Why have I gone completely off topic, along a deranged path some might say, but my reason is simple. In the comments on my previous blog and in fact many before, there is much talk of conspiracy theories and tin foil hats. The pros, the supporters of the McCanns are trying to plant the idea that someone or several, in the higher stratosphere is responsible for Madeleine's disappearance and the scapegoating of the parents. Actually, I may be wrong in lumping the 'pros' together as one voice, because some believe the police, well the British police at least, are totally on the McCanns's side.
Anyway, matters not, they are pretty much all for going into James Bond territory, they query the protection given to the parents, the huge amounts spent by the UK Government to ensure this case never reaches a conclusion etc. On this, they unite with many 'antis' who also believe OG is a cover up and those working on it are sat around all day playing X-box. The mounting costs (£12m+) being part of a huge ransom for the return of Madeleine. That's a new one. When they hit a certain target (unknown), the abductors will hand the alive and healthy child over.
With the alleged involvement of MI5/MI6 and the Secret Services we need a villain as dastardly as Goldfinger or Blofeld, someone with the power to drop you into a pool of piranha on a whim. Except Madeleine was just an ordinary little girl, precious to her family, but no use in plans to dominate the world or raid the US gold reserves. I think Mike Myers got closest to that genre, Dr. Evils et al are mostly fictional. Although even in the fictional realm I haven't seen an evil dictator send out for a small child.
Gerry McCann is a Professor, kudo to him for that, but he doesn't have high security clearance and he hasn't been seen galivanting with Russians floosies. I can't think of any secret Gerry might have (apart from the obvious) that would make Gerry and his family targets of a hostile foreign power or Scaramanga.
Removing foreign powers and Bond villains, what are we left with? Person or persons unknown within the British establishment. Someone who has power over, not only a Labour government but a Tory government as well. That person must also have power over the police if Operation Grange is the farce the critics claim it is. History has shown us however that rank, privilege, massive wealth, etc, can only protect a person for so long. We only have to look at Trump, his rank as President and Commander in Chief, isn't protecting him from anything. Serious question. Who in the UK is so important that our Government, both Labour when they were in power, and Tory now, would cover up for them? A major Royal perhaps? A cabinet minister? A member of the House of Lords? A billionaire political donor? Who has the power to persuade 30+ homicide detectives to cover up a child's death and leave a massive stain on their career records forever more?
But let me throw another conspiracy theory into the pot. Let's call it ways to get people in power to do what you want them to or to get rid of people you don't like. It was used frequently in Caesar's Senate, the Court of Henry VIII and on a daily basis in the halls of Westminster and the Trump Administration. Of course the ancient and the medieval rulers didn't use allegations of child abuse as child abuse was normal for the times. Getting engaged to a 5 year didn't raise so much as an eyebrow.
Being gay has had its ups and downs but in ancient civilisations it doesn't seem to have been a life changer in the sense that gay writers, artists and musicians were able practice their crafts. But persecution I am sure did exist, especially when it came to Queen Victoria's reign. In the middle ages the worst allegation that could be made against you was witchcraft. Accusations could be thrown and fingers pointed, trials consisted of strapping said witch to a chair and ducking her/him into a river until they confessed or died. If they confessed they were burnt, innocence wasn't an option. Witches carried the brunt of societies ills for a couple of centuries, well, until the immigrants and the Jews arrived.
Back in the 1950s and 1960s, the hated group, the witches, were the homosexuals. Communists too, but that would take us way off track. Many politicians were vulnerable to blackmail, bribery and corruption due to the fact that they were homosexual. Homosexuality was illegal - err, for men. Homosexuality laws go back to the time of Queen Victoria and she didn't believe women did that sort of thing. Gay members of parliament and members of the establishment were in constant danger of being compromised, their careers finished if they were exposed in the papers, the Sundays especially. See Jeremy Thorpe.
Happily those days are gone, being gay is OK, people accept gay people like other gay people and they are not potential child molesters, which sadly was part of the anti gay ideology. It wasn't safe to leave children with them was the mean spirit of the times. Now, the only way a life can be wrecked on the scale that it was for homosexuals in the 60s is an accusation of downloading child pornography. That would be the present day equivalent of being dragged through the streets and publicly executed.
In 1999 the police launched Operation Ore, a large scale clampdown on men accused of accessing a child pornography site in the US. See link below. Unfortunately many of the men accused had their credit card details stolen, and they were in fact innocent. This after dawn raids, humiliating arrests at work and their children seized and placed into care. At least 39 of them took their own lives.
Paedophile hunters are all around us, so many that when they are trying to catch paedophiles online they are usually speaking to each other. Grown men pretending to be ribbons and curls 14 year old girls for other grown men who are doing the same. None of them give two hoots about kids being battered or emotionally abused, they are only interested in the sexual side.
Apologies for putting that unsavoury image in anyone's heads. As poorly educated and inept as these vigilantes are, there is always a chance they might stumble on people they can blackmail. They don't have the intelligence, the morals or the professional code of ethics to prevent them from using any information they obtain unscrupulously. That's one of the biggest arguments against watchers on the internet. Who watches the watchers?
But returning to that life altering/ending accusation. Imagine a list exists of VIPs, politicians, celebrities etc who could have downloaded child pornography knowingly or unknowingly? They may be completely innocent but the accusation would be enough to ruin them. How far would they go to avoid that sort of accusation? Possessing child pornography is an easy charge to make. Most of us have pictures of our kids naked in the bath or 'scantily clad' on the beach. Look at how much was made of the Madeleine in make up pictures, a little girl playing dressing up, was twisted and distorted into something grotesque. The Cesspit devoted entire threads to it along with the McCanns' holiday snaps. They simply don't get that they are the only group online discussing child sex. All those dark, sinister fantasies come from their own creepy imaginations.
Unfortunately, those on a quest to track down perverts may come across names of people they can use to put forward their agenda, just as those who pursued homosexuals in the 1960s. It is not unusual these days for people to 'leak' something and for it to go viral. The News of the World is long dead and buried but it has been replaced by the much faster twitter, where we see Ministers et al disgraced and resigning within hours. We don't have to wait until Sunday morning to read the 'smut and filth' as my dear old mum used to called the Sunday papers, as we tucked into bacon and eggs. Dirt on, well anyone, is a valuable commodity.
