett has posted there for about a fortnight. Meanwhile Thompson posts merrily away on Twitter. Thompson said he had reported them to the police. Have Jill & TB maybe been given an official harassment warning?

    1. Hope so. Either that or Andrew took them both for a nice walk in the woods somewhere. With his spade!

    2. No, we haven't. Sorry to disappoint.

      Posting merrily away on twitter does not equate to 'winning his battle'.

      Our lack of posts on CMOMM means we are doing something else.

    3. NotOneOfTheBigNames13 July 2017 at 12:47

      I hope he is. The disgraceful malice of those two eclipsed any amount of the more usual vitriol spouted by so called pros.

    4. LOL Not one of.... I agree last tweet title was a bit naff. What can I say, my mind went blank.

      But please, this is not the place for you to abuse others and you are misguided if you think it is. If you have anything to say, state it quietly and clearly - those are the kind of posts that stimulate interesting and enlightening discussion. That why the forums are struggling, rudeness is a sign of ignorance, there is nothing to stick around for.

    5. NotOneOfTheBigNames13 July 2017 at 13:53

      I've read my post again and can't see a trace of anything that can be termed rudeness. Must be in the eye of the beholder.

    6. Jill & Tony must be plotting away with more reams of nonsense to distort the truth then if plod haven't paid a visit.

  62. @ Jane Cook

    Happy reading ( of Alice).It's far more rewarding than falling down this seemingly bottomless rabbit hole we know and love as 'forum wars'.I can relate Re the ad hominem attacks.I occasionally(cough) receive them.Mine tend to come from tweedledumb and tweedledumber though;) But kudos to anyone who can type with their knuckles white.I find it hard enough just reading it when I'm laughing, let alone replying.

    Acorn Antiques brought back some pangs there.I had a crush on Mrs Overall.I used to imagine us running towards each other through the lapping tide in slow motion.Me in my sandals and cravat, her in her apron and not spilling a drop from her shakey pot.A perfect 10.

    1. LOL Mrs Overall crush Ziggy. I love Acorn Antiques, infact my Mrs Overall impression was my party piece for quite a while. I also love the Julie Walters and Victoria Wood sketch set in a cafe, with the doddery old waitress who spills the soup as she is tottering towards the table, "Ready to order now Sir?"

  63. Not the Queen of Sheba13 July 2017 at 12:12

    It does seem like a big coincidence, Anonymous at 11.53, that both of them have stopped posting. Wasn't there also something about a blog on cloning (written by Tony using a false name) which was claimed to have been plagiarised from another source?

  64. john blacksmith13 July 2017 at 11:23

    ''You are a disgusting liar, as I said. ''

    In your worthless opinion maybe.I suggested that you exercised some self control.I understand your attitude seems beyond salvation. But arrogance and ignorance often conspire to banish common sense and reason.That's not a reason to behave like a petulant child, however. I've read your ramblings more than once and didn't voice my opinion. You come from the same standpoint with every rant : Blacksmith knows more than an Encyclopedia and everyone else is wrong. Everything is obvious to you.You should offer your insights and expertise to Scotland Yard or the PJ. What's stopping you.

    Your comments on my reply are careless and lazy.I won't address them.No point talking to a statue is there...

    I might be speaking out of turn but I think Ros has reminded contributors more than once on this this thread about manners.It didn't have any exceptions to the rule as i read it.

    ''But please, this is not the place for you to abuse others and you are misguided if you think it is. ''

    ''I have no objection to debate with 'the enemy', as long as it is civil and constructive.''

    You may be respected by a certain quarter for you standpoint and opinions and, as such, will always be guaranteed an echo of yourself. Each to their own etc. But do us both a favour and knock the silliness on the head. You've already received too much attention from me.No more until you behave yourself.