Monday 11 December 2017

WHAT'S TO FEAR ON THE INTERNET


One of the joys of owning a blog and being single is that I can argue with stubborn, obstinate old men without having to sleep with them, or put poison in their coffee.  Some men, when they get to a certain age, become so set in their ways, they should be hammered into the ground, quite literally.  And it irks the hell out of me as a woman, when a man automatically positions himself as older and wiser.  Truth be told, in most cases I'm wiser, and if I'm not I acknowledge it.  And in the case of you, ZT/Ziggy, that will never happen. 
 
In response to your latest, patronizing, demeaning attempt to make me look ill informed and lacking in education, here are a few home truths.
 
Yes, it's my thing now, Trump is the benchmark for everything evil and everything tacky. Well spotted. Trevor Noah? Yes indeed I am a fan, he's  a genius who didn't go to Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard or Yale. I have my own criteria for measuring genius VT, and top of my list are comedians, political ones especially who can take in and sum up an entire situation in one funny line. 
 
I'm sure I will enjoy movies all the more now I have your approval VT, my film posters and stars can remain on my walls :)  Funnily enough, I told a good friend the other day, I would bequeath her my large portrait of Charlie Chaplin, but I'm not sure she was happy about it.  I think she has her eye on my china tea set.
 
Movies are educational! How many millions have learned about art, history, literature, music, the lives of their ancestors, famous characters from history, famous incidents from history, the list goes on and on.  I knew all about Oliver Cromwell at 13, because my Dad took us to see it in the West End.  Is it likely any of us would have picked up as many books as films we have watched? Or how many books we go on to read after watching a film.  You will argue that films are not historically accurate, but I would argue they are another interpretation, just as two artists could paint the same landscape, and you would have entirely different pictures.  
 
We watch a movie, we buy the book, we may take it further.  I may have mentioned I have a deep and passionate interest in the French Revolution, I have even written a couple of screen plays that I really should submit to someone.  Studying it in greater depth is a treat I am saving for my twilight years, when I hope to do another degree. I always say my interest began with 'It was the best of times and it was the worst of times', Dickens 'Tale of Two Cities', but to be honest it was 'Carry On Don't Lose Your Head'.
 
How many kids learned about the Roman Empire while watching 'Carry On Cleo'? OK, for some kids that's ALL they will ever know about the Roman Empire, but at least it's something.  You cite The Alamo and Schindler's List - in what way were they distorted to benefit someone?  Who was benefitting from the propaganda? Was Schindler's List a lie? Or was it a way to tell generation after generation about the Holocaust? Something the world should never forget.   How many people would have known about Schindler or even The Alamo, if it hadn't been for those movies? 
 
You have an elite attitude to popular culture that is ridiculous VT.  You cite times past as better times, as though we should be looking backwards instead of forwards.  Your fear of the internet, is no different to the fear of books, art or music.  As if someone might write, paint or sing something that will sent the world into meltdown.  As though people need to be protected from themselves. 
 
Living in fear is a life choice ZT, you can lay in bed at night worrying about some anonymous troll or shill, or you can switch off by reading a book or watching a movie, like the rest of us.  You choose to worry about weirdos on the internet.  That's weird in itself.   You seem to think we are being brainwashed by some dark, sinister force - Mark Zuckerburg as a CIA Operative was a cracker. 
 
The internet is the best thing that has ever happened to Mankind.  For the first time in history we are all in contact with each other - all over the globe.  The citizens of one country can talk to citizens of another country in real time!  The internet is not a threat to multitudes, it's a threat to those who hold the power.  Crowds can assemble within moments, unpopular laws can be defeated by the masses.  The best example of the massive shift in the paradigm is the people's choice of Jeremy Corbyn as the Labour Party leader and his growing popularity throughout the country.   
 
I don't know what your real fears are ZT, you have written volumes but never actually said.  In the whole scheme of things, the internet is relatively new, will it evolve into Orwell's '1984'?  What cheers me is that those young internet geniuses who fight to preserve internet freedom are always ahead of the Authorities.   Whatever they design must be superior to the hackers.  Daily. 
 
Without knowing what your actual fear is VT, it is difficult to understand.  While each of our names are important to us, they are rarely of any interest to anyone else.  If someone says something nasty, so what? If it matters that much we can respond, or we can ignore it.  Sure as eggs is eggs, someone in the real world is saying something nasty about you right now.  That's life.  Being a somewhat flamboyant and some might say, eccentric, character in real life, I'm used to being talked about. 
But, as another of my Hollywood Icons (the divine Marilyn Monroe) would say, 'If I worry about other bitches, I'd be just like them, another worried bitch'. 
 
It really saddens me to see people such as yourself spreading this mythical fear about the internet.  The dangers, are hugely exaggerated, especially where grooming young people online is concerned.  Young people today are far more savvy than our generation, they have grown up with the internet, they know more than we ever will.  If they are going to be stalked or abducted, it is far more likely it will be by someone who knows them or an opportunist.  Not an impoverished gang of youths in an internet café in Azerbaijan.  To be honest, I am very uncomfortable with the whole idea of vigilantes' tracking paedophiles' down online.  I am certain there are far more practical and effective ways to protect the young and vulnerable, than cornering an old bloke in a car park with a crowd screaming and carrying baseball bats. 
 
 
Not being James Bond, I kind of accept the Dr. Evil threat as a possibility.  Though had it worked out for Blair, I would have marched until I had blisters, as I would if any of his henchmen were elevated to power again.  I accept in the sense, that I know, I personally can't stop it.  That will irk most activists, quite rightly, but don't get me started on the number of causes I feel I should be involved in.  It sets my conscience off.  There may or may not be a Dr. Evil plotting as we speak, but it's beyond my control.  I'm always on the lookout for a calming chant, a favourite for a while was 'Serenity Now' from Seinfeld which involved a lot of arm waving, these days I prefer the more tranquil 'beyond my control'.
 
More likely than Dr. Evil, is a slow erosion of the freedom of speech we presently have.  And we have that courtesy of those movers, shakers and music makers, who I refer to as the new Masters of the Universe, the owners of the social networks.  I am being castigated on my previous blog for calling Mark Zugerburg the antithesis of Donald Trump.  Gold Plated toilet seat.  I rest my case.
 
The danger lies in the slow erosion, the calls for policing of social media by the same people selling us scare stories.  These government approved scare stories usually come in on the back of a major tragedy. That is the bans, restrictions and legal enforcements are introduced virtually overnight if public feeling is strong enough.  
 
Apologies ZT for using you as an example of everything that drives me nuts about men of my own age.  It is not all personal.  But it does irk me that you keep you deliberately keep your eyes shut when it runs counter to your own set in stone beliefs.  You have no, zero, zilch, interest in learning, you think you have reached that point where you know everything, therefore opening another book is not necessary.  How do you learn anything if you are never wrong?
 
As for my Hollywood the Dream Factory, I learned rather more than the title line ZT, and by the way, doesn't every artist strive to create a dream? How many great works of art are dreams? how about the words of writers who take you into their world, and the songs that take you to an alternate state of mind?
 
You have a very closed mind ZT, and one I can only feel pity for, because you will never change.   I would give you a recommended reading list ZT, but you would discard it, as not worth  your time.  You are proud of rejecting things you won't even try to understand.  It baffes me but you are far from alone in your demographic. 
 
I don't feel in the least bit ashamed of my love of movies, because I take something from every film I see (not The Happening, for which I have still not forgiven Mark Wahlberg)*, the movies are an endless source of information and entertainment, I feel sad for you that you will never feel the magic.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
*Forgave MW after Ted :)
 
Apologies, it's very late and I have an awful cold, please forgive any errors or omissions. [Sheepish smiley]

126 comments:

  1. Hi Ros,

    If your sick and in bed with a cold may I recommend..."JFK to 9/11 Everything is a rich mans trick" on youtube....3.5hrs thats utterly fascinating if true.

    get better soon
    regards
    AFAN
    PS. Hot toddys always help!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds good AFAN, I will take a look. I'm at a def con 4 on the depressive front, stuck in Despicable Me and the Tudors, lol. I'm not sure if I'm mesmerized by the history in the Tudors or Jonathan Rhys-Myers, but it does the trick!

      JFK - now that's a big subject, hmmm.

      Delete
  2. Not sure its the best thing to watch if your feeling down....personally I find you cant beat a bit of "Frasier" to lift your spirits :-)

    Take care

    AFAN

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Totally with you there AFAN, I love Frasier! I can and do, watch it again and again, it always makes me giggle. On the writing front, it is right up there with Seinfeld, for me, US comedy, is more sophisticated and cutting edge. They have Stephen Colbert and Chelsea Handler, we have that McIntyre fella and Miranda!

      Delete
    2. Hi Rosalinda
      "US comedy, is more sophisticated and cutting edge", you claim.

      We don't agree in Sweden.
      As for our view on comedy and comedians in general, and I think I can speak for a majority of swedes, who for many decades have loved and appreciated most of what’s been made by British comedians and writer in that genre, while most swedes often find American humour to be ridiculously boring and predictable, if it isn’t, as in many cases, completely incomprehensible or just stupid.

      Seinfeld is, in my opinion, just an exception that confirms the rule. Many Swedes would certainly agree with me.

      Nevertheless, I really don’t want to offend any American commentator here, so let me just add, that Swedish comedy is even worse, and it doesn’t get better if we try to tell our jokes in English,or if try to export our stand-up-comedy by imitating the American accent. It would be interesting to hear what NL or others, with a non-British perspective, think.

      Delete
    3. Hello Björn

      Various views and divided opinion here, but in general we prefer the British sense of humour ("put poison in their coffee"? Rosalinda). I surely do, adding that I am anything but representative of watching television and movies. At the moment I only watch 'The IT Crowd', good acting and Richard Ayoade as Maurice Moss is brilliant, but my knowledge of films is next to nothing, so it’s interesting to read your views.

      Although American television and movies are popular here and the influence is undeniable, we also have a lot of satirical television on Americans and criticism of their politics. It’s a mix of admiration and contempt.

      Well, we can always turn our TV off, can’t we; it is still a matter of choice, fortunately. I for one let the music speak, "I will choose freewill" by Rush.

      Best wishes to you all, unambiguously

      NL

      Delete
    4. Humour is of course subjective Bjorn, I have a real distaste for what I call 'toilet' humour, jokes around bodily functions and parts of the body.

      Some 'blue' humour however, I do find hilarious, I'm a fan at the moment of comedic 'roasts', The Roast of Donald Trump especially, which was completely no holds barred. I love Seth McFarlane anyway for Family Guy and American Dad, he is able to be both crude and funny, he's a genius!

      Swedish humour I have not encountered, lol, because as you say, it may not travel well. Irish humour is probably my favourite, perhaps with Jewish running a close second. Though I hasten to add, I find Mrs Brown's Boys offensive rather than funny, and certainly not the cutting, mischievous Irish wit I am familiar with. Father Ted however, is spot on!

      I'm glad you are a fan of Seinfeld. He is my Guru, my first port of call in times of stress! Many years ago I bought the entire boxed set, not in one go, but one series a month until it was complete :) When I lost my dear Dad, I watched it over and over, it kept me sane(ish). Strangely enough I heard years later that Stephen Speilberg watched Seinfeld to help him through the trauma of making Schindler's List, so Jerry must have some curative properties!

      Delete
    5. Hi NL, actually 'poison in their coffee' was almost 'attack with a rusty rake', but I opted for the less blood thirsty! Whilst marriage can and does work for many, the 5 year old me still finds boys incredibly irritating. In the passionate relationships I have had, I have both loved and hated the object of my affection simultaneously. The longest relationship I ever had was with a man I wanted to murder on a daily basis.

      I think I would enjoy the Netherlands take on American culture NL, I am curious as to the European opinion on Trump and Brexit. Theresa May is hated here, and we've just had a great victory over her plans to conduct Brexit tory style.

      Always nice to hear different views NL, thank you.

      Delete
    6. @ NL 14 December 2017 at 09:17

      Hallå där NL

      Tråkigt nog så utsätts vi ständigt för amerikansk kulturpåverkan utan att vi är riktigt medvetna om det, men det är sällan som deras politiska satir når oss, och någon egen sådan har vi knappt.

      It seems to me, as if we're living in a remote place on the globe and just get all the bad things coming from the USA, but not their political satire or other forms of intelligent humour. Seinfeld and Family guy have reached us, but are exceptions as I've said to Rosalinda.
      Thanks for feed back and have nice weekend.

      Delete
    7. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton14 December 2017 at 12:59

      Hi Rosalinda

      Seinfeld and McFarlane’s Family guy, which you reminded me about, take humour beyond and above all our taboos, nothing is forbidden or sacred. Charlie Hebdo is yet another kind of expression of the same genre of humour, but just in another form. By the way, hasn’t Seinfeld and Family Guy been questioned by moralists in the U S?

      Anyway, British comedians have been more successful than any other nationalities, as far as the Swedish audience is concerned. John Cleese, Ricky Gervais, Al Pitcher (living in Sweden) and others, just to mention a few.

      Humour, as you say Rosalinda, is of course subjective, but when satire and irony help us see all the absurdities in life, which Seinfeld helped me to do, it’s healthy for society as a whole. The Seinfeld humour was then a comfort to me as well, in a similar way as it was to you, though I at that time felt bad about the social situation I had in my job. So that kind of humour is in a sense universal and probably appreciated and understood around the world, I suppose.

      We need humour in all its forms, especially that which makes fun of ridiculous people in power, it makes society go in a healthy direction. People in eastern Europe, before the wall was torn down, were good at it, though they were not allowed to perform on stage.

      Delete
    8. Hi Bjorn, I live not too far from London, but sometimes feel we too are in a backward place, especially compared to the USA! In my more snooty days I would have considered the US style of presenting news, trashy and lacking in substance, but now I'm hooked! And I love the glamour and gloss! I don't want to watch news presented by someone with bedhead hair, a gammy mouth and the remains of the previous night's mascara firmly imbedded in the eye bags. Although maybe, others might, in which case, I shall apply immediately.

      The US comedy hosts and news anchors get right down to the nitty gritty, discussing the salacious and juicy gossip in detail, leaving nothing out and throwing in a few innuendos. Their British counterparts by contrast, perhaps because of our ludicrous libel laws, tread carefully, much less forthright with the personal attacks. Two of our 'top' comedians, James Corden and John Oliver host late night shows in the US, which makes me wonder.

      British politicians and 'experts' present themselves as superior to their US cousins, by pretending they are not in the least bit interested in salacious gossip, because they have got far more important things to do. That's why Farage gets booked for every political show - he's a loose cannon and it's all about bums on seats. One thing I do agree with Trump - it's all about the ratings. You don't have to be a nice person to be a celebrity/politician now, you just need to be memorable.

      I follow interesting news stories these days on twitter and YouTube, their stand up comedians are on another level. So too their news anchors on CNN and MSMBC. I love the wide variety of experts they call on for commentary, not the continual cycle of Nigel Farage (why?), Toby Young and Isabel Oakeshott. The BBC especially, aims low and naturally, they always get there.

      I don't think there is any good news coming out of the US at the moment, this is probably lowest ebb in history, I suspect books and screenplays about the Trump regime are already in motion. Good title should be 'This must never happen again', perhaps I should patent it.

      Delete
  3. Hi Ros!
    Sorry you are poorly but here's some Christmas cheer over "Quichegate" - I think I will start a GoFundMe for you to have a weekend chez Nigella recording "How to make the perfect quiche".
    Meanwhile, have a medicinal crate of booze. That'll warm yer cockles!
    -
    SixYearsInaComaMan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ooh sounds good, Nigella is so unashamedly indulgent, she's adoreable!

      A medicinal crate of booze sounds good, but really dahlink, I have a very discerning palette (and stomach) where the fruit of the vine is concerned, a chilled chablis or a Beauolais Nouveau on the 16th would be divine!

      Delete
    2. Hiya Ros.
      Oh well. I'll have to drink the Hirondelle and Blue Nun meself, then. Or unblock the sink with them lol.
      Meanwhile, Nigella is preparing herself for your visit! I'll bring the skins, er, Rizlas, er, baccy tin. Ahem. Oo...I suddenly feel really hungry for some reason..;)
      -
      SixYearsInaComaMan

      Delete
  4. A warm hug might do the trick. Yes, dear, here you are ().

    T

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Aww, and very much appreciated T, I'm starting to feel better already :)

      Delete
  5. Hi Rosalida

    Interesting topic.
    If we fear the Internet we could just as well fear literature, film and theatre, in all their forms, as the Internet will offer new forms of expression for all kinds of of arts.

    I quote here what the Nobel laureate Kazuo Ishiguro said in his brief speech during the Nobel dinner the day before yesterday in Stockholm. I’m translating from our local paper, so it’s not exactly his words.

    "The next generation will invent all sorts of new, sometimes puzzling ways to tell important and wonderful stories.", which may suggest that the story itself and what is authorised in it are more important than the traditional physical form (the traditional book) of a literary work.

    As for myself, as a teenager, I was deeply and on many levels shaken by Tennessee Williams’s ”Glass Menagerie” and his ”A Streetcar named Desire”, when I watched the theatre plays based on these novels on Swedish TV.

    Just as I, about the same time, became spiritually inspired by Dostoevsky’s novel ”Crime and Punishment”, as I happened to see a Swedish film on TV based upon this novel. However, it took me decades before I actually read the novel.

    Moreover, those who haven’t yet read the tragedy Romeo and Juliet have certainly watched films or theatre plays, whose themes can be derived from that work by Shakespeare.

    I also learned about Homer’s Iliad & Odyssey through the so called (American) Cartoon Classics, which was a way of getting acquainted with Greek culture and history, for the lazy ones like me.

    In the early ancient Greece, the oral presentation was considered the most legitimate way to convey news or tell stories, while the papyrus-roll on which the speech was written was just a support for the speaker. So, today’s traditional novel or short story, may perhaps be created in quite new literary forms, presented and distributed on the Internet in forms we cannot yet imagine, and I think that was what Kazuo Ishiguro meant.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's the eternal battle between the Arts and the Sciences Bjorn, the Sciences considering themselves far more intellectual than their Arts' counterparts. My own sons being prime examples - they think I spent 3 studying how to hug a tree!

      As a young teenager, I had very limited reading material available, basically whatever I could find in the convent's one bookcase. I'm the only person I know who's actually read A Pilgrim's Progress and bizarrely Moll Flanders. I took quite a liking to Moll when she confessed she wasn't sorry for her crimes, she was sorry for being caught!

      My favourite books however, were by PG Wodehouse, that my Dad would bring in for me, together with a torch so I could read them under the bed covers.

      Like yourself, I was deeply moved by Tennessee Williams, in fact I partially blame him for influencing my own drama queen antics over the years! Blanche Dubois was exquisite,especially played by Vivien Leigh, and Marlon Brando's Stanley, I'm sure, caused many a good girl to go wrong.

      One of the best bits of advice I have ever received when venturing into complicated, academic studies, was to begin with the children's version. Ie. Buy the Puffin books, rather than the Penguin.

      When I was teaching Shakespeare at GCSE Level, I advised all my students to read Charles and Mary Lamb, Tales from Shakespeare. It is written especially for children - once they understand the stories, the language becomes more accessible.

      I think history has shown that every new innovation or idea, is greeted initially with fear and suspicion. The printing press for example brought the fear that masses, once informed, would overthrow the minority rulers. That same fear has returned with the internet.

      Information is power, and no government has control over it anymore. The reporting of news for example, has had to change, because everyone has phones that can photograph and record exactly what's going on. We are not reliant on one news team from one news agency.

      Kazuo Ishiguro is right of course, the next generation will find all sorts of new and creative ways to educate and entertain us, It's a brave new world, with much to look forward to - if we survive Trump!

      Delete
  6. Hi Rosalinda and others

    Thanks Rosalinda for bringing new topics and themes up for discussion.
    In ”Moll Flanders” Defoe views criminality from a rather unconventional perspective, at least in his time, that is, he tries to show us that some people may not just become addicted to committing crimes, but they may in fact also enjoy what they’re doing, which Moll eventually does. Isn’t that what the son of the rich Grandgrind does in Dickens’s novel ”Hard Times”? Doesn’t he then frame another man for what he’s done, who’s just a poor worker? And all for the pleasure of being able to do so.

    In ”Moll Flanders” the language of the protagonist’s first person narrative, is rather simple I’d say, anyway not so linguistically elaborated, as it’s supposed to be that of poor Moll herself, and that makes it easy even for us Swedes to read it in the original English version, though the language is of course old. When I read it for the first time, I was surprised that I didn’t have to look up so many words, as I normally have to do when I read classic literature in English.
    In the film ”A Streetcar called Desire” in which Marlon Brando appears, Stella rushes out of the house with her baby, leaving Stanley, while in the novel she stays, as TW tries to make us see how we’re often trapped within our social environment and cannot escape, and that got a little bit lost in the film, by the altered ending.
    As for the character Blanche, she really deserves more sympathy, than she normally gets by the readers. She’s not just despised by the characters in the fictitious world, where she resides, but also by many readers (often men), who identify themselves with the character Mitch, and of course also with Stanley, and who cannot see what the novel is all about on a deeper level.
    Others here on Rosalinda’s blog certainly do know more than I do about these authors and their works. I just happen to be a person, who takes interest literature and ideas of all kinds, but I don’t claim to know more than anyone on Rosalinda’s blog, just want to discuss different perspectives in analysing literary texts.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now you mention it Bjorn, Moll Flanders was an 'easy' read, certainly in comparison to other classics. I was very taken with her character, the first person narrative gave a delightful insight into her character. I read Moll Flanders at around the same time I read Wuthering Heights and Jane Eyre. The female heroines of the Bronte sisters, though simmering with fire and passion, were repressed, by the moral codes of their class and social status.

      In a weird way I didn't want Stella to leave Stanley - their relationship was dangerous and stifling, but Oh, so passionate! The divine TW certainly knew how to hit the spot emotionally. I was fortunate to see Night of Iguana in the West End with Woody Harrelson in the role of Rev. Shannon - he was mesmerising!

      I was deeply touched by the character of Blanche, her love of finer things, her manners, her graces, she is so lovingly drawn by TW, She is a mixture I expect, of his mother, his sister and himself.

      TW I think reveals the dark underside of 'every', or at least every 'macho' man, in Stanley and in Mitch. Stanley is the bad guy we girls always want, Mitch is the schmuck, the nice guy the bad girls take advantage of. I expect his experiences with men, were probably not very different to those of his female friends. Gay, sensitive men, can be just as vulnerable as the show girls.

      Stella was trapped not just by her socio-economic circumstances, she was trapped by her passion for Stanley. Blanche, who could blame her for living in a fantasy world, it was preferable to the ugliness of the real one. Perhaps that's why she is so endearing, for some of us, she is so endearing.

      I love discussing literature Bjorn, I studied 'The Gothic' while at Uni, which was darkly delicious, lol, Edgar Allen Poe, was on that strange bookshelf in the convent, the stories just the right length to read under the bedclothes with a torch! Don't get me started on Frankenstein and Dracula!

      Delete
  7. And there we have it from the horses mouth. Cristobel loves a political comedian. Well of course you do but really that's no way to talk about Corbyn.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hi Ros,your blog states,"What is there to fear"about the Internet?
    The real"Fear"is the Police state,George Orwell 1984?
    whereby, if you take the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and the UK Justice system and the Portugal PJ system?
    We are where we are today,thanks to the Portugal Justice system,but for their system allowing the case files released into the"Public Domain" to UK(nothing to see here now move along people)case papers not disclosed,case not solved,ergo,No release of information,held by the State?
    Then we have the"Dossier from the McCann family member to the Metropolitan Police service,with involvement of Sky News Corporation Martin Brunt,Big Jim Gamble and the public persecution of Mrs Brenda Leyland,with sweet F/a done on the abuse this Woman had to bare,Tweets sent to her previous secure account,"Well its' Not a secret anymore is it"eh Martin,proud of your self are you,skulking off when it became knowledge of your part in this Woman's Suicide?
    There you have the Fear of the Internet,a very powerful tool in the wrong hands,eh Brunty?
    We now see Mr Malinka and cohorts(Jones) skulking away from publicising their story?
    What happened Boys,did you have your involvement of the case"Scrutinised"by people who have become distrustful of persons involved with the disappearance of a Three Year old little girl named Madeleine,with possible connections to the parents,Clarence?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why would the state want the case of a missing child to go unsolved ? Or Portugal's Justice System the same ? Or even the UKs or the media ?

      Delete
    2. ''What happened Boys,did you have your involvement of the case"Scrutinised"by people who have become distrustful of persons involved with the disappearance of a Three Year old little girl named Madeleine,with possible connections to the parents,Clarence?''

      is that an open question to 'boys' or Clarence ? It makes no sense.

      Delete
    3. @Anonymous14 December 2017 at 21:36

      Hi
      "Why would the state want the case of a missing child to go unsolved ?" Here's a possible explanation.

      If the TRUTH, from the state’s perspective, would be more compromising and embarrassing, than failing to solve a serious crime case, then the authorities would perhaps prefer the latter option.

      Delete
    4. What truth, Bjorn ? Are you saying the state knows the truth ? If so, what truth could compromise them ? Are you talking about the state of Portugal or the UK ? Or are you trying to sell your guesses as facts yet again.

      Delete
    5. I disagree with you on Portuguese transparency 14:48, the police are accountable to the people, it's only right that details of the investigation should have been released. They have the right to know that the case has been fully investigated and that their children would be safe in their beds.

      The dossier I suspect was the crazy idea of someone who believed they could get people banned from the internet. Simply telling critics of the McCanns that their names and all their comments were being collected on a file, was intended to intimidate. That they used the McCann case to cleanse the internet is not surprising, they had to start somewhere.

      It wasn't the internet that killed Brenda Leyland, it was fear of public exposure, fear of being labelled a bater and pitchforker, a tormentor of the McCann family. Team McCanns' campaign to make doubters of the parents' abduction story appear as heartless monsters was one of their most successful marketing ploys. As an early doubter, I have personal experience. For years now, I have been subjected to all sorts of bizarre allegations. Mostly to do with my mental health problems - go take your meds, you should be in a straitjacket, your mother didn't love you, the sort of stuff the grim reaper would say to push a manic depressive over the edge. But, stealing a line from Exodus by Leon Uris, 'you can't hurt me, I've been tortured by experts'. The experts being the Sisters of Mercy.

      Sadly, however, many have read and taken in all the malicious propaganda, not just from those supporting the McCanns, but those who oppose them. Hence, my long old trek via this blog, to prove I am not the monster portrayed on social media.

      Delete
    6. @Anonymous15 December 2017 at 12:32
      Hi
      Of course, nobody knows the truth, but if the truth would implicate the McCanns in a crime, there certainly are people within the British MSM and also in the British Government, who would rather not know about it.

      Too many respected and influential people in the UK have sided with the McCanns for so many years now and they just don't wish their competence and their skills to be questioned.

      Just think of Crime Watch, when BBC-journalists in co-operation with the SY urged people to look for the stranger, who took Madeleine, without presenting the slightest evidence of an abduction.

      People seldom seek the truth if it can damage their own reputation. Nothing strange about that. That's just how many journalists and politicians are, as they see themselves as more important than the truth. We can call it corruption or whatever.

      Delete
    7. Björn15 December 2017 at 17:02

      ''Of course, nobody knows the truth, but if the truth would implicate the McCanns in a crime, there certainly are people within the British MSM and also in the British Government, who would rather not know about it.''

      If that was the case it would be the scoop of the last 50 years.They'd fall over each other to get an exclusive.After all the money spent the Government would love to see some justification so why wouldn't they want it ? Why wouldn't the British Government want it ? It's the solving of a case at stake. You say too many influential people have sided with the McCanns. That wouldn't prevent the police arresting them would it ? It just means that a lot of people had been supporting the wrong people.It wouldn't be the first shock arrest for a high profile crime .

      Whenever i read your opinions i read the same thing every time.In fact i should say opinion rather than opinions as you only have one. You say nobody knows the truth, but constantly tell anyone the McCanns are the guilty parties and then go on to mention all kinds of ifs and buts and imaginary scenarios to show it.You don't know the truth if nobody else knows it.You blame the media, the police and politicians for a crime you're convinced was committed by the McCanns.You're implying that all of those mentioned were willing accessories after the fact. That would only happen if there was something that happened within the police force or Westminster that would cause scandal or outrage. This is only a missing person case so has nothing to do with any of that. Or have you created a way that it could be ?

      Delete
    8. Ros -

      'It really saddens me to see people such as yourself spreading this mythical fear about the internet. The dangers, are hugely exaggerated, ''

      Ros -

      ''The danger lies in the slow erosion, the calls for policing of social media by the same people selling us scare stories.''

      Ros -

      ''The internet is the best thing that has ever happened to Mankind.''

      Ros -

      ''The dossier I suspect was the crazy idea of someone who believed they could get people banned from the internet. Simply telling critics of the McCanns that their names and all their comments were being collected on a file, was intended to intimidate. That they used the McCann case to cleanse the internet is not surprising, they had to start somewhere.''

      You're not a monster.You're not very decisive either.

      Delete
    9. What a pointless post. You have taken a selection of my comments out of context for what?

      Let me explain it to you simply. We don't need to fear trolls, shills and voyeurs of online pornography. We do need to fear over enthusiastic ex policemen, vigilantes and wannabe dictators.

      Delete
    10. @Anonymous15 December 2017 at 19:33
      Hi

      My take on the case is, and has always been, that the McCanns should be reinvestigated, as I don’t believe that they’ve ever been heard, since the first Portuguese investigation was shelved in 2008. I’m suspicious about them and their tapas friends. That’s all. I’m not accusing anyone.

      What now needs to be questioned and challenged, in my opinion, is the McCanns’ claims about a stranger abduction, and that should be done in a reconstruction by the PJ in PDL.

      As for Mark Rowley, and his Operation Grange team, none of them has ever suggested that, as far as I know. Nor did his predecessor do so.

      “I cannot see how that would help us to find Madeleine”, Gerry said 9 years ago, 4 years ago and half a year ago. If that would be what the SY/Met think today and have thought all those years, then all of the police detectives are either beyond belief incompetent or totally corrupted in the true sense of the word. It has to be said.





      the SY/Met think today and have thought all those years, then all of the police detectives are either beyond belief incompetent or totally corrupted in the true sense of the word. It has to be said.




      Delete
    11. So if the question you're asking is ''WHAT'S TO FEAR ON THE INTERNET,'' presumably the answer, according to you, is ''we need to fear over enthusiastic ex policemen, vigilantes and wannabe dictators.''

      If the internet is making you imagine these invisible enemies you need to ask where they really exist and if that would be part of the 'best thing to happen to mankind'.Or if it really is so amazing and run by geniuses with our best interests at heart rather than those of the dictators. You believe they're not dictated to as well ? They don't make multi millions in full view by upsetting who run the show.

      Delete
    12. Why do the McCanns need to be re-investigated Bjorn ? It's been ten years. What can they investigate ? All statements are on file. If the evidence of lying or misleading is in there they'd have been arrested after being questions. What would you ask them that hasn't already been asked ? If you could question anyone from SY or the Met, what would you ask them ? What would you ask Blair, Brown or Cameron ? What would you ask Murat ? Or would you concentrate only on the parents who you don't suspect.

      Delete
  9. As this is a literary blog then this is on topic from Malinka:

    DOISGALOES‏ @doisgaloes
    15h15 hours ago

    I am canceling my Kickstarter campaign tonight. Thank you all who supported me in this venture. I will continue to write the book by myself for now and keep you all updated. Kickstarter would no charge any of backers credit cards. Thank you all for your support. #mccann #mccann

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nobody willing to back it even online then. Says a lot. Nobody really expected anything new did they fgs. He'd be better starting a blog if he just wants to gripe. He won't make any money though so don't hold your breath. I thought he only wanted to clear his name. He could do that online.

      Delete
  10. That's a shame. I hope he doesn't give up on the idea, I am sure he has a very interesting story to tell.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes it would be interesting to read about the alleged torture by the PJ and Amaral that he mentioned in one of his many comments.

      Delete
    2. It could have developed into a bitch fight between two new authors ending up in another court.Amaral having already tormented Murat then turning on Malinka because he was so sure the McCanns were guilty. That poor child.

      Delete
    3. I'm more interested in the antics of the McCanns' private detectives Unknown.

      Delete
    4. Hi Ros,does this include MI5?
      To Anon,21.56,Malinka and Jones,CM are all males,we have Clarence threatening,Malinka/Jones of litigation over their book references to Madeleine McCann's disappearance,now put on hold?
      The UK Police have had a very close association to Madeleine McCann's disappearance,Metropolitan Police /Interpol 2008,No Paedophile gang,then printed in Crhistopher's story,there was an Organised Gang involved,Christopher's story was wrote by a former MI5 Officer?
      Which then begs a question,who do you believe,MI5 or the Metropolitan Police,who have a close association to Child abuse cases Evidence disappearing,but both "Establishment Controlled"?
      Now if they could in anyway be able to deflect criticism of not solving the case,(It wasn't us Gov)back to you Portugal to solve or shelve?

      Delete
    5. "Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton15 December 2017 at 12:37

      I'm more interested in the antics of the McCanns' private detectives Unknown."
      ------------------------------------

      I may well have missed it amongst his many changing stories, but I don't remember Malinka saying he was going to write about the Mccanns private detectives.

      Delete
    6. It doesn't matter if anyone threatens litigation over something you saying unless what you're saying is a lie or a story made up to entertain a crowd at someone else's expense. If Malinka was going to speak the truth he had nothing to fear.

      It's true that various police agencies have had a close relationship with the Mccanns.Is that unusual seeing as they're investigating the disappearance of their daughter ?

      The Christopher Storey story is a bit ropey. What about Shrimpton ?

      What evidence disappeared ? If you know what it is then it didn't disappear quickly enough did it.

      Portugal know it won't be solved but they have to keep the appearance up as they were more than likely ordered to.

      Delete
    7. @ 15 December at 18:11

      Chapter 4: Metodo 3

      Delete
    8. Anon 19.18. So are you stating,that due to the disappearance of their daughter,Madeleine,that Kate,Gerry,should always be treated as per Operation Grange detectives,DCI Redwood,A/C Rowley,as Non-Suspects after Ten years of a disappearance,then seven Years of a Re-mit Abduction,with Bogus,Smithman,Creche Dad,Woman In Purple seen outside of an apartment 20.30 pm,evening of 3 May 2007,yet persons claiming to have seen an"Alive Madeleine" are all innocent of anything,take a long look at their statements,which are supposed to be factual accounts?
      If MI5,Metropolitan Police/Interpol,put into the public domain,Two conflicting accounts as the"Paedophile Gangs" Non Involvement,then Involvement in a child's disappearance,who are the public to believe,they are both Establishment Powers-cover Up?
      Mr Shrimpton was firmly ensconced to Prison,Olympic 2012 Bombing Campaign,having served his purpose to MI5?

      Delete
    9. Why shouldn't they be treated as non-suspects ? If the detectives and investigations you mention haven't found any evidence in ten years to say otherwise then that's what they are , non-suspects.

      Bogus ? Who's 'Bogus' ? As for Smithman, Creche dad and Purple, they weren't down to the parents. If they're lies, they were told by someone else.Who are the persons claiming to have seen Madeleine ? These nameless persons who must have known Madeleine's story to identify her yet felt no reason to follow who she was with or take a photograph ?They're stories . Fictions created by the police hand in hand with the media. It makes them look busy.

      The paedophile gang theory would have been suspected by thousands anyway.We hear of plenty of cases of children taken by one or an individual paedophile and, of course, we have the internet now to share stories ourselves.Why believe any with conviction if they're just stories and theories ? Entertain them as possibilities and probabilities. If the people in power have anything to do with the child's disappearance then don't expect to find out who. They band together like brothers even after they're exposed.it's likely that somebody somewhere was held over a barrel and the child was held to ransom for something other than money.But, as I say, only likely.It's suggested by their insistence in taking over the investigation.

      Shrimpton's above average at selling himself as an all knowing and well respected member of the intel community. He'll talk to anyone with an online show. He sold the Maddie-was-taken-by=German-Intel story as casually as a weather forecast. Then he went to prison for some trumped up charge about security threats to the Queen.A 'gap year' for him. He tried to say he had bipolar disorder and was broke.When he was released he wasn't broke and his bipolar had gone.Gone too were the maddie stories.He back tracked about it all and about what Prince Phillip was like. He went back online to undo what he'd done saying intel agents had misinformed him, not that he'd misinformed us. Why would they tell him anything at all if they weren't involved in the investigation ? They have a country under constant threat from whoever America don't like. Wouldn't that be more important

      Delete
  11. It's not the fear of the internet that concerns me, it's the accusations of what we have viewed supposedly that we should be concerned. Damian Green MP had his Parliamentary Office raided by police looking for evidence of a leak to MSM ref MP's expenses, I believe in 2008. Now some disgruntled ex police officer has just announced recently that he found thousands of LEGAL porn images on his computer. Now to me a middle aged man (that's me as well by the way) looking at internet porn, shock horror !!!. That is not a police matter, never had been as it was his words legal porn. But the accusation has been made.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The thought of people looking at online pornography has inspired a whole new generation of witchfinder generals John. They are itching to have legislation that will allow them to pry into the public's internet activity, using the battlecry ‘think of the children’.

      This is where the whole fuzzy area of what is legal and what is illegal leaves EVERYONE vulnerable to dawn raids and having their computers seized. A beach snap of a young relative for example, could lead to charges of receiving semi naked underage images. Unfortunately, those making the laws are not experts per se, just very enthusiastic public figures who want to be admired for their high moral standards. People with the same traits as Tony Bennett, who want CCTV in bedrooms to ensure everyone sticks to once a week in the missionary position.

      No government in history, even going to back to our caveman days, has been to eliminate humanity’s enjoyment of pornography, promiscuity, alcohol and drugs, mankind will always find a way, even if it takes a hammer, chisel and a vat of rotting grapes. Effectively man made laws cannot conquer human nature. I expect every middle aged man and indeed woman, has looked at pornography on their computers John, just as we all looked up swear words when we got our first dictionaries.

      Happily, those with a morbid fear of pleasure, the former moral majority, are less revered than they once were. Do you remember Mary Whitehouse and Lord Longford who always seemed to grab the front seat at strip shows? Lol. And latterly, those who would clean up the lawless internet and
      would consider legalising marijuana if the fun ingredient were removed. I think they see pleasure as a commodity John, with a price. I doubt they would eliminate porn online, they would charge a premium rate so it’s not available to the masses. The same reason recreational drugs were made illegal.

      But it all goes much, much deeper than that John, it goes into the psychology of the paedophile hunters. Many years ago I was deeply moved by a play entitled The Naked Civil Servant. It was all about the life and times of Quentin Crisp, a delightfully eccentric and flamboyant homosexual and writer, starring the amazing actor John Hurt. In one of the early scenes, Quentin is attacked by a gang of ‘queer baiters’, but somehow manages to grab the ringleader by the testicles and whisper in his ear, that he knew the thug himself was a ‘queer’.

      Delete
    2. It was an iconic scene, and one that has always stayed with me. Quentin has been proved right, time and time again. That is, the most ferocious and outspoken hunters of sexual ‘deviants’ usually have much in common with those they are hunting. And, as a child seized and taken into care for my own protection, I have first hand experience of enthusiastic child protectors, which is probably why they and the more vocal ‘survivors’ have me blocked.

      Contrary to appearances, I have always been a lover of men. Mostly because I had such a great Dad, and because as a constant chatterbox, men gave me the attention I deserved and told me how wonderful I was. Women, not so much.

      It terrifies me that so many men, and it is mostly men, are at risk of being falsely accused of life changing heinous crimes. Can you imagine the devastation caused to so many men and their families by Operation Ore?

      I feel as a bona fide survivor of institutionalised care, I am in a unique position. I can challenge the ludicrous fear mongering without being accused of being a paedophile myself, or indeed a paedophile defender.

      It breaks my heart that the entire population is living under suspicion of lusting at pictures of kids in their nativity plays. I just don't get this terror of childrens photographs and what strangers might do with them. And it breaks my heart that my dear old dad couldn't enjoy a sit in the park for fear of what people might think.

      It's a mad world John, but we have the means to fight back. At some point, someone in parliament will have to overcome their revulsion and look closely at the way in which internet pornography is classified and deemed legal/illegal. Teens are probably the group most at risk with their love of 'selfies' - anyone of them could have lives ruined by being labelled a sex offender for sending underage pictures of themselves, err, to themselves.

      Delete
    3. Is this a new trend Ros ? Include a defence for the poor put upon paedophiles that well balanced members of the public want to see in jail getting their just desserts.You on your soap box talking about how draconian laws and censorship are as though you're a 60s flower power 20 year old activist taking on the the establishment ?

      I thought at first that your views in the area were just a bit naive.Now they just appear disturbing. When will you realise that your own experiences, as bad as they were, are yours.They cant be used to make big statements about the experiences of others.

      Delete
    4. ''This is where the whole fuzzy area of what is legal and what is illegal leaves EVERYONE vulnerable to dawn raids and having their computers seized. A beach snap of a young relative for example, could lead to charges of receiving semi naked underage images.''

      It isn't fuzzy. It's a matter of understanding a very basic law that states that porn is for adults only, whether taking part or viewing. It would stand according to the age of consent in individual countries when it comes to viewing or selling or buying.But those making it have to have all taking part as over 18.What's fuzzy ? It's basically the difference between what the law says is an adult or child. Sending family snaps isn't illegal.Sending family snaps depicting anything sexual is.All you do if you receive any is tell the police. Why you keep trying to say that the lines are all blurred is beyond me.

      Delete
    5. So if my statements as a survivor of institutional abuse are not valid 16:08, then who's are?

      I actually find it highly suspicious that the prominent MPs and paedophile hunters want to silence people like me, they don't want our stories, because they don't match their agenda. People like Tom Watson, Jim Gamble and Mark Williams-Thomas. The latter two I saw at the House of Commons - neither could look me in the eye. They knew exactly who I was, as did all the tabloid journalists who approached me after the meeting.

      I'm not popular with the witchfinders because I'm not like other survivors 1) I don't consider myself a victim, 2) I know exactly what they are up to and 3) I'm more intelligent than they are.

      'What the law says is an or child' - who or what is 'the law'? A panel of experts or one Judge Dredd? Must we burn all the pictures we took of our babies in bubble baths? If it's a panel do all the judges have to agree a baby covered in bubbles is a turn on?

      Your last line is completely demented. If someone sends me a picture I consider sexual I should report them to the police? You didn't happen to run a gulag in a former life did you?

      Delete
    6. What you cannot seem to comprehend 16:08 and 16:57, is that pornography, like art, is in the eye of the beholder. A portrait of a can of soup is just as likely to send a maniac into a sexual frenzy as a portrait of a naked young girl.

      There is no way of knowing what triggers the urge in a maniac to abduct and rape, or embark on a killing spree. But the chances are it is a long series of life events, starting in childhood, rather than a titillating photograph.

      Those who narrow the trigger down to one book, one film, one image, are being ridiculously naïve, and they are certainly not academics. Human beings are far more complex than that.

      Community leaders have, since the beginning of time, given dire warnings about human vices, sex especially would bring about our downfall. Remember Sodom and Gomorrah. Sex however, was necessary for the continuation of the species, so the elders (those not getting any) decided sex would be OK as long as no-one got any enjoyment out of it.

      That ideology has pretty much continued to this day with most of us fearing we will burn in the fires of hell forever more if we have so much as a impure thought.

      And most of our impure thoughts relate to other adults, not kids. The truth is, the majority of us, men as well as women, have no sexual interest in kids whatsoever. We find the whole idea of it so disgusting we don't even let out minds go there and we struggle to understand how others can.

      Unfortunately, because most of us don't want to know about it, and don't want to talk about it, those who have made a career out of child protection are rarely, if ever, challenged.

      The late and very strange, Ray Wyre for example came up with a bizarre theory about ritual Satanic abuse, that led to the lives of hundreds of families being torn apart. What was done to the children seized was barbaric, and sickening, all those involved should have been charged.

      Delete
    7. @Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton16 December 2017 at 21:15

      @Anonymous16 December 2017 at 16:08

      @Anonymous16 December 2017 at 16:57


      People get so very emotional when Rosalinda, from a common sense perspective, does her best to talk about pornography or child pornography, or about what is said to be pornography, as it could be almost anything, and therefore any person could be accused of being a paedophile.

      Whatever it is, it is definitely more in the eyes of the person who sees it, than it is in the picture/image/photo that is supposed to represent it.

      We must never forget, that the most protective societies in terms of legislation against pornography, with the purpose of protecting its citizens from sexual “evil”, especially children and young women, are/have always been the most repressive states in all respects (Iran, North Korea, conservative Islamic states, the former east European states, Nazi Germany etc).

      Legislation on sexuality is almost always liberal, where freedom in general rules, like it’s today in many of our western countries, though I fear that could change soon, due to the fear of the Internet.

      Sweden after the sexual revolution in the 60:s got a very liberal view on sexuality, which at that time reflected the general freedom on many levels.I'm sad to say, that there's less freedom now, but more legislation around sexuality.

      I really appreciate and respect you for having the courage to discuss what most people avoid discussing in a serious way.

      Delete
    8. But returning to pornography. I have never actually seen any towns, villages or homes destroyed by people having sex. I've never heard anyone say, 'cor, it was such a great orgy, the walls fell down and hundreds were killed'.

      I actually find violent images much more disturbing and distressing, but I understand that sometimes graphic imagery is necessary to get the message home.

      Classifying pornography is not a job I would ever want, and I'm curious about those who do, I can't think of anything more soul destroying than tracking porn links and perverts all day every day.

      The world isn't ready for this minority report policing, the tracking down of men who MIGHT go on to commit a crime. It's not as if children aren't in danger - they are, in their own homes and from people who know them. Why are resources being wasted on potential crimes against children, while actual crimes against children are being ignored and neglected?

      Whichever one of you called me an old hippy chick, you are right. I am. I think it is barbaric to burn books and censor art, and I question society's ideology on what is and isn't obscene.

      How can a beautiful picture of a beautiful teenage girl showing a hint of a nipple, be classified as obscene? It was this particular argument that saw me driven away from MMM by an angry mob weilding pitchforks.

      Delete
    9. ''It's not as if children aren't in danger - they are, in their own homes and from people who know them. ''

      Of all the mantras you love repeating that one's probably the most pointless. You have this weird view that all abused or murdered children were victims at the hands of someone they trusted, related, or close to the family.Yes, some kids are in that category.Only some.But do some research before you attempt spreading this dangerous propaganda.How many patients of Broadmoor, Ashworth and the likes who have hurt or killed children were close or related to their victims ? Who bundled April Jones into a car, or took Jamie Bulger away, or Ben Needham ?How many children molested in parks were close to their tormentors ?Of all the predators featured on the documentary series Dateline : to catch a predator( 100s) even knew their targets ? Don't you realise that readers here can see that you cling to this flimsy idea because you want to throw it up whenever Madeleine McCann is brought up and you're obsession with having anything at all to use as rationale to make people think of them as likely perpetrators of something nasty toward their child will do.

      ''Why are resources being wasted on potential crimes against children, while actual crimes against children are being ignored and neglected? ''

      Why is prevention wrong ? Isn't supposed to be better than cure ? You don't know that crimes are being ignored or neglected. How would you know ? Are the police supposed to covertly investigate and try to catch the criminals while publicly announcing updates as to their progress so everyone will have something to get heated about on social media ?

      If you don't know the difference between a teenage -looking girl showing a nipple and pornography it's no wonder you're all over the place on the subject.If you can't see what's intended as provocative or sexy and what's intended to be hardcore graphic or illegal sex, you shouldn't talk about it. How much support are these thoughts of yours receiving ?

      Delete
    10. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton16 December 2017 at 22:06

      ''What you cannot seem to comprehend 16:08 and 16:57, is that pornography, like art, is in the eye of the beholder. A portrait of a can of soup is just as likely to send a maniac into a sexual frenzy as a portrait of a naked young girl. ''

      Have you been snorting washing powder ? I'll take your word on the pervert going on a rampage because he liked images of Cream Of Chicken on the side of a tin. But I'd guess that a mind like that is badly wired up. Or are we banning the mental health act now as well ?

      Art is art. Porn is porn. Occasionally porn can be slipped into some trendy category of art. To use that as a reason to suggest that porn is in the eye of the beholder is pretty desperate. If a rapist or paedophile tried that defence in court he'd be lynched. - ''but your honour, the girls may well have been young and i'd normally have turned away, but then i saw the tin of soup logo on one of their tee shirts...''

      The whole area is far more simple than you're making out.

      Delete
    11. @Anonymous17 December 2017 at 00:50
      Hi
      "you can't see what's intended as provocative or sexy and what's intended to be hardcore graphic or illegal sex", you say to Rosalinda

      Neither could the prosecutor in a court in Sweden, when he claimed that a cartoon picture was child pornography, because it depicted two small fantasy characters in swim suits, who were were sharing a banana.

      As I, hopefully, don't yet have got a peverted mind, I cannot see any indecent in such a picture, even if it would have been real children and even if they would have been naked.

      Anyway, the person who had the mentioned picture in his computer, and another 50, which were even less "sexual", was a translator of Japaneese cartoons. He was later acquitted in a higher court, but had already lost his job, and of course he got his life completely destroyed.

      Delete
    12. Like it or not 00:50, most children are sexually abused by someone who knows them. Active paedophiles need access to children, ergo they move in on vulnerable families or they work with children directly. They are much more of a threat than those looking at porn on their computers. Those are facts that the public should be made aware of 00:50, especially young mums who may not be aware of the dangers around them. The computer screen in the corner of the room is not so much a threat, as the man they just picked up in a nightclub.

      Your final paragraph ..... if I can't see what is intended to be provocative or sexy.... my first reaction to that was to laugh out loud. So it's my fault, that I don't see pictures of children as a turn on? So there is something wrong with me, rather than those who do?

      That I shouldn't be allowed to discuss the subject because I'm not knowledgeable enough is absurd. Truth be told, most of us aren't, very, very few people, focus on pornography and child abuse as our specialist subject.

      What I object to is those specialists keeping the matter a closed subject, while making and enforcing laws that affect all of us. Being accused of being a paedophile is this century's equivalent of a public execution. Innocent Men have literally been driven to suicide, their families left devastated.

      I may be a lone voice in this 00:50, but that's because of my unique status as a very vocal 'survivor', most people don't have those credentials. If I didn't, I have no doubt whatsoever, you would by now be accusing me of being a paedophile.

      Delete
    13. Anonymous at 00:50
      ("But do some research before you attempt spreading this dangerous propaganda.")

      95 percent of sexually abused children will be abused by someone they know and trust (NAPCAN 2009).

      Of those molesting a child under six, 50 percent were family members. Family members also accounted for 23 percent of those abusing children 12 to 17 years (Snyder, 2000).


      https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/12-confronting-statistics-on-child-sexual-abuse_us_587dab01e4b0740488c3de49

      Delete
    14. That Swedish prosecution is just about the sum of all my fears Bjorn. How utterly ridiculous! What the hell goes on in the minds of these people that they see pornography where others don't.

      Cartoon figures ffs! Actually, I think I read somewhere that Jim Gamble wanted a clampdown on cartoons too. Perhaps there should also be a clampdown on the crudely drawn pictures of genitalia that adorn the schoolbooks of mischievous adolescents.

      I feel for the Japanese guy who's life was destroyed, even though sanity seems to have prevailed in the end. Terrifying however, that such a case could ever have got that far.

      Something is going very badly wrong in a society when we are seeing journalists and artists put on trial. But ultimately, that is what the Moral Majority are aiming for. And I use Moral Majority in the old fashioned sense, they are not the majority anymore, at least I hope not.

      Delete
    15. It was the Swedish law that landed Julian Assange in a ridiculous position of being hunted for rape. The girl ( victim) had gladly consented to sex and even went on to twitter to boast after.Unfortunately, Obama and his cohorts( who seemed to assume they also ruled Sweden too) were scanning the 'free' platform. The tweet mysteriously disappeared( not by the tweeter).It turns out that they have some bizarre 'sex by surprise' law.In English it basically means that if you consent but then realise later that the man wasn't wearing a condom and you assumed he had been, that surprise is a sort of rape.Obama translated that as 'no means no' when shouting from his podium for the world's media.Common sense didn't matter, Assange had exposed the liar and he wanted revenge.The mystery girl and her friend were persuaded to pursue the case. Strangely, the girl in question had once been close to one of the Bush CIA operatives and a women's group in Cuba. Swedish law is behind the times.But they've always been forward thinking in areas of pornography.They're a useful reference point for those trying to defend porn.But even Sweden don't tolerate child porn.Maybe you should try The Netherlands Ros. They practically invented it then spread it like a virus all over the world.They must be a very artistic culture.

      Delete
    16. Ros -

      ''Your last line is completely demented. If someone sends me a picture I consider sexual I should report them to the police? You didn't happen to run a gulag in a former life did you?''

      You were talking about sexual pictures of underage relatives.I said it's easy to report it.Normal people would even if you wouldn't. Therefore, you don't get to call anyone demented.Your judgement of basic right and wrong in the whole area is shocking.Referring to art and artists to defend it is as bad.You're sailing close to the wind with your new crusade.You've turned from inventing things to hate about two parents who lost a child to attacking censors who want child porn banned and it's audience prosecuted. What kind of person you are in your own mind isn't a reliable measure by the way.You keep telling anyone who'll listen how clever you are and who you're cleverer than but continue to talk utter nonsense.Stick to the pretentious literary chat.

      Delete
    17. Many thanks 10:54. Those who yearn to police the internet want us to focus on the online danger to our children, rather than the actual dangers they face in their immediate environment. The internet is the bogeyman, 21st century style.

      And to 00:50, to call my opinion 'dangerous propaganda' is bizarre. As an older, wiser, woman I feel duty bound to point out the real dangers to young parents, and the best ways to keep their children safe.

      You are the one spreading dangerous propaganda 00:50. You know how rare child abduction by a stranger is, if you don't check out the Wiki list of kidnappings, it's surprisingly short.

      The disappearance of 3 year old Madeleine had nothing to do with the internet. Nor the tragic abductions of Jamie Bulger, April Jones, or the older and more recent Tia Sharpe. Tia was of an age where she could have been groomed on the internet, so where were CEOP?

      You, like VT are trying to sell us the idea that we should fear the internet. And the idea that we need the protection of an army of vigilantes to patrol social media under the guise of looking for perverts who may, or may not, go on to commit an actual crime. Jim Gamble actually wants an army of specially trained volunteers. Can you imagine the volunteers? Bennett would be first in the queue, followed by a large contingent from Britain First, and a handful of repentant evangelicals. Groups of concerned citizens sends unholy shivers down my spine.

      I have always found it not only patronising, but downright offensive, that another adult, whatever their age, status or qualifications, assumes that they can judge what is good for me. What is suitable for me to see or read. It gets my heckles up. What paragon of clean living, blemish free sample of human virtue, has the right to make judgments on my behalf? Who are they to tell me that I should live as they do? Never in a zillion years would I choose Tony Bennett, Jim Gamble or Mary Whitehouse as life role models.

      Delete
    18. Anonymous at 12:45

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece

      ----------

      "The world of Warwick Spinks was based in Amsterdam, where scores of British paedophiles settled after a police crack-down in London in the 1980s. When the Dutch police reviewed all their intelligence on child pornography in 1985, they found there was almost nothing in the whole of Amsterdam. In four years, they had come across only three cases. Seven years later, after the arrival of Spinks and his friends, they repeated the exercise and found that nearly 250 people in the city were involved in the industry, most of them foreign; they seized 6,000 videos."

      http://www.nickdavies.net/1997/03/01/a-paedophile-ring-in-amsterdam/

      Delete
    19. ''The disappearance of 3 year old Madeleine had nothing to do with the internet. Nor the tragic abductions of Jamie Bulger, April Jones, or the older and more recent Tia Sharpe. Tia was of an age where she could have been groomed on the internet, so where were CEOP?''

      The point you originally made was about kids being in more danger at home. The cases alluded to were to illustrate how wrong you are.The internet wasn't in discussion.

      ''You, like VT are trying to sell us the idea that we should fear the internet. And the idea that we need the protection of an army of vigilantes to patrol social media under the guise of looking for perverts ''

      I read your opening post to this particular blog and couldn't understand what you were getting at regarding VT. It's a continuation of your previous blog and the debate about who we can trust behind social networks. I can't see anything he said about fearing the internet. He pointed out the Governments interest in it and who was behind it and the points made were valid.Most people are becoming aware of it now.That's were general policing is and the surveillance is.He said it was an invasion of our privacy and freedom and that's about it.So you've grabbed that idea and started to talk about the slow erosion of rights but twisted what he said to yet again try to make him look foolish and yourself appear switched on. As for the guise you're talking about. Did he mention that they were secretly using it under the guise of hunting perverts, or did he say they used the guise of looking for terrorists ? It's you that redirects everything to perverts and abusers for whatever disturbing reason. If you must try to ridicule your readers at least use examples we can all see rather than invent them. Why you constantly attempt to belittle someone who makes some good arguments and good points makes you look petty.

      Delete
    20. I just don't get that worked up about an underage nipple 12:54, certainly not worth a trip to the police station.

      Is your 'sailing close to the wind' some sort of threat? Is this topic of conversation reserved only for the qualified? And who are the 'qualified' by the way? A panel of archbishops? the far right wing of Britain First? The skeletal remains of Mary Whitehouse and Lord Longford?

      Why should this be a forbidden topic of conversation? Police powers of arrest affect all of us, especially in areas of the law that are particularly fuzzy. How far away are we from people's lives being destroyed for drawing cartoons or taking pictures?

      Who are the censors? Who appoints them? What are their credentials? We live in a democracy, these are valid questions.

      Delete
    21. Ros -

      ''And most of our impure thoughts relate to other adults, not kids. The truth is, the majority of us, men as well as women, have no sexual interest in kids whatsoever. We find the whole idea of it so disgusting we don't even let out minds go there and we struggle to understand how others can.''

      That's OK then isn't it. Give the paedophiles a bit of slack because the rest of us aren't paedophiles. And you have the gall to constantly use the same criticism thread after thread : ''well they're certainly not academics'' in a your misguided sense of superiority.

      Delete
    22. ''Is your 'sailing close to the wind' some sort of threat?''

      There's no threat. However, I understand, by reading so many of your musings, that paranoia is one of the more prevalent of your many mental abberations. I'm just warning you for your own good that it isn't just you or regular readers that scan these blogs. They too are policed by those looking for broken rules of conduct.

      ''Why should this be a forbidden topic of conversation? Police powers of arrest affect all of us, especially in areas of the law that are particularly fuzzy.''

      It's only fuzzy to you.Like the punishment of Chris Langham was fuzzy to you after he admitted he was rightly jailed.The topic of conversation is being driven by your insistence in trying to sell the idea that Porn is subjective, just like art is.Therefore, according to your wacky train of thought, the laws and censorship should be relaxed accordingly.

      What is the function, or purpose of art ?What is the function, or purpose, of porn ? Even in a democracy, graphic sex is graphic sex and not for certain eyes. Kids grow up fast enough. Let them stay kids a bit longer.I could go into the graphic differences between a nipple being above the equator and genitalia being south.But there's only so much bait i'll take.

      Delete
    23. Ros -

      ''I have always found it not only patronising, but downright offensive, that another adult, whatever their age, status or qualifications, assumes that they can judge what is good for me. What is suitable for me to see or read. It gets my heckles up. What paragon of clean living, blemish free sample of human virtue, has the right to make judgments on my behalf? Who are they to tell me that I should live as they do?''

      I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the rules and laws are made for everyone, not just you, as importnt as you seem to believe you are. Obscene images are called obscene for a reason.It would follow that the law makers would draw a line in the sand that wasn't to be crossed.The guidelines and outlined laws are to prevent offensive material flooding the public and who will have many among them who find it offensive.There will be a few who don't and they have their reasons.But your idea of offensive is to have the obscene cenosred and taken out of circulation.Yes, I know, it shouldn't happen in a democracy. That's a poor argument. As you claim, most adults enjoy porn and sex with other adults.Fine.There's no laws against that is there if they're of the right legal age or consenting.

      Delete
    24. Anonymous17 December 2017 at 14:28

      ''''Seven years later, after the arrival of Spinks and his friends, they repeated the exercise and found that nearly 250 people in the city were involved in the industry, most of them foreign; they seized 6,000 videos."

      A worthwhile post. It sort of wrecks the Ros theory of all kids being in the most danger from their own family in their own home.It does the same for those other selective stats as seen in 'the huff'. Six thousand vids- that's what Ros would call a rather large Art exhibition if it wasn't for those pesky censors.

      Delete
    25. Ros

      ''You are the one spreading dangerous propaganda 00:50. You know how rare child abduction by a stranger is, if you don't check out the Wiki list of kidnappings, it's surprisingly short.''

      Is it as short as the list of parents who go abroad and bury their own child and get protection from their government back home ? According to you, it happened in PDL and you use the stats of 'kids being the victims of family members 99% of the time' to support it. I believe Ziggy asked you to provide stats for abduction of kids abroad on holiday with their family and you didn't show any. As you used this blog to try to attack him again, now's your chance.

      Delete
    26. Ros-
      '''What the law says is an or child' - who or what is 'the law'? A panel of experts or one Judge Dredd? Must we burn all the pictures we took of our babies in bubble baths? If it's a panel do all the judges have to agree a baby covered in bubbles is a turn on? ''
      No, Ros. Just acquaint yourself with the definition of a 'minor'. Then you can carry on with the list of all the people you're cleverer than.

      Delete
    27. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton16 December 2017 at 21:15

      ''So if my statements as a survivor of institutional abuse are not valid 16:08, then who's are? ''

      They're valid to your own experience.That doesn't mean it makes you an authority on the experiences of others.Just as nobody can tell you or teach you anything about what you experienced, you can't do it about anyone else.It's a personal, private life lived by someone you don't know.You may have a few links in common such as institutions, nuns, social services and so on but the personal experiences are individual.Individuals handle things their own way. What destroys one may not destroy another. They've had individual life journeys that have either equipped them with coping skills or left them vulnerable. They all have their own Achilles heel and own strengths. You've walked a mile in your own shoes.That doesn't qualify to you to presume you've walked far enough in somebody else's so are entitled to commentate on it.

      Delete
    28. lol 00:20 - so yada, yada, I'm not qualified to comment, but you are?

      I've spent my entire adult stuff on a quest to discover what causes such evil. And, like all survivors, I have that extra sixth sense - that is, the ability to spot a paedophile or sadist at 20 paces. I wasn't sexually abused by the way - they wouldn't have dared, even as child, I had the kind of look that said I can see directly into your soul.

      Contrary to popular bellief, survivors become hyper vigilant, especially with their own kids because they know the kind of evil some people are capable of and we know the kind of jobs they are drawn to.

      Having studied this subject and the reasons behind it for over 40 years, I'm more than qualified to commentate on it, and will continue whether you like it or not.

      Delete
    29. Why thank you for reading so many of my musings 17:10, I'm flattered, though a tad confused as to what you take from them.

      So who is policing my blog for broken rules of conduct? The government, MI5, the KGB? Am I really that important? LOL.

      The only people looking for 'broken rules of conduct' on my blog are the McCann family and their lawyers, if they can still afford them and maybe those itching for a reason to shut me down.

      Delete
    30. @Anonymous17 December 2017 at 12:45
      Hi

      ”Swedish law is behind the times. But they've always been forward thinking in areas of pornography”

      both true and false, I’d say

      After the war, in which we weren’t actually involved, we experienced a time of freedom and liberty related to our sexuality, that in many countries became known as the Swedish sin, which culminated by the end of the 60s.

      Then in the 1970s, the legislation surrounding sexuality and pornography became stricter, because moralists in general had begun to challenge our sexual revolution, and that process is still on-going and even accelerating. We’re on our way to inaugurate moral laws beyond all reason, which will be dehumanizing and indeed devastating, for our whole society.

      As for Assange, his condom had allegedly slipped off during the sex act, that’s all. Had he stayed and defended himself in court he wouldn’t have been convicted of rape or anything, though he fled to the UK and I don’t blame him for that, as I had left “North Korea” as well, if I had been accused of anything in that country.

      Nevertheless, there’re new preposterous laws coming soon, that enter into force next year, which in cases like that of Assange, may convict “careless” sexual partners for negligence, but not rape.

      What we have learnt from the Assange case is that passion and love must be kept under full control and executed in a “normal” way, that is, in the way that the moralists have prescribed, otherwise the state will intervene and punish us for having got carried away while having sex.

      Delete
    31. ''What we have learnt from the Assange case is that passion and love must be kept under full control and executed in a “normal” way''

      Moral of the story : if you go to Sweden for a holiday and you're male, buy staples as well as condoms.

      Delete
    32. Ros-

      ''The only people looking for 'broken rules of conduct' on my blog are the McCann family and their lawyers, if they can still afford them and maybe those itching for a reason to shut me down.''

      I'm not sure which is your biggest problem, your paranoia or your perception of how important your mad ramblings are to the world.

      Delete
    33. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton18 December 2017 at 07:52

      ''lol 00:20 - so yada, yada, I'm not qualified to comment, but you are?''

      A 'lol' and a 'yada yada'. Now we're getting close to what you really are. I didn't say I'm quaalified on such cases and that's why i don't.I commented on you and your assuming that you are.

      Delete
  12. Ros says: "Hence, my long old trek via this blog, to prove I am not the monster portrayed on social media."

    You have failed - your internet history/performance is there forever for anyone to see how you performed.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hi Ros & Anonymous@13:39

    MI5 are a different breed, they wouldn't directly if at all be involved. Politicians come & go all the time. MI5 officers tend to be long term careerists. Confiding information to politicians, journalists or Joe Bloggs will be a non starter. Politicians, Journalists & Joe Bloggs would more than likely be informants.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Ros,John100,are you then stating that No MI5 Officers had been involved in Madeleine McCann's disappearance 3 May 2007? Clarence Mitchell!
      There is a difference of"Opinion"of what may have happened to little Madeleine,so let us suppose that the"thesus"from Portugal could be right,an"Accident"?
      There is still a Crime being committed of concealment of the Corpse,if the Accident ended up in a Death occurring?

      John100,"MI5 are a different breed,they wouldn't directly if at all be involved"try telling that to the victims of the state,where child abuse had been committed against two Brothers,(Bryn Alyn,Estyn)who ended up being burnt to Death in a Flat in London's West End-Yes MI5 are a different breed?
      Then we have Frank Beck's death and his Solicitor being involved with a Road Traffic Accident and a certain Lord who escaped child abuse charges,but had the UK Police investigate Frank Beck for these allegations,where when
      having been found guilty,he was appealing his conviction and suddenly died of a"Fatal Heart Attack"whilst being found not to have been in"Ill Health"another one of those remarkable coincidences, eh?

      Delete
    2. MI5 were spoiled for me by Morecombe and Wise, whenever I think of them, I see the daft Eric and Ern in frilly shirts shaking their maracas.

      I used to be hugely enamoured of the spy genre many years ago, beginning with the seductive Richard Burton (The Spy Who Came in From the Cold) and especially when the Cambridge Spies and Tinker, Tailor were in the news. I went off it completely when watching a spy drama where a female operative had her head plunged into a chip pan. I was, and remain traumatised!

      I can understand why Goncalo Amaral would suspect the British secret services were above and beyond in this case, and indeed they did. But I doubt very much they crossed the line into actual criminality.

      By June 2007, the British government were trying to withdraw from the situation and it was a time of great change for the McCann family staying at Warners resort. They had to move out.

      The statement from Clarence in the Vanity Fair interview is significant, actually most of what was said in that particular interview is significant. I can't recommend it enough. But back to Clarence. The McCanns, and Clarence, no longer had the ear of the PM or any high level government ministers. The cosy chats the parents were having with the Prime Minister were over.

      Gerry and Clarence, thought they were speaking to the Vanity Fair report 'off' the record, that's why it is so enlightening.

      I think Team McCann like to give the impression that they have government protection, it reinforces their abduction story, but I very much doubt there is any truth in it. I can't at the moment recollect the exact date Clarence left his job with the Government and became a private employee of the McCanns, but I would take an educated guess, and say that was when New Labour dumped them.

      Delete
    3. '' But I doubt very much they crossed the line into actual criminality. ''

      You can doubt what you like.But the laws that apply to you and me don't apply to Military Intelligence.They're Her Majesty's Secret Service.They're supposedly operating to maintain security to Queen and Country at any cost.Just how all of that was relevant to the case of a missing child that so many high ranking politicians( and her majesty's prime ministers) wanted to take over is the bigger part of the mystery.

      Delete
    4. Hi Ros,Anon 01.09-MI5,so another disturbing point then enters into the case,All MP'S who enter into Parliament an agreement when sworn in,"Oath To Parliament,King or Queen"is this then an"Official secrets Act"?
      If that is So,all MP's are sworn to some secret acts that must never be revealed to the public,unless the documents are automatically released by Parliament?
      So MP's are Gate Keepers and can never become a"Poacher"?
      So much for Democracy within the UK,Police and MP's singing from the same Hymn sheets to procure fake news?

      Delete
    5. The police swear an oath to the queen too, not us.

      Delete
    6. Ros -

      ''I think Team McCann like to give the impression that they have government protection, it reinforces their abduction story, but I very much doubt there is any truth in it.''

      Really ? What makes you think they like to give that impression ? Have they ever said as much ? Or are you imagining it and trying to spread yet another idea that has zero substance .How does it reinforce their abduction story if the Government are protecting them ? If anything it implicates the government in a crime if the abduction story is, as you constantly claim without proof, a fake one. How does that fit with your 'no cover up' story ? And you having doubts about truth in anything is becoming less and less important the more you write.

      Delete
    7. I didn't say they had government protection, I said they like to give that impression. Chats with two PMs, turning up at high profile functions, telling the world Special Branch escorted you home. That kind of thing.

      More significantly, turning up on Breakfast Television with head of CEOP, Jim Gamble. If that doesn't tell viewers the British government believe them over the Portuguese Judiciary, then what does?

      Delete
    8. Here we go again.I keep forgetting your idea of meaningful knowledge or study is all about the TV screen .

      Delete
  14. ''MI5 are a different breed, they wouldn't directly if at all be involved.''

    Nobody outside the intel community knows.It would defeat the object of being covert if we all knew.

    ReplyDelete
  15. July 2002

    "A Scotland Yard spokesman said last night: 'We never discuss the security of the Royal Family.'"

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-130218/New-terror-alert-Queen.html

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Anonymous17 December 2017 at 10:54

    95 percent of sexually abused children will be abused by someone they know and trust (NAPCAN 2009)."

    OK I can understand that.

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


    "Of those molesting a child under six, 50 percent were family members. Family members also accounted for 23 percent of those abusing children 12 to 17 years (Snyder, 2000)."

    Those figures are more revealing:
    50% of those molesting a child under 6 were NOT family members.
    77% of those abusing children 12-17 were NOT family members.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 23:28

      "50% of those molesting a child under 6 were NOT family members.
      77% of those abusing children 12-17 were NOT family members."

      but most of the time it was someone they know and trust.

      Delete
    2. So, basically, the Ros 'study' was lies. There's a shock. And what about the 'abductions abroad on holiday' statistics..

      Time for Ros to divert all attention from this thread and start a new one now she's cornered and has no answers again

      Delete
    3. If you want an answer, go speak to a group of survivors of childhood abuse, see how mention strangers.

      Delete
    4. @Anonymous18 December 2017 at 15:06
      Hi

      "So, basically, the Ros 'study' was lies. There's a shock. And what about the 'abductions abroad on holiday' statistics"

      Has any British toddler, small child or teenager on holiday abroad ever been abducted by a stranger, that is, by someone who hasn't had an earlier relation to the child? I doubt.

      PS There's no proof that Ben Needham or Madeleine McCann have been abducted.

      Delete
    5. Bjorn

      You were asked to provide sources for statistics in this area more than once just as Ros was. If neither of you can, the least you can both do is admit you haven't got any and they're merely guesses that you booth hope will be taken as disciplined studies. There's no proof that Ben Needham was abducted ? OK. So what's the Ros / Bjorn take on that.And don't say the tapas group were on holiday in Kos when it happened. As for what you doubt, it doesn't matter.It doesn't matter what you doubt or suspect or invent. What matters is that you constantly try to suggest that they're all obvious truths missed by several police detectives, forensic scientists and private investigators.All because of your irrational hatred of the parents who lost a child. it's blinded you to any other possibilities, logic, or balanced discussion. Ros supports everything you say.Who else does ?

      Delete
    6. @Anonymous19 December 2017 at 02:13
      Hi
      There hasn't been any story in the British MSM about British toddlers being abducted by stranger while on vacation abroad.

      So I base my assumption on common sense and on the fact that there hasn't been a single story picked up by any investigative British journalist since Madeleine disappeared.

      If there had been just a little rumour about something having happened 30 years ago, we would've seen the British tabloids filled with such stuff ever since the disappearance of Madeleine. The truth is that there's nothing, nothing, nothing, not even the smallest tiniest little shred or grain to build another Madeleine story around. Why would I need statistics to support that assumption.

      Delete
    7. Björn19 December 2017 at 13:36

      ''There hasn't been any story in the British MSM about British toddlers being abducted by stranger while on vacation abroad. So I base my assumption on common sense ''

      That's called guessing.It isn't a statistical analysis.So don't try to suggest that.

      ''The truth is that there's nothing, nothing, nothing, not even the smallest tiniest little shred or grain to build another Madeleine story around. Why would I need statistics to support that assumption.''

      So because no rumours are in the oh so trustworthy MSM that's it ? That's the sum total of your research ? You ask why you need statistics to support that conclusion ? Because all you ever do is post rumours and guesses and hope they're taken as researched considered observations.Your agenda is to spread rumour and hope they catch on.


      Delete
  17. A straightforward question for you Ros:

    Do you believe that people who view photos/videos of sexual acts with people who are under age should be found and prosecuted?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm disturbed by the wording of your question 00:45, you seem more concerned with the viewers of those photographs than with the people performing sexual acts on kids!

      Why aren't they being arrested - urgently, and why aren't kids being rescued?

      Delete
    2. Why didn't you answer the poster's simple question, Ros ?

      Delete
    3. I know your views on people who make the photos/videos - that is why I didn't ask you that question.

      Your avoidance of the question I asked is noted.

      Delete
    4. I'm disturbed that you never answer my questions. Why aren't the police going after the makers of these videos and images?

      Delete
    5. I know you are disturbed Ros - everyone knows you are a very disturbed person - the police ARE going after the makers of the photos and videos.

      So why are you so hesitant in answering the question? A simple yes or no will suffice.

      Delete
    6. ( it's obviously a question she is unable to answer)

      Delete
  18. @Unknown18 December 2017 at 20:36
    Good Evening
    "I know you are disturbed Ros - everyone knows you are a very disturbed person", you claim, talking to Rosalinda.

    What a privilege we’re all enjoying here on a blog with thousands of followers, whose owner allows us to comment on whatever we like, even if some comments, like yours, often aren’t just disrespectful towards Rosalinda but often meant to humiliate and ridicule her on a personal level.

    So just a humble question Miss “Unknown”. Do people, with whom you socialise in real life, find your behaviour appropriate or are they just oblivious to your rude habit of arguing and criticising people? Just curious to know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ''What a privilege we’re all enjoying here on a blog with thousands of followers, whose owner allows us to comment on whatever we like, even if some comments, like yours, often aren’t just disrespectful towards Rosalinda but often meant to humiliate and ridicule her on a personal level.''

      Thousands of views, not followers.A handful of contributors. Let's have some perspective. It's owner is Google. Ros hosts it. If personal ridicule and humiliation are not your thing, maybe you should look at Ros' last 8 threads and find one single contributor who has , at any time, trying to insult, ridicule and humiliate anyone as much as Ros herself.

      Do people in your real life find your constant speculation about things you don't understand annoying ? Do they find your obsessive scrutiny and slander aimed at two parents who lost their child weird ? Or do you keep that quiet until you get online ? Just curious to know.

      Delete
    2. LOL 02:21, what a mealy mouthed little scroat you are, whinging and whining because my views don't agree with your own.

      If you write in to insult and ridicule me, you can hardly complain when you get it right back at ya. And just so you know, I am a great fan of US and indeed, some UK, shock jocks, so I might just up the ante.

      Delete
  19. "everyone knows you are a very disturbed person" says 'Unknown'

    Oh well.

    ReplyDelete
  20. @Anonymous19 December 2017 at 02:21
    Hi

    " Do they find your obsessive scrutiny and slander aimed at two parents who lost their child weird ?"

    Thanks for teaching me what words to use, when I’m talking about Rosalinda’s blog. Thanks a lot.

    You also claim that I’m speculating, when I’m just suspicious about the McCanns’ innocence. Nobody knows what happened to poor little Madeleine, yet your choice of word when you’re criticising me, reveals that you have no doubts about Madeleine being abducted by a stranger. How come?

    Nobody who talks about a parent who’s lost his/her child, believes, that that parent is involved in a crime.

    Unless you know that the McCanns are completely innocent, you shouldn’t say that they’ve lost a child. More appropriate words to use are “go missing” and “disappear”, when we’re talking about what may have happened to Madeleine, since we don’t know what happened.

    If you meet someone in a pub who refers to another person who’s LOST his daughter, I suppose you immediately assume that she must have died under circumstances which don’t implicate that parent in a crime or in an accident related to that loss.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bjorn

      Please say nothing more until you've actually given the subject some thought.Your desperate floundering as you try to maintain that the parents are guilty is embarrassing.

      Delete
    2. @Anonymous19 December 2017 at 16:11
      Hi
      Let me be more clear then.
      Using the verb "lose" as you do when you refer to the McCanns' and their vanished daughter suggests that you pretend to know that they're innocent, otherwise you would have said that their daughter has gone missing or just disappeared and my question was, how would you possibly know that.

      I've always said that Madeleine has disappeared under mysterious circumstances, but I've never said that her parents took her dead body out of the apartment and hid her, but I've from the very beginning suspected that they are implicated in the disappearance of their daughter and that they should be reinvestigated and also asked to participate in a reconstruction. I dare say that it would be very embarrasing for the SY/Met if they haven't done that.

      Delete
    3. Bjorn, unlike yourself and a lot of your ilk, I don't pretend to know anything, i just question things. I don't have some weird wish.

      The McCann family went on holiday with three children, and came home with two.The third one, left with the other two one evening, wasn't where they had left her when they arrived back at the apartment.So, an abduction was considered as the most likely scenario after they had called the police to report it.It was a little obvious but what else could have been considered ?

      The child wasn't found.Her corpse wasn't found.It is still a missing person investigation, officially.We're close on eleven (11) years and no further on. If it was a watch Gerry lost, or Kate lost her purse, after 11 years and several people searching the globe, I think they'd say it had been 'lost', that is, 'lost' as in the past tense and past participle of 'lose'.

      You have written reams of accusations aimed at the parents. You've taken any minute detail and tried to make it big. You analysed the smithman rubbish to death trying to make it all about Gerry. You've analysed the empty Gaspar statements to implicate the parents' friends. You never respond to anyone who asks you to supply a source or admit you are just coming up with guesses. You were even asked recently what the re-investigation of the parents could give the investigation after all these years and reminded that all of the important statements are still on file and there's been 11 years to go though them, sentence by sentence. If the Met or the PJ did that, why would it be embarrassing ? It would only be embarrassing if it went nowhere again. If even half of your theories held water the police would have enough circumstantial evidence to build a case and go to court.

      Madeleine's fate is known in small circles and behind tightly closed doors.That's my suspicion based on an overview of everything and everyone involved in PDL that night and the first weeks following it.I find that to be a far more reasonable conclusion than zooming in on the two easiest targets because parents have been known to do it before.But, so have teachers, doctors and others we consider as pillars of a civilised society. The rats who get off on it go even higher.But they own the pen.We just live in it. That's why this case is going nowhere but a shelf. You can hold on to the final straw of forensic investigation one day coming up with a magic wand.But the case will be oblivious to it's power.A magic wand was never needed in 2007 but it still evaded the forensic wands and magicians who turned up from the UK. Why would that change ? There would be a political war and the backlash would be too big to control.

      Delete
  21. "Ask the dogs Sandra", said Gerry McCann.

    Embarrassing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon 17.06,Embarrassing,not for Gerry it wasn't,take a long look at his"Smug Kipper"that tells more than a Thousand words ever could-"I think I am cleverer than you,but nice try anyway"?
      Perhaps someone should show A/C Mr Mark Rowley a presentation of the Sandra tape,then ask Mr Rowley to whom is his priority,Madeleine McCann or the parents,Kate,Gerry,Tapas 7/9,as these persons have also disappeared from sight,but they are keeping their Heads down,awaiting the shelving of the Operation Grange farce?

      Perhaps the UK Police thought that if they could now"Once again"string along the Portugal PJ,"Joint Investigation",that if they(UK Police) shelve there case Portugal will do the same Quid pro Quo?
      But perhaps Portugal have been bitten by the UK Police once too often by the Leicestershire Police and Scotland Yard,DCI Andy Redwood,Hamish Campbell,Simon Foy Detectives?

      Delete
  22. anon 14:35

    Why do you keep doing that . You fire a load of names and accusations and things you imagine they've all done and it makes no sense.It's just a sort of fumbled rant with a load of question marks.Why don't you just say what you think and why.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anon 19.30,In regard to the names and accusations and an imagination that I think they have done.
    Perhaps a court of Law may uncover the Truth?
    I didn't stand before the camera smilingly Smugly,stating"Ask the Dogs,Sandra"!
    I didn't go to Portugal with friends and entered into a disappearance of a little girl named Madeleine,then refused to take part into a re-enactment of events of 3 May 2007,with the "Official Portugal PJ" but relied on vast swathes of Public finances to send Government Officials to help out?
    Yet Seven years after Operation Grange Remit,£12 Million pounds spent to exonerate Non-suspects or person's of interest,yet if you was a woman dressed in Purple seen outside of the Apartment of that evening,you could be of interest to Scotland Yards investigation.
    Yet in October 2013,(SY) posted E-fits of Two Men,not a woman,who they wished to trace or interview and just co-incidently has a likeness to one of the parents,but of course they are not suspects?
    I never went on holiday with three children only to return home with Two,but that is what the parents have stated.
    I never contacted Rebekah Brooks,David Cameron to have a joined up investigation of privately accessed material(Fraudsters)along with Scotland Yard and Portugal PJ to ascertain the whereabouts of one of my offspring,but the parents did,perhaps they would care to pick up the Tab for the past seven Years of investigation?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon 19.30,for good measure,add into the scenario of Gerry,caught on camera smiling laughing(Balconey,Ocean Club Apartments) days after the reported abduction?
      Then mix in the scenario at a Police station,where,UK Police Forces from Leicestershire,Scotland Yard,Portugal PJ were awaiting a"Ransom demand"for the release of Madeleine McCann,where,Gerry was so laid back quoting sports facts to the Police personell,sucking on a Lollipop,Kojak style,yes quite a lovable rogue is our Gerry.
      Now which side of the road was you on Jeremy,Gezza,when JT walked past not noticed by these Two people 21.15 pm 3 May 2007,Dave Edgar mockumentary 2008?
      Obviously they are all innocent,but are keeping a "Pact Of silence" since the reported abduction of Madeleine,with no evidence of an Abduction to have happened!

      Delete
    2. to ..Anonymous23 December 2017 at 16:22

      ''Perhaps a court of Law may uncover the Truth?''

      Before that can happen there has to be a suspect or two, arrests/s, charges and a case for the prosecution to present. The police are the most important cogs in this process as, without the suspects, the rest doesn't follow. There have been two forces, several men, and detectives looking for 11 years now. You think a quip like 'ask the dogs' would do it ?

      When Gerry McCann was asked that question in front of the camera did anyone really think he'd say ''ok ok ok i can't stand it any longer, i did i did'' ? Of course not.The McCanns had been under the scrutiny of the PJ and the media, and had also been found guilty by thousands of over - imaginative nutcases on the internet. His answer was probably a lot stronger in his mind but he couldn't have voiced it on TV. Considering the police interest in the parents, it was naive, or stupid, for a reporter to think she could get something that they couldn't.But, she asked, and the answer has been treated like a 6 episode murder mystery online ever since.Sad acts.

      If you ever accidentally kill anyone, tell your government then ask if they'll fund your hiding the evidence for the next ten years and provide you with diplomatic support and a media spokesman. See what happens.You're suggesting the parents did it and received it all.Just like that.

      The woman in purple was a fairy tale. Unless otherwise turns up, of course.I'd question the witness before i looked for a woman she'd forgotten for a year or ten while supposedly conducting her own (voluntary) investigation in the hope she could help the police(allegedly).

      Efits ? Fairy tales. The efits, woman in purple, smithman etc..you can go through them all- the parents never came up with any of them.

      Gerry McCann contacted Cameron as he wanted an independent investigation. That was a vote of no confidence in what had already proven to be time and money wasted.He was annoyed by the direction that the press coverage was favouring. It was more concerned with feeding it's faithful idiots gossip and suspicion, and to sell more papers, and, naturally, keep the case a hive of buzzing, ranting activity online.The relationship between RB and Cameron( and other politicians from more than one party) had nothing to do with the McCanns.It was how it was before 2007 and has never changed.The Leveson Inquiry would have happened with or without the McCann news event due to the alarming lack of scruples within and throughout the MSM. The MSM is a rotten apple.Certain quarters of the force and Westminster are the worms in it .

      Delete
    3. to Anonymous23 December 2017 at 16:22

      ''Anon 19.30,for good measure,add into the scenario of Gerry,caught on camera smiling laughing(Balconey,Ocean Club Apartments) days after the reported abduction?''

      To the best of my knowledge, it isn't illegal to laugh or smile.I could be wrong on the internet though, I admit.But I don't think it's illegal.Hiding in bushes watching strangers and taking pictures of them is a bit questionable though. But I take your point.Only a cold blooded murderer could do it so soon after killing his child.How about a cold blooded murderer who had the burden of knowing that every branch of the media in the western world was watching him, half of whom were reporting the suspicions about him, and the PJ were not content with his explanations.Would he be laughing and smiling too ?

      ''Then mix in the scenario at a Police station,where,UK Police Forces from Leicestershire,Scotland Yard,Portugal PJ were awaiting a"Ransom demand"for the release of Madeleine McCann,where,Gerry was so laid back quoting sports facts to the Police personell,sucking on a Lollipop,Kojak style,yes quite a lovable rogue is our Gerry. ''

      Yes, that is quite a mix isn't it. Did it actually happen ? Did they all have to sit around awaiting a ransom demand on a telephone, or, did that never really happen except on someones blog or website ? Gerry sucking a lollipop- what would that indicate, other than a sweet tooth.I don't know of any men to have been labelled a 'lovable rogue' because he liked to suck lollipops.

      ''Obviously they are all innocent,but are keeping a "Pact Of silence" since the reported abduction of Madeleine,with no evidence of an Abduction to have happened!''

      Yes, obviously. It's surprising just how much of this 11 year old mystery is obvious.Maybe Santa Claus will bring all those policemen computers and routers this year and they too can discover it all online. If every single word, phrase, or sentence you uttered was subjected to the intense scrutiny by tens of thousands of social media buffs who consider themselves brilliant in the field of crime detection, and the detection of lies that evade the untrained eye,wouldn't you opt for silence ? I would. It's human to forget minor details.It's human to forget exact timelines following traumatic events.But if any of them do, it isn't human.It's evil and dishonest.Because that fits better.

      Delete
    4. Anon 21.00.Yes and do not forget those "Jemmied shutters",the sudden altering of how you entered your holiday apartment,front door or the left open patio doors moment,just another figment of the public's perception,not from their spoken mouths.
      Oh and don't forget the"Family members"with the rotten meat,dirty nappies syndrome as an explanation of foul disgusting smells emitted from a Renault scenic!
      Then the explanation of Kate's pants being picked out by the EVRD dog,(Kate had worn these pants when dealing with dead patients or is that another syndrome for good measure?
      Perhaps Matt Baggot and other renowned UK Police Officers are wrong with the statements they have made towards the parents innocence in their Daughter Madeleine's disappearance are yet more unsubstantiated claims,all coincidentle,explainaable events!
      It was the tooth fairy what dunnit,enough said.

      Delete
    5. Here's an idea. Instead of typing little headlines out as fast you possibly can before you forget them, stop and think.Then give me some reasons why all of these facts you're going on and on about have evaded the attention of two police forces, a forensics lab, and why so many politicians have been prepared to throw money at the case for so long whilst being aware of the McCanns' guilt.I won't ask you for your own personal theory as I think it's obvious. I won't ask you why no evidence has ever been produced either. That wouldn't be fair on you. You keep throwing out the quotes we've been hearing for years. Empty Twitters bin here and we'll sift through the contents with our virtual sniffer dogs before we discard them.And the next circle can start.

      Delete
  24. Anon 15.07,perhaps you can have a sincere word in A/C Mr Rowley why they actually became involved,they did have material sent for Forensic analysis ,but the UK lab after months of deliberation sent back a different outcome to the first results?
    Then,after the Tests,the "UK Police Force"made notes of the possible destruction of the DNA Evidence on "Health Grounds",this must be a first time that an "Active Investigation"is being processed,without the DNA from the missing person,being available for any future analysis!
    Now why would the UK Police destroy DNA evidence,Proof?
    The Politicians are the paymasters puppets,as for guilt,it is your choice of words,I haven't stated their guilt,that is up to the CPS in Portugal to decide.
    It is the Parents of Madeleine who have instigated that the Public should pick up the tab for the"Joint Operation",why don't you ask the Tapas 7/9 to re-enact their whereabouts to the joint Operation,to clear up any inconsistencies?
    It is so easy to mimic Police sniffer dogs,why aren't you stating the classic,"where is the child"we left behind claim,looking after her Two siblings,good parenting award not on the way to an "Ambassador"for "missing children"?
    Merry Xmas.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ''Now why would the UK Police destroy DNA evidence,Proof?''

      They didn't. I think we would have heard something about that little detail.You see, if that happened,whoever gave the order, whoever destroyed it, whoever shared the secret and kept quiet, and the integrity of the Police, Forensics Lab and Politicians would be in an extremely precarious position. Then there would be the matter of continuing the investigation in full knowledge of what they'd colluded to conceal or destroy and the amount of funding that's been spent on their collective salaries.Several implicated by this snippet would be facing jail time for a variety of crimes.How realistic is it to suppose all of this was done to protect two holiday makers ?

      ''The Politicians are the paymasters puppets,as for guilt,it is your choice of words,I haven't stated their guilt,that is up to the CPS in Portugal to decide''

      As you read practically nothing apart from what you type yourself, maybe you could give your last 3 or 4 posts a read.You've insinuated all manner of crimes to the McCanns and the Tapas group.

      ''It is the Parents of Madeleine who have instigated that the Public should pick up the tab for the"Joint Operation",why don't you ask the Tapas 7/9 to re-enact their whereabouts to the joint Operation,to clear up any inconsistencies?''

      Why would the parents( who you haven't said are guilty , according to yourself) do that. And why do you keep asking me or anyone else to ask people questions when two police forces have been looking at it for 11 years.

      ''It is so easy to mimic Police sniffer dogs''

      Is it ? So they're not 'specialist' after all.How disappointing.

      ''why aren't you stating the classic,"where is the child"we left behind claim,looking after her Two siblings,good parenting award not on the way to an "Ambassador"for "missing children"?
      Merry Xmas.''

      I understood 'Merry Xmas'. Merry Xmas.

      Delete