Friday, 25 August 2017


Not believing the McCanns does not make me, or anyone else a bad person, and in fact I would go so far as to say, pretending to believe is being complicit.  Those of you accusing me of being a bad person, are putting the parents' feelings above the fate of the missing child.  And they are complicit in the spiteful campaign to wreck the life of the former detective Goncalo Amaral.

I may not be a God botherer or a pillar of the community, but I have my own, very strict, moral guidelines.  That teen angst, that desire for martyrdom has never left me, death before dishonour. I will not be forced to believe something that isn't true. I was being battered daily in a convent at the time, so you can why I feel quite strongly on this issue. 

But, as I say to my Catholic friends, whatever gets you through the night, but please do not try to force your beliefs on me.  With the McCann supporters however, they just won't take no for an answer.  They demand we all believe as blindly as they do.  Fortunately Gerry and Kate do not have the power to burn heretics at the stake, nor even the power to have them standing in a dock.  And those helping them, are assisting the madness.
Badmouthing me won't make the situation any better, it is simply more bullying on the part of Team McCann.  I challenge them because I believe what they are doing is evil.  Their hounding and pursuit of Goncalo Amaral and Brenda Leyland for example, was evil. Both innocent people - and those doing the hounding knew that.  They wanted to take his family home and all the proceeds from his books.  They had already prevented him from earning a living, but that wasn't enough.  That knowledge sends a chill through me

In this instance, for some unknown reason, Team McCann are again complaining about those who troll them in social media.  And, as I said in my previous blog, why now? I fear the trolling of the McCanns is again being used to herald in new laws to remove anyone considered subversive, from the internet.  Which of course, is a direct attack on our Freedom of Speech.  It is no secret that there are factions within Team McCann actively working towards finding ways and means to police the internet.  Many want the rabble removed and in the dock, including less talented writers who want 'Opinion' restricted to the elite. 

For the majority of people (without issues) however, internet trolling is no more than a gnat bite, especially those in the public eye.  For them it is part and parcel of 'fame', they enjoy the perks, they suffer the loons.  They don't make a big deal of it, because it isn't a big deal.  If I paid attention to all the hate mail I have received over the years, I would be in a padded cell, wearing a straitjacket.  Ok, some might say, I should be.  Those drawing attention to their trolls are actually drawing attention to themselves, it is a variation on 'poor me'. 

But I don't want to get into the psychological aspects of trolling, for the moment, it is the way that it is being used for sinister, political purposes.  Gerry and Kate are the faces of Hacked Off, and those pressure groups that demand stricter controls on the press and social media.  Whilst other 'celebrities' appear to have seen the light and backed away, Gerry and Kate have continued to make their case as victims of an unscrupulous press and a lawless internet. They want action.  They want legislation that will shut down blogs like mine, and it would appear, shut down entire hashtags on twitter.  Again, with the God complex.

Information is as it is.  Tis my belief, the new Masters of the Universe reside in Silicone Valley, and they won't stop the flow of information for greedy capitalists or those insisting on ridiculous safeguards that protect no-one, least of all today's teens.  Kids today, know more about online safety than most of these online safety experts ever will.  Hands up every mum, who has learned all their internet etiquette from their kids? Even if you add the proviso, kids over 10, quite a few hands would still remain up.  The best protection any parent can give a child is confidence.  And happily most parents know that.  Those kids who are vulnerable, will have more issues than being groomed by an online predator in Kurdistan.

The idea that you can remove, let's call them what they are, deplorables*, from the internet is as ludicrous as removing deplorables from the streets.  It is something you just can't legislate against, and heaven knows, governments throughout history have tried.  Perhaps it should be remembered, that the elite, also tried to keep electricity and telephones to themselves, along with the right to vote.

Anyway, apologies for the Marxist lecture, lol, my gut instinct is to protect the freedom of the internet.  Since it's invention, I have been walking on Cloud 9.  So much to read, so little time.  I fear this may be a short lived period in our history, a new Age of Enlightenment, and one that the powers that be, will have to control if they are to maintain the status quo.  The Arab Spring showed how quickly a revolution can begin.  Boris ordered a job lot of water canons.  The US are now using tear gas and pepper spray - I wonder if Theresa May will ask Trump for a discount if crowd control armaments are among the US weapons he is trying to flog?  She may well need tear gas and pepper spray when The Donald rides down The Mall in a gold carriage with the Queen. 

But I don't want to digress.  Having watched the schemes and machinations of Team McCann over the years, this present distress is, I believe, nothing to do with internet trolls.  Unless of course, Professor Synnott is preparing a paper that argues the case for government action on anti social internet behaviour.  Why else count the tweets on the McCann hashtag every day?  Has it never occurred to Professor Synnott that the Madeleine case is unique (unique in the UK, the US have several) and that there might be a reason why these obsessive compulsives are spamming that hashtag every day.  If you take away their reason for doing it, you are making the entire paper invalid - what it was that set them off? 

The Madeleine case is unique, as is the position the parents find themselves in.  There are no forums or facebook groups questioning other families ripped apart by the trauma of losing a child.  Quite rightly, the idea of it would be horrendous, we would not want to add to their pain.  Unfortunately for Gerry and Kate, they have never been believable, and their abduction story makes no sense to any logical person.  How far we take that disbelief is of course open to debate.  I agree, this case has attracted more than it's far share of weirdos and stalkers, on many sides, but as a psychologist maybe Dr. Synnott should be addressing the obsessive compulsive disorder.  He should also acknowledge this case is in no way typical of online troll behaviour.   

I don't know what kind of cure Dr. Synnott is looking for with his troll study, but if he is omitting the root cause, then the cure he is seeking will be legislative. 

*Thanks Hillary. 


  1. "Not believing the McCanns does not make me, anyone else a bad person, and in fact I would go so far as to say, pretending to believe is being complicit. You are putting the parents' feelings above the fate of the missing child. You are also complicit in the spiteful campaign to wreck the life of the former detective Goncalo Amaral."

    I believe the Mccanns and I hate amaral. And I believe you are a bad person.

    1. Your prerogative 00:11, I know that I am not, my conscience is clear.

    2. Ros, 00.11 is obviously an idiot. How can anybody reasonably hate someone they have never met FGS. You might as well say you hate the tooth fairy.


  2. Ros - have you ever said that your belief is that Kate did it and Gerry covered up for her?

    amaral says that they covered up what happened - do you believe that?

    1. Hmm, not sure, I may have, but not in any way that could be construed as libel or hate.

      As for Goncalo Amaral, he has provided the most likely and the most logical theory for what happened in PDL. In 10+ years no-one has come up with anything that comes close to it. His theory also runs parallel with the official police investigation and the preliminary police report.

      As for your tone of questioning, am I in the dock?

    2. With respect, Amaral has only his hypothesis . Most likely and most logical are still hard to prove. Yes, I know you realise that, but you must also realise that the hypothesis can still be put to the test in a trial .There must be a reason that it hasn't been yet.And I don't mean because the McCanns said it wasn't allowed. Why hasn't the PJ done it for him ? How strong is their faith in him and it.

    3. Goncalo Amaral describes it as a theory, as do I.

      I'm sure it is hard to prove, as I mentioned elsewhere, there are several cases worldwide where child abductions have been staged, and those responsible remain free due to lack of evidence. Common to all, is the police do not carry on with live investigations. They bide their time.

      It may be that because Goncalo Amaral's theory was so persuasive, the police have never let this matter drop.

    4. If it was that persuasive of the police, they would surely recommend that it could be persuasive to a jury.And if the evidence that was shelved was allowed as evidence, it would be even more persuasive. If it's a theory rather than a hypothesis then that would also make it easier to persuade a jury . Don't you think ten years is a bit long to bide time ? It's looking like a gravy train for police forces and overtime.

    5. Operation Grange and the PJ aren't biding their time 01:24, both have active investigations - this is not a case being left to go cold.

      As for the gravy train argument - I doubt Scotland Yard will leave themselves open to accusations of that sort 01:24. I would imagine everything has been very carefully recorded and annotated. This is a controversial case, there is no margin for error.

    6. Operation Grange have had years now. The Pj closed it then opened it again about a year or two after it happened.So the former are biding their time and I reckon the latter don't like wasting any but wouldn't admit it publicly. Scotland yard, operation grange or whoever invite accusations whenever they put their hand out for more money.

  3. Great blog Ros - keep them coming - I have never known anyone who can talk out of their arse for so long and pretend they have an opinion like you.

    1. Again with the blurry lines between compliment/insult, lol, I'm going to go with Great blog, and assume you are Irish, who take great delight in building you and knocking you down! ;)

  4. I would have thought analysis of Twitter is near impossible. Unless of course you take as validity that each twit is an independent negative or positive. But then, what about trolling aka baiting?

    It's a bit like watching a team game, where neither side is really identifiable.

    One could actually draw the conclusion of McCann watching, that there is an element of subterfuge and the game play is blind.

    IMHO it would be impossible to analyse the dynamics of twitter or any online forum. Who are the players? who are wolves in sheep's clothing and what about those that argue with themselves under two nicks to add intrigue.

    This case would have died a death long ago, had the MET not poked it's nose in.

    1. It died a death years ago.All that's left is online cluedo and a few last throws of dice by newspapers to get an occasional cash injection. Twitter or forums don't really matter to the case, just the bored.

  5. Anon 12.34

    "It died a death years ago" - have you been told that personally by the PJ and SY?

    If the McCanns and their friends are being looked into as to the "non abduction" of Madeleine than that also means that the "Find Madeleine Fund" is fraudulent, something that would also have to be investigated and could take years to find out where all the money has gone and who was paid to do/say what, Metodo 3 for example were paid a small fortune but never came up with anything. There doesn't seem to be any record of the McCanns suing them for incompetence or to get all of their money back for doing s*d all.

    1. It's my opinion that it died years ago.I was only talking about the investigation of the child's disappearance. All the other stuff you're on about doesn't really matter when you remember what it's all about in the first place.You're talking about an awful lot of ifs.It wouldn't take years to produce accounts would it.Probably a couple of hours.And if anyone was paid a small fortune from a fund and came up with nothing it's just one of those things. I'm sure they could only have promised to look for the child not guarantee finding her.Does that mean someone is guilty of fraud ? You could question their efforts I suppose but what could be proven ? Would they give the money back to the fund ? They wouldn't be legally obliged to.

    2. It's not the first time The McCanns have been ripped off by organisations or individuals investigating/ looking for Madeleine. You would think that with the high profile connections someone would have said don't trust these people. Instead the taxpayers have been ripped off due to Op Grange. Now I have no problems with SY looking into this case and rightly so, but it has to come a time when SY say look there's nothing that we can do at this moment unless something comes up. Also as with any company the accounts should be transparent and available for inspection by the authorities. I believe that the fund in question is not a limited company so therefore The McCanns will be liable for everything.

    3. John100 29 August 2017 at 00:54

      Madeleine's Fund

      About the Fund

      "Us" and "we" refers to Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited, a not-for-profit company, aka Madeleine's Fund, which has been established to find Madeleine McCann, support her family and bring her abductors to justice. The Fund is following best practice governance procedures as set out in the Good Governance Code for the Voluntary and Community Sector.”


    4. Thanks T@02:15 for clearing that up for me. At the back of my mind I read somewhere that perhaps it wasn't a Ltd company. Again many thanks.

    5. John100 29 August 2017 at 10:11

      Not at all, John100, you are always welcome.



  6. Anon 15.09

    You really do live in cloud cuckoo land, don't you, or are you deliberately being dense?

    Gosh, you really are pulling out all the stops to protect the McCanns, why? You obviously know that fraud investigations can go on for years, especially when you're talking about £millions, it's not a matter of £200,000 or so being squirreled away, it could be £5-£10 million all made on the back of a barely 4 year old that may not have been "abducted".

    No, it's not a matter of producing accounts - not that the McCanns' accounts have ever been "transparent" as they promised they would be, only being shown as the minimum possible, it's about finding where all the money has been stashed (if it has) i.e. in off shore accounts may be in Switzerland or the Cayman Islands, waiting to be used by the extend family, as shown in their terms and conditions of their "Fund".

    Oh, so the McCanns wouldn't go out of their way to get any money back from any dodgy investigation bureaus who blew £millions and came up with nothing, you say "it's just one of those things". Seeing that most of Metodo 3 ended up in jail for nefarious goings on, I would say that the McCanns had every right to sue them to get their money back, but then again they preferred to go after Amaral and make his life (and his family) a misery and for him "to feel pain". I'm gobsmacked that they didn't go after Medoto 3 and make them "feel pain" for all the money they took out of the McCanns' "Find Madeleine Fund" without actually finding her.

    No the McCanns couldn't give any money back to the fund if they were arrested and charged unless they sell their house, I can't see them doing that, although they expected Amaral to sell his house so they could add it to their ££££££millions in their Fund, but it could add extra years to their jail sentences if they were ever taken to court for the wrongful death of Madeleine and hiding her body.

    1. @ Anonymous26 August 2017 at 16:58

      Perfect hate comment - well done.

    2. Anon 19.57

      Is that the best you can do, why don't you comment on the findings of Eddie & Keela while you're here, they won't go away you know however much the McCanns or their shills try to ignore them.

      They must be a nightmare for everyone pushing the "abduction" story.

    3. @ Anonymous 19:57

      And what a thread he or she chose to post it on. That's some mind .


      Oh dear - more frothing at the mouth and outrage from the haters.

    5. @Anonymous at 19:57
      "Perfect hate comment - well done."

      Is your comment endorsed by Kate and Gerry McCann?

    6. @ Anonymous26 August 2017 at 21:03
      Is your comment endorsed by Kate and Gerry McCann?

      I am Kate and Gerry Mccann - do you have a problem with that?

    7. @Anonymous at 21:38

      Not at all. Interesting reply.

    8. I'm not sure how you can be both Kate and Gerry, perhaps you would like to further enlighten us?

    9. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton26 August 2017 at 22:01
      I'm not sure how you can be both Kate and Gerry, perhaps you would like to further enlighten us?

      Enlighten you Ros the almighty powerful one?

      My comment was in reply to a stupid comment.

      You allow a lot of stupid comments on this blog - they don't add anything apart from showing that THIS IS A HATE THE MCCANN BLOG and you allow and post them.

    10. @ Anonymous26 August 2017 at 20:09

      ''why don't you comment on the findings of Eddie & Keela while you're here, they won't go away you know however much the McCanns or their shills try to ignore them.''

      And the PJ and the Portuguese Prosecution Service - what about them ( or haven't they seen them?)

    11. @ Anonymous26 August 2017 at 20:09

      "Anon 19.57

      Is that the best you can do, why don't you comment on the findings of Eddie & Keela while you're here, they won't go away you know however much the McCanns or their shills try to ignore them."
      Why don't you comment on what evidential value Grime gave to the alerts?

    12. What I find hateful 22:07, is the way in which Team McCann have suppressed the true account of the investigation by Goncalo Amaral. They have gone to extraordinary lengths to wreck his life and reputation and, for over 8 years, taken away his right to reply.

      I find it morally abhorrent that Gerry and Kate have been able to control the flow of news with constant threats of legal action. And it is morally abhorrent that they are able to prevent the UK citizens from buying and reading GA's book in English.

      The idea that only one account of Madeleine's disappearance (Kate's), is 'allowed' to be published in the UK or on Amazon is absolutely bizarre in the 21st century. It's practically page 1 on the Dummy's Guide for Despots and Tyrants. Only one book on Madeleine's disappearance is available in UK bookstores, Kate's - kudos to whoever came up with that idea to corner the market. I suspect, when the game's up, hundreds will appear.

      Gerry and Kate invite people to discuss them 22:07, overtly and covertly, they want/need to be in the news. After 10+ years, they can probably predict how the public will react to each press release. It's almost as if they provoke and taunt 'the enemy'. They want to know what people think of them - they have been through 'the worst' many, many times. As well as putting out information, they need to gather it - they need to know what other people know.

      The above isn't an invitation to abuse the parents btw, it's just a description of the situation as I see it. The McCanns are caught in a continual news cycle, because they have been able to control the press and public opinion in the past, they think they can do it again.

      Unfortunately for them, in attacking Freedom of Speech, they have taken up the most unpopular, backward, cause out there. Few, if any, would have backed them all the way to ECHR.

      Your demands for a one sided narrative in the case of missing Madeleine 22:07, deprives Goncalo Amaral of his right to defend himself and the public the right to form an opinion on ALL the facts.

      And btw 22:07, your claim that this is a Hate the McCanns blog, sounds as juvenile now as it did 10 years ago. This isn't about hatred of Gerry and Kate personally, that would be absurd, we don't know them. It is about protesting an injustice and the cruel means Team McCann use to protect their unbelievable abduction story. They have never flinched at hurting people, that both intrigues and disturbs me.

    13. Who exactly make up this much talked about 'Team McCann' ? How many are in it ? It seems that every time you or others want to discredit or accuse the actual parents you use that phrase. The McCanns can't suppress the news output. It's big business. But we get told they suppress evidence, police, politicians and media.How do they do that exactly ? Does it matter if they threaten legal action ? If they don't have a leg to stand on, the threats can be ignored.And isn't Amaral's book available to everyone anyway ? As for the 'battle of the books' it doesn't matter. If each give one side of a story or talk about opposing views it's expected.What isn't expected is for either to ever be considered evidential. Amaral didn't arrest anyone.Maybe he was told not to.His fellow officers haven't either so maybe they were told too.But it couldn't have been the McCanns who told them not to could it. The public chose to make the McCanns an enemy, not the other way around.They fought back and fight back.Is that outrageous ? You're imagining that they need to know what others know. How do you know ? If the McCanns are so capable of 'controlling public opinion' as you never cease from saying, how come so much of it is hatred aimed at themselves ? If the abduction story is so unbelievable then someone somewhere in a police uniform should have exposed it. Amaral is only saying he thinks they are fully aware that their child is dead and that they stored her and moved her about. They're big statements.They're also incredibly damning if you can't back them up. He wasn't allowed the time to, I know.But plenty of his former colleagues have had time.What are they doing -writing books ? The media hold far more sway than the McCanns and they don't serve the McCanns. If anything, they've put just enough in and left just enough out to arouse mass suspicion of the parents.That's due to the PR man Mitchell who was slotted into place PDQ by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.They had sway, as well as close personal friends who control all areas of the media.You'e right when you say we don't know the McCanns.We only know about what happened ( child vanished) in Portugal.Is it logical to type endless character examinations of strangers from that ?

    14. Team McCann is their own soundbite 00:43. It came out in the summer of 2007 when the very proactive family seemed to have their own news channel on Sky. I think Kate blames their first spokeswoman Justine McGuinness, for it in her book. I think initially it was all the family and friends who flew out to help them in PDL, but expanded to include all their lawyers, PR people, media monitors and onside politicians and journalists.

      An example of their suppressing evidence would be 'Smithman'. Those of us who have read the files and Goncalo Amaral's book have known about him for years, but DCI Redwood introduced him on Crimewatch as a new revelation.

      As for the battle of the books, there is no battle if only one is allowed to be published and distributed. On losing their case in Lisbon, the first thing the McCanns did, was threaten legal action against anyone who tries to publish in the UK.

      For a long while, the McCanns were able to influence public opinion. Their tragic story touched millions the world over, and they responded very generously. Having the public onside made them untouchable, as Kate pointed out, if they were arrested, there would have been rioting in the streets.

      Now, they control the press insofar as most editors simply can't arsed with the legal wrangles of reporting negative stories about the notoriously litigious McCanns. The world has moved on, and unless it's a 'bombshell', why bother?

      There is no 'if' about it. The abduction story is unbelievable - not because people hate Kate and Gerry, but because the story is illogical and full of holes.

      The 'why haven't they been arrested' argument is not proof of innocence. Getting a case to prosecution takes a lot longer than the one hour allotted to fictional crime on the telly. Why weren't Jonbenet Ramsey's parents arrested? How about the Aisenbergs?, the Irwins?

      We all know the media have had their hands tied in the reporting of this case. The majority of the headline skimming public are unaware of 'the other side' of the story, or worse, they believe the Portuguese detective who led the investigation has been 'disgraced' and that the original investigation was botched. None of this is true, but it has somehow become established as fact in the nation's psyche.

    15. continues...

      Examining BOTH sides of a story is not hatred 00:43, not only is it the logical thing to do, but it is the right thing to do. Both sides are presenting their cases to us, Kate's book is one account, Goncalo's is another.

      Now I'm no Solomon, but in the court of moral justice, both sides should be allowed a fair hearing. One side cannot demand the other's case should not be heard because it hurts their feelings.

      In this case, Gerry and Kate have been firing bullets at Goncalo Amaral for 10+ years, he lost his job, his family, his home, his reputation. And they were ably assisted by the Establishment and mealy mouthed journalists like Carol Malone and Lorraine Kelly.

      The only defence Goncalo Amaral had was to tell his side of the story, but they took away that right as well. Happily, they can't sue everyone, nor can they shut the borders to news.

      If there is any hatred towards the McCanns, then it arises, I am sure, from their bullying of the detective who searched for their daughter. His plight has touched thousands, as seen by the generous response to the appeal for legal funds. There is something inherently wrong with former suspects being rewarded with all the worldly goods of the detective who investigated them.

      The victims became the bullies, perhaps that's when the public mood shifted?

    16. @Anonymous at 00:43

      "Who exactly make up this much talked about 'Team McCann' ?"

      Kate McCann (‘madeleine’):

      "Sheree [Dodd] had thought ‘Team McCann’ was quite punchy and suggested a united, determined and resourceful group, which is what we were."


      "Who's who in Team McCann"

  7. I live in cloud cuckoo land and I'm dense. Fair enough. Shall we ignore the five paragraphs you just served up regarding situations that haven't happened yet except in your imagination of things to come.You're really pulling out all the stops to create suspicion about whatever.

  8. Who is Hillary?

  9. Apologies 22:31,Hillary Clinton, I was using her description of Trump voters - deplorables.

  10. We are not team McCann and we are working towards seeing all group's closed.This trolling will come to an end.

    Antis don't have the right to say vile thing's online about the family . And the Pros don't have the right to attack and abuse on the behalf of a family their have never met.

    The Mccanns are the least of you're worries!

    We are the light maker's & the soul shakers. ....

    So take note! ..... we see all!

    1. @Unknown at 10:20
      ("The Mccanns are the least of you're worries!")

      Don't let your worries get the best of you. Trolling will solve itself.

    2. Do you have any idea how dictatorial 'working towards seeing all group's (sic) closed'? And just how are you going to persuade the Masters of the Universe, Google, Twitter, Facebook etc, to ban discussion groups? What you are seeking is a direct challenge to Freedom of Speech.

      Your attempts to erase history I'm afraid, is a sign of your megalomania. Gerry and Kate McCann CHOSE to remain in the media spotlight, they regularly issue press releases. Press releases are intended to spark discussion - except of course in places like North Korea, where they must be accepted without question.

      No-one wants that in the UK - or on the world wide web. Jim Gamble has been up against the Masters of the Universe before, they didn't want his State interference in Social media then, and they won't want it now.

      As for your personal threat to me, what can you do, that you haven't already done? As a writer I am already ostracised by the MSM, and normal people dare not say they agree with me or support my blog. On Amazon, they have torn my books apart with negative criticism. I know my blog is very well read, but I never get retweets.

      I dread to think what your threat is, if the McCanns are the least of my worries. What fiendish plan you have afoot. I don't have any dark skeletons hiding in closets, my driving force my entire life has been reading and the gentle art of writing with honesty and integrity. There are no incitements to hate among the many thousands of words I have written. I can state that confidently because it simply isn't within my nature. In actual fact, I usually take the side of the victim, the underdog, I cannot abhor bullying. And for clarity, in McCanns .v. Amaral, Amaral was the David being stamped on by Goliath.

      As for your final line - I know you see all! That's why I put 'all' up here to see, lol. I don't sneak around corners, whispering and plotting, as if, lol. It's because I don't hold back, that I have a large audience!

      Whatever you do try to pin on me, I'd avoid the old 'maker of stuff movies' accusations, you would be laughed out of court.

    3. The all seeing 'Unknown' there, is sounding quite ominous with his/her threats. My first thoughts were Professor Synnott and his team at Huddersfield University, who spend their days counting the number of tweets on the McCann hashtag. They are the only independent (non Team McCann) group studying the trolling of Gerry and Kate. I expect they drop in here when they get bored. The 'we' is either them or some sort of criminal gang.

    4. Are you saying Mr Smith changed his mind about what he thinks he saw due to the pressure from the McCanns then when you talk about suppression ?They have no power of him, they can't have.They're not mafia figures. It looked like Redwood didn't introduce him but rather he reinvented him.Is that down to the McCanns too ? They're Redwood's bosses ?

      The tragedy of what happened to the child influenced public opinion, not the parents. It's only human for the public to feel sympathy. On the books, it was natural and still is for anyone to threaten to sue someone if they think that they are being slandered isn't it ? I would, wouldn't you ? You can ignore idiots who lie about you, but surely there's a line. There wouldn't have been rioting in the streets if they'd been arrested.Kate may have thought that but she would have been wrong. There was no rioting when Philpott tried to burn down his house with his kids inside and then pretended to weep on TV. The public aren't as shockable as they used to be. Threatening to sue people if you think they're implying or accusing you of hiding your child's body doesn't make you 'notoriously litigous'.

      If there is 'no doubt' that the abduction story is full of holes then something would have happened. Amaral didn't believe it. That's not the same. Are there no holes in his ideas ?

      It might not take a TV episode length of time to arrest the parents or whoever but it shouldn't take ten years either. I don't know about the Irwins or the Aisenbergs, i haven't read about them.I know about the Ramsey case.That was cocked up by the first responders and covered up, allegedly, by a local DA.I watched some stupid documentary that was 'sure' the brother was responsible.It's no wonder nobody's been arrested in that one.

      The only people who can tie the hands of the media are the Government, not the public and definitely not someone who is suspected of commiting a crime they want to report on.So, if their hands are tied, you have to consider why.Blaming everything on the parents is too easy.Even if you insist they hid their child's body it's naive to think they then were able to control an investigation, decide that evidence wasn't strong enough to use against them, control politicians and control the mass media.

      Is there evidence that Amaral lost his home and his family due solely to the McCanns ? Isn't it down to his employers that he lost his job and reputation ? The McCanns couldn't demand that he was fired.Or, if they did, then Amaral's bosses have some explaining to do.If the Establishment had a hand in it then why did they ? The public mood shifted online due to thousands of armchair detectives holding Kangaroo Courts.It's their influence mainly.They have simplified explanations for everything but little in the way of explaining in logical terms why so many people covered up on behalf of the parents when it would have been quicker and cheaper to just arrest them

    5. @ Unknown27 August 2017 at 10:20

      ''We are the light maker's & the soul shakers. ....
      So take note! ..... we see all!''

      We are antis.We are legion.We don't get out much.

    6. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton27 August 2017 at 11:24

      ''Do you have any idea how dictatorial 'working towards seeing all group's (sic) closed'?''

      I think the post you replied to there was being a bit playful and you took the bait.

      The Freedom Of Speech thing is a double edged sword. It should be our right in a democracy and it is for the most part ( for now).But as beneficial as that may it also allows complete twats to abuse it. I'm all for speaking my mind and other people speaking theirs. But you have to put the blocks on it at some point. Yes it's censoring and censoring is wrong etc etc . But if it means that someone can say whatever they like about someone just because they can , it's wrong. It allows anyone to create rumours and lies or stories they made up with the intention of causing pain to th target of their anger and to deepen that grief by spdreading it far and wide.Let's be honest, the internet has given carte blanche to all manner of moron. Can we still call it slander if it isn't vocalised or libel if it isn't in a publication ?I think so. If victims are created by the anger or vengefulness of someone with a grudge and all courts decide that it's just 'free speech' then it's a slippery slope. There have been hundreds, if not thousands' of instances that have led to offline violence and worse because of what started online. If people want total free speech they should recognise simple things such as lies and unsubstantiated accusations are wrong. Otherwise we might as well remove defamation of character, libel and slander from the legal books -which leads even faster to a dictatorship.

      The rest of your reply about personal threats i think was you taking the baited hook unfortunately.You were reeled in. That's the beauty of internet playfulness and free speech.It's another argument for putting in guidelines for it's use unfortunately.You may have just inadvertently shot yourself in the foot.

    7. 18.45 27 Aug

      So you see threats as playful taunts.
      I asked earlier was 'Unknown' the new disrupter in chief, the answer becomes clearer.
      In the last week Unknown comments include Ros is insignificant and a nobody
      Ros posts rubbish about herself
      What a cesspit Ros is running here
      Ros its not normal because you have lied
      and I believe in the abduction and it was before Thursday pm (no evidence offered) are just a few of their utterings

      Your idea of internet playfulness is truly bizarre.

      Ros you think it may be Huddersfield Uni but with the level of poor spelling I'd go for a CEOP influence lol

    8. You are not all for Freedom of Speech if you want to bring in rules and regulations 18:45. You could just as easily be called a twat in Sainsburys, ergo, should all shoppers with short tempers be barred?

      You can't curtail freedom of speech by increments, let's just clamp down on internet trolls, get them in the dock. How do you define troll? Who get's to judge? Laws aren't aren't made for individuals or individual families - they apply to everyone.

      What you actually want is a specific law to protect the parents of Madeleine. However, any Law created, would have to include all those in the public eye who have children. Be they criminals or celebrities, the public would not be allowed to talk about in a negative way for fear of upsetting their kids.

      You can ask people not to be abusive 18:45, and most people respect that. I have never, for example, had to use strong arm tactics here to keep control. I don't have a list of subjects, posters aren't allowed to mention.

      You want to legislate against human behaviour 18:45, and you seem blind to the fact that it hasn't worked throughout history, yet you think with a few modifications, it's a goer?

      I've said this before, but I will say it again. The only power the McCanns have over what is said about them online, is the way in which the react to it. If Huddersfield really wanted to study troll behaviour, they should focus on that very small minority of misfits, hiding behind their screens, and probably afraid of their own shadows.

      Why are they so concerned about what's said about them online? Again, their priorities are skew-whiff. The Scotland Yard search for their daughter is due to come to an end with no sign of a result, trolls surely, should be the least of their worries.

    9. The usual retort of someone caught bullying or making a threat JJ - it was only a joke. Tigerloaf I think is having a bit time of time off, my guess is BB1 or that deranged creature who went from being a lunatic anti to a lunatic pro, who's name I can't remember. Bren something maybe?

      Lol, at CEOP, yes a thought that occurred to me too. Are they Team McCann? I think many would say yes. Huddersfield Uni, might well be using a bit of subterfuge here, dumbing down for me and my readers (blooming cheek) and giving certain discussions a nudge in the right direction.

      Funny either way. ;)

    10. Anon 27 Aug 18.45

      "I think the post you replied to there was being a bit playful and you took the bait."

      I don't believe for one minute that the post was being a bit playful, someone over stepped the mark and made it very well clear what the McCanns, their shills and the people who monitor the internet on their behalf are all about.

      Your post no doubt is trying to pretend it was just a bit of harmless fun and is in fact backtracking because it was realised after you pressed the "send" button that it would open a can of worms for the McCanns and would see them in a terrible light what with them trying to close down free speech, trying to get Amaral's book stopped from appearing in book stores in the UK, GM being the spokesperson of "Hacked Off", GM stating before Brenda Leyland's death that all trolls should be made to account for their actions.

      The McCanns are up to their arm pits in trying to stop free speech with regard to any criticism of themselves, the post you've just tried to make believe was a "bit of fun" is just par for the course with the McCanns.

    11. Yes, you are no doubt completely correct. After all, the McCanns command the PJ, SY, politicians, forensics labs, MI5, and the media. It stands to reason that they are now in command of Twitter and other platforms. It's all so clear now.

    12. @Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton28 August 2017 at 15:31

      ''What you actually want is a specific law to protect the parents of Madeleine.''

      Obsess much ? Freedom of expression reaches far beyond the McCanns and the internet, it's been around for years. It takes a short time to teach a four year old the difference between right and wrong so it should be a given that adults know it too . When it's suggested that idiots think before they rant or accuse you have a knee jerk reaction of anger as you only think about the McCanns and the fear of people being unable to get stuck into them with whatever they want. It would still be possible to say what you think or how you feel if rules were curtailed, you'd just have to do it in a less angry or juvenile way.

      ''You want to legislate against human behaviour''

      Speech isn't behaviour and laws exist to keep behaviour reasonable and lawful already.

      ''Why are they so concerned about what's said about them online?''

      Because it's abusive I suppose and they've had to endure morons threatening them as a family based on their suspicions. They have two other children remember.

      Nobody needs any fancy 'paper' from a University or some academic to recognise where a line has to be drawn for those people are not quite normal.

    13. Anon 19.01

      Yes, they do all of that and have done for 10 years, everyone is terrified of them including the British establishment, and the MSM, they've been bowing down to the McCanns for 10 years now but the tide is turning, much to the McCanns' disgust and they've lost control of everything. You can tell by the comments now allowed on newspaper websites whereas they were blocked a year or two ago, nobody dare say anything against the McCanns in fear of being sued.

      The SY have actually opened their eyes after chasing a fictitious "abductor" for God knows how many years, believing that the McCanns were above reproach and they couldn't upset them by asking any leading questions as to how Madeleine actually disappeared. Who knows what's happened since but probably the Portuguese Court saying that the McCanns haven't been cleared of anything due to them not taking part in a reconstruction or KM not answering the 48 questions. After all, why would an innocent mother of a missing child not answer all questions to help the PJ, unless of course there is something that she does not want to admit to in those 48 questions.

      Not forgetting the forensics lab, the one that didn't Gordon Brown visit, who conveniently destroyed all the forensics the PJ had sent to them, Amaral later stating that that they were naive in sending them to the Birmingham lab, but did so as to not show any form of bias.

      He later stated that he regrets doing that.

    14. ''everyone is terrified of them including the British establishment,''

      Seriously ? The British Establishment are 'terrified' of the McCanns ? Why ?

      ''After all, why would an innocent mother of a missing child not answer all questions to help the PJ''

      Solicitor's instructions maybe ? A more relevant question would be why the 48 questions didn't explore the likelihood of suspicious people hanging around and asked things concerned with Madeleine's relationship with her brother and sister and Kate's dreams .

  11. @ Anonymous 15:40 "The public mood shifted online due to thousands of armchair detectives holding Kangaroo Courts..."

    Shouldn't that read: "The public mood shifted online due to thousands of researchers publicising the dogs' 17 alerts to blood and cadaver over, the many changes of story and flat contradictions in the Tapas 9's evidence, the obvious clues about the McCanns' body language and self-incriminatory statements, and the series of dodgy and criminal 'detectives' they employed on what has come clear was a bogus search for Madeleine?

    The numbers of people worldwide who have been educated about what really happened to Madeleine must surely be counted in millions by now?

    1. No, it shouldn't read that.

      Who are the 'thousands of researchers' ? If you mean members of the public reading about the case, that makes them interested members of the public, not 'researchers'. So they didn't posess any findings to publish. The findings were in a labarotary in Birmingham and were published for the purposes of the investigation and given to the actual detectives investigating the case. Do changing or contradictory statements from members of the Tapas group mean anything ? If they do, as you seem to be implying, then you're saying that they were willing accomplices to the crime of concealing the body of a child.All of them ? Why would they do that and risk going to prison and losing good careers when they hadn't taken part in the initial crime anyway ? Why would they throw massive amounts of funds at detectives( who you alos have decided were dodgy, therefore it was just a sham) ? How do you think the detectives of Portugal and the UK managed to miss those obvious signs of guilt in body language and 'self - incriminating' statements ? They've had ten years to look at youtube after all .

      The millions of people have been told what happened in PDL and how various investigations have gone since.They haven't been 'educated in what really happened' . If that statement was true it means that millions of people know what happened to Madeleine McCann but are too shy to tell us exactly what it was and where she went.And, by comparison, a tiny amount of people haven't had that education, namely, the police forces of two different countries.Millions of people may be suspicious and may be sure they have answers. They've been wrong before.


    "The official Find Madeleine McCann Facebook page has been criticised over controversial rules that appear to shut down the right to free speech.

    Members of the public have also accused the McCann Facebook page of misleadingly proclaiming it is an official charity, instead of being correctly categorised as a limited liability company.

    British girl Madeleine is still missing after mysteriously vanishing from her family's holiday apartment in Portugal more than ten years ago, in May 2007.

    Those people who ask questions or "analyse the investigation" on the Find Madeleine Facebook page, operated by a family friend, will be banned, according to a post titled 'Rules of the Road'.

    Facebook users will also be immediately ejected from the group if they attempt to debate parenting decisions about when it is appropriate to use babysitting services.


    Last week, after sustained pressure, the Find Madeleine Facebook page quietly changed its official status from a "charity" to "community".

    A key difference between a charity and limited liability company is the level of detail it is required by law to publically divulge each year.

    Since its inception in 2007, the official fund, Leave No Stone Unturned Ltd, has only ever published the bare minimum of detail over how it has spent the millions of dollars donated by the public.

    The Find Madeleine website claims because the organisation is currently focused on searching for one child only, Madeleine McCann, it cannot register as a charity."

  13. why is bennett posting as Ray_Sneek?

  14. The current Portuguese investigation know Amaral cocked up and made a wrong call.

    1. Anon 11.14

      And what makes you state that or is it wishful thinking. Amaral seems to be the bee in the bonnet of the McCanns and their shills, I don't think any of the PJ were wrong about the blood splatters in the McCanns apartment (going by the photos and forensics report) or the stench of cadaver odour sniffed out by the cadaver dog.

      That is something the McCanns can't get past, hence their hatred of the PJ and particularly Amaral for finding things the McCanns would hope would never be found out and for doing a thorough job.

      The McCanns have ridiculed them for 10 years and turned the public and MSM against them from very early on, even the saintly Kate McCann called the police "f**king to**ers", I doubt it was because they were doing a bad job but because they were doing their job too well, and KM didn't like that at all, she didn't want to be questioned or contradicted in what she was saying. They only way she could turn a bad situation around away from herself was to insult the PJ.

      Perhaps you could elaborate on why Amaral cocked up and made a "wrong call", we would all be very interested in what you have to say.

    2. @ Anonymous28 August 2017 at 16:05

      The forensics lab in Birmingham were wrong about the findings and the police were right then. Is that what you're trying to sell ? Does that 'fit' better ? Maybe the 'hatred' of the McCanns which you're also trying to sell is more to do with the refusal of Amaral and the many pro Amaral shills flooding the internet to accept this fact.That's what it is by the way, a fact. If Amaral made the right call the case would have been closed years ago.

    3. Amaral made the right call but he was taken off the case before he could even finish his findings. Perhaps he got too near the truth, who knows, but it may come to light one day. It may have been Gordon Brown who had him taken off the case due to his interference and his connections to GM and GM's dealings with nuclear power stations and their affect on child cancers.

      Hopefully the truth will be known one day and a poor little girl who has been forgotten and abandoned by the PTB should see someone made responsible for her death/disappearance.

    4. If he didn't complete his investigation nobody knows if it was the right call. They took him off it, not the whole force. I don't doubt that Brown had a big part in stifling the investigation, which is surprising as he wasn't a Home or Foreign Secretary at the time, or PM . I don't think nuclear power stations or cancer had anything to do with it. This was just an abduction case officially. Unofficially the child was dead according to Amaral's various works in progress.

      Nobody will be put on trial for this . You don't stifle an investigation for over ten years unless there's a pretty big and nasty can of worms attached to it . The McCanns are middle class and successful career people. There's thousands of them all over the place, they're not powerful.

    5. Anon 20.16

      "Nobody will be put on trial for this . You don't stifle an investigation for over ten years unless there's a pretty big and nasty can of worms attached to it"

      I've found this website that goes into great detail with regard to Gerry McCann's connection with Gordon Brown and his brother, Bell Pottinger and COMARE, the Government quango that was looking into the effects of radiation on children.

      (Ros, please delete this post if not appropriate)

    6. GM was on a QUANGO that researched radiation and it's effects on childen. He's a cardiologist so it seems reasonable enough that someone of that profession would have some useful observations to make . Anything nuclear / radiation is usually important to Governments in areas of energy and money. A thorny issue like that has always needed careful management ( bell pottinger ?). We only have to look back to when mobile phones were taking over people lives to recall all the trouble around England from neighbourhoods objecting to having masts nstalled nearby. Gordon Brown was no doubt interested in the whole area (through his brothers connection to EDF) as he knew he would be PM sson, depsite the so-called ballot to choose between four MPs . Out of all of this, what links those relationships and research to Madeleine's disappearnace and alleged cover up of where her body was dumped ? I get the feeling you're implying GM was calling in favours( or blackmailing).That he knew of 'sensitive' areas that aren't supposed to go public . Am i right ?

      I think areas such as the Lisbon Treaty, the EU votes, the imprisonment of Portugal's former PM and the investigations that were underway in the background in 2007 into a number of big name (UK)politicians and their 'proclivities'.That's where the real leverage would be.

  15. "Anonymous26 August 2017 at 18:25

    Ros, 00.11 is obviously an idiot. How can anybody reasonably hate someone they have never met FGS. You might as well say you hate the tooth fairy.


    I hate paedophiles, rapists and murderers yet I have not knowingly met any.

  16. Anonymous28 August 2017 at 19:04
    @ Anonymous28 August 2017 at 16:05

    The forensics lab in Birmingham were wrong about the findings and the police were right then. Is that what you're trying to sell ? Does that 'fit' better ? Maybe the 'hatred' of the McCanns which you're also trying to sell is more to do with the refusal of Amaral and the many pro Amaral shills flooding the internet to accept this fact.That's what it is by the way, a fact. If Amaral made the right call the case would have been closed years ago.

    Remember the Sky report stating the DNA was a 100% match later this statement was backtracked , then some FSL mouth piece came on tv and started blagging about it could be any one of our DNA etc , I believe there is a new test for DNA that can detect very low copy DNA it was used in a recent case

  17. '' I believe there is a new test for DNA that can detect very low copy DNA it was used in a recent case ''

    Well, if the PJ and OG believe it too we're laughing aren't we. Unless of course it further supports the current position of it not being significant enough.

    If you want to believe Sky news or their shills, fair enough. They're not forensics experts, the just talk crap for a living. That says it all . Rupert Murdoch may think his old network are running things and, to a degree, he's right. But for the science I'll listen to Sir Alec Jeffreys for now. He wasn't knighted for nothing. And he offered to support a defence of the parents in this.

    1. Anonymous 28 August 2017 at 22:16

      “And he [Sir Alec Jeffreys] offered to support a defence of the parents in this.”

      Perhaps not quite:

      The inventor of DNA fingerprinting has offered to act as an expert witness in the Madeleine McCann case.

      “In an exclusive interview with the BBC's Newsnight programme, Sir Alec said there could be a potential problem in assigning a profile to Madeleine given that all other members of her family would have been in the car.

      "DNA testing seeks to establish whether DNA sample A from a crime scene, came or did not come from individual B," he said.

      “So if you get a match there's very strong evidence that it did come from B.

      "It is then up to investigators, the courts and all the rest of it to work out whether that connection is relevant or not.

      "DNA doesn't have the words innocence or guilt in it - that is a legal concept. What it seeks to establish is connections and identifications."“



      Still a hell of a lot more professional than Amaral's argument . Who has the best credentials to comment on DNA, a suspicious cop who has no corroborating evidence and was removed from the case or the man who pioneered the technique and revolutionised crime detection ?

    3. 14:36. How likely do you think it is that Goncalo Amaral will be called as the forensics expert for the prosecution?

    4. @ Ros 17:49

      Amaral would not "be called as the forensics expert for the prosecution?".

      He is not an expert in forensics.

      If the Mccanns are taken to court Amaral would not appear as a witness at all - he was co-ordinator and not an investigator. I am sure the Portuguese authorities would want to keep him as far away from court as possible,

    5. @ Ros 20:13

      So you agree with 14:36 "a suspicious cop who has no corroborating evidence and was removed from the case"

      It is an accurate description of amaral.

      Sir Alec is an expert in DNA forensics.

  18. I agree that free speech should never be under any threat. However, that's also the reason that your site is the only "anti" McCann site that I ever bother to read. You see, I don't agree that the McCanns had anything to do with the disappearance of Madeleine, but I don't feel that I will be abused by you for saying so. You permit all opinions on your site, and I think that is what truly represents free speech. I am interested in your opinions and enjoy the way they are presented. That doesn't mean I have to agree with them; they present me with challenging thoughts that I then have to analyse in the context of my own beliefs about this situation. That's the way arguments work in the university system: One academic has one view and another has another view. However, they don't hurl abuse at the person with the opposing view. They stick to the argument and use the opposing view as further information to present and give thought to their own view. I respect your right to believe that the McCanns had something to do with the disappearance of Madeleine. It's your point of view, and after all, it's your blog. So, you can write what you please. However, I don't think you are nasty in the way that you present your opinions, and that's the difference between you and some of the others that are "anti" McCann.

    1. Nice use of 'anti' rather than 'hate'. Unfortunately it isn't accurate. Haven't you read much of the blog ? You either fall in line with the blogs real agenda or her and her little minions shout and scream. They don't present anything clever as an argument though.

    2. @Anonymous at 03:00

      Well said.

      I believe Kate and Gerry McCann are, directly or indirectly, responsible for Madeleine’s death. The McCanns did not kill her but they concealed the body. However, I don’t believe they are involved in her complete disappearance.

    3. Many thanks for your very thoughtful post 03:00, your words really do mean a lot to me. I have to assure you I had a real crisis of conscience in reaching the conclusions I did. I examined the case very carefully from a 'pro' perspective. In fact in those early days, I probably gave them much fodder.

      It isn't nice to think badly of someone, and it's something I am always very hesitant to do, I always look for reasons and excuses for them. Probably why I spent 20+ years as a doormat.

      I'm glad that you feel comfortable in posting here - that's the ambience I was going for! I agree, trying to understand the other person's side, is the only way you can have civil and cordial, debate, and of course debate is a learning experience, that's why I like to have interaction with my readers.

      Admitting when I am wrong has never been a problem for me. it's usually followed by a 'well I never'. Life is a learning process, if we are lucky, we will learn something new every day. Given the choice, I would prefer to be wrong about Madeleine's disappearance. I want to find something that would convince me once and for all that the parents weren't involved.

      I feel as though I am having those same religious arguments I would have in my head as a child. I need something tangible before I can believe.

      But in any event thank you very much for your comments 03:00. I'm not sure what I wanted this blog to turn into, but it has kind of turned out how I would have liked, had I made a plan!
      I'm a very reluctant rule maker or enforcer, usually appealing to a poster's better nature (if they have one)does the trick. I have always thought it possible for both sides to come to the table 03:00.

      Whatever the outcome, I hope common sense and compassion prevails, real people are involved and I think some lose track of that, especially on the forums. In their own heads, at least, they have dehumanised them, and that's where it becomes scarey.

    4. I agree with you Anonymous 3:00 I can not understand why people can not respect other opinions, personally the cadaver dog sealed my opinion but I like to read all points of view as sometimes someone will write something that really makes me think.

      I do believe that if he Portuguese police had been left alone to get on with the job the case would have been resolved a long time ago and the public would have forgotten about it by now.

      From the video footage and photos I only see a happy and loved little girl and proud parents, I don't like the makeup photo but that is my opinion and I don't want to speculate.

  19. Here you go Ros:

    27 August at 05:03 ·

    If anyone has any screenshots old or new of abuse they have received via Team McCann please send via message on this page and admin will post for you starting from Tuesday. Many thanks."

    Your opportunity to share the abuse you received from "team Mccann"

  20. Ross, you posted earlier, "I find it morally abhorrent that Gerry and Kate have been able to control the flow of news with constant threats of legal action. And it is morally abhorrent that they are able to prevent the UK citizens from buying and reading GA's book in English."
    Well, the reason that publishers will not publish Amaral's book in the UK is because libel laws in the UK are much more protective of the subject of the written material. In the UK, proof would be required by any court to back up Amaral's claims and, because there is no such proof, whoever published his book would be likely to be sued for a considerable amount of money. The Portuguese libel laws are much softer and focus more on the individual's freedom to write what they want about a subject than the subject's rights to privacy or the requirement to back up allegations with actual proof. In other words, if I wanted to write a book that alleged that the Queen of England had arranged for the contract killing of a love child produced from a one night stand with Saddam Hussein, then I'd be wise to publish that book in Portugal rather than in the UK.
    Consequently, if you want to make money out of publishing defamatory material that doesn't have to be proven, then you choose a country with soft libel laws to do it in.

    1. Hear hear. One day Portugal too will join the 21st century. I hope they bring that nutty judge who wants libel laws removed from the statutes with them. I don't know what's worse, they're legal system or their policing.