The culture of St. Anne's Institution was based on punishment, just like the Roman Catholic institutions in Eire. We had a Punishment Book, that (gleefully) listed the physical and deprivation punishments, it didn't list the impromptu beatings, punches, kicks, pinches, pushing down the stairs, Chinese burns, etc, that the nuns dished out when their insanity took over completely and they wanted to pound a few more sins out of us.
The Authorities and the Catholic Church were complicit, the authorities didn't want to dig too deep, because they knew the can of worms they would be opening. Bizarrely, the position remains exactly the same today.
The nuns and staff, saw the children in their care as the spawn of the permissive society (it was the 60's) - we were the result of the promiscuity and immorality of the godless heathens outside the convent walls. It was their 'duty' to reform and punish us, they were doing it on behalf of 'God' and saving us from growing up to be whores like our mothers. Their motives were 'good' and their methods tried and trusted. You can't get a better laundress and cleaner than an ex convent girl.
Wayward girls and children from dysfunctional homes could be placed in the care of nuns safe in the knowledge that these potential whores, crooks and vagabonds would be firmly placed on the straight and narrow through a strict regime of hard work, prayer and suffering. Though it should be said even at that time, prisoners had some rights, we had none because no-one questions the religious.
The nuns taught us that pride and self esteem were tools of the devil, humility was the way forward, and they were more than happy to give us daily lessons in that. When people think of nuns, they think of the Sound of Music and kind, honourable women who have never committed a 'sin' in their lives. They forget entirely, that these women are religious extremists! All of them. No sane person spends half their lives on their knees praying to an unseen entity.
It was the nuns' duty to break our spirits, to respect authority and accept our lowly place in the universe and they took to it with gusto. Girls were prepared for a lifetime of domestic drudgery (I and the other girls were not allowed to do our school homework until the nun could see her ugly, fat face in the floor she made us polish over and over) and the boys were taught how to say 'yes sir, no sir' and doff their caps. The nuns, and indeed society, saw us as the prison inhabitants of the future, therefore it was imperative for them to teach us humility, obedience and conformity. This culture wasn't confined to the 'Sisters of Mercy' in Orpington, look at the atrocities carried out by the Sisters of Nazareth in Northern Ireland. Look at the similarities between all the children's homes run by fanatical religious orders, even the punishments are the same. This was a culture that ran through ALL the religious institutions in the UK and why there is such a backlash now.
Everything however is stacked against the survivors. Our murky 'pre convent' pasts will be seen as the root cause of any problems we may have had in life, not the abuse we received whilst in the care of 'responsible' people employed by the Council. We are bad eggs. Its in our gene pool. Its why I and probably thousands of others, kept our pasts hidden, many still do.
Sadly, its probably why we are still treated with so much suspicion, our motives seen as lowlife and money grabbing and our claims, a way in which to get money we are not entitled to. And there are reasons for this, the majority of care leavers end up in Prison, have mental health issues and problems with alcohol and drugs. The very good reasons why they have all these problems are completely overlooked, bad = bad, end of. The solution, counselling, guidance and rehabilitation costs money, 'bad' is cheaper to deal with and it satisfies the public's need to see non conformists punished and it keeps the riff raff off our streets.
The survivors are not just fighting mountains of bureaucracy, they are also fighting public prejudice. No one dare mention money, because that will confirm everyone's suspicions. 'Ah, so, its all about the compo - gotcha!'. Yet, acknowledging that the abuses occurred, apologising for them and helping the survivors to rebuild their broken lives is the only humane way in which to bring this historic abuse circus to an end. Spending years proving each individual claimant is a liar will cost far, far more.
Monday, 2 March 2015
Saturday, 28 February 2015
CSA Inquiry - its the Economy Stupid
I am really not clear what the focus of the CSA Inquiry is. If it is to track down and punish the perpetrators, then we will be here forever. Obviously those still actively engaged in childcare should be dealt with as a matter of urgency, but the testimony of historic cases that have been proved over and over by other survivors should be accepted, and the survivors compensated without further delay.
The main purpose of the Inquiry, seems to be to disprove the stories of the victims. And in this instance I will use the word victims., because they, and indeed I, were victims of the 'don't spare the lash' ideology that prevailed at the time. There is not very much that can be done about that, 85% of us come from dysfunctional homes, and none of us knows what goes on behind the white nets. Even the most 'respectable' families have many dark secrets.
What was unacceptable however, was the sexual, physical and emotional abuse that would NEVER be acceptable in any compassionate society. Acts that would incur criminal charges outside of an institution. How can you justify raping kids and dragging 5 year olds from their beds and locking them in a cupboard for the night? How can you justify making a child eat its own vomit? How can you justify forcing children to do hard physical work (often completely pointless tasks dreamed up out of spite) to the point where they can barely keep their eyes open?
Institutions were not too dissimilar to prisons, which is why the huge Mental Institutions of old were shut down and their inhabitants moved into the community. Institutions are a breeding ground for 'Zimbardo' mentality. Those with power over others, especially the vulnerable, become tyrants*. To deny its existence, in the face of the evidence, over and over again, is futile. It happened in the past, and it is happening still, psychopaths hone in on the weak and vulnerable, look at what happened at Winterbourne. Its not just kids who suffer, anyone who is vulnerable is at risk. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13548222 and of course the horrors of Deepcut.
The failure of the local authorities to check on HOW we were being cared for and who they were employing to take care of us was criminally negligent. In my case, Peter Rand, a fanatical lunatic and ex Jesuit monk who envisaged himself as an Opus Dei martyr. This man who should have been in a straight jacket and on very strong medication, had day to day care of us and he continued working with children until the late 1980's, despite in 1972 being found with 15 year old boy in his bed and crimes of serious financial fraud. But he was a good Catholic.
Does anyone actually believe that creature treated us with responsible loving care and affection? His favourite saying was 'Mortification of the Body is Good for the Soul', he believed pain would bring us closer to God. Just how much evidence do they need? Must we all be paraded as Victims, A, B, C, etc and reveal in excruciating detail the humiliation and physical beatings, and for some gruesome sexual ordeals, we endured for the delectation of the Media and those making a beeline for the juicy stuff.
In the 1960's, some bright spark in high office thought it would be a good idea to employ good, catholic, single men, to be house fathers and mentors for children in care. They opened up the sweetshop for every pervert, sadist, psychopath in the vicinity and of course many who were happy to travel any distance. Who advertised, interviewed, and encouraged these lunatics, the local authorities or the Catholic Church?
At some point in the early 1970's the insanity ceased. I remember my last year in Don Bosco as being happy, the nuns and lunatics had gone, replaced by a middle aged single lady, who was well educated, well travelled, and who understood us, from the little ones up to the sulky teens. She was Aunty Mary, and we loved her dearly. For some of the kids, those who had been in care since they were babies, it was the first love and kindness they had ever experienced in their lives.
In trying to understand what led to the freaky behaviour of Aunty Mary's predecessors. St. Anne's Convent was an institution like many others that existed at the time. Each run by their own Mr. Bumbles who saw 'abandoned' kids as a commodity. And we were. The local authorities were paying extraordinary amounts of money to the Catholic Childrens' Authorities to take care of us. My father a student nurse at the time had to contribute over half his wages, the Borough of Richmond paid the rest. In many cases, the full amount was paid by the taxpayers. Institutions are run on belief systems, and if that belief system preaches pain, suffering and hardship, that is what the inmates will endure. There is no kindness in moulding a chid into a 'good Catholic'.
Being 'moulded' in your formative years by an institution based on the ideology of religious fanatics can be very damaging indeed, especially if you refuse to believe the same shit they do. And if your education is restricted to religious indoctrination that convinces you that your life is to be a journey of suffering, then you will be very fucked up indeed.
In my own lifelong quest to understand what it is that makes people evil, I tried to understand the nuns' stories, I tried to think of them as the young girls they once were, and I tried to understand what drove them, at a tender age, to give up all of life's pleasures to devote themselves to a man in the sky they couldn't see. I hasten to add I didn't move into this mode of thought until past middle age, prior to that I just thought they were demons from hell sent to wreak vengeance and retribution on the offspring of lowlives.
All the nuns I knew were Irish, the Sisters of Mercy, but the mere mention of that particular Order's name sends shivers of fear worldwide, so its probably not confined to the Irish. Fair dues to the Irish though, because their Government and indeed the Roman Catholic Church have admitted liability for the crimes committed by the Sisters of Mercy in Eire and anyone who was ever in their care (in Eire) is automatically compensated without the ordeal of a trial.
Those investigating historic child abuse should start with the religious indoctrination and practice of this Order of nuns, and indeed many of the other particularly vicious Orders, that these (mad)women received before they were unleashed onto the world. What made them behave in the way they did? Those who believe Mother Theresa was a Saint, need to think again. She wasn't and her form of 'faith, kept the poor, poor and inflicted more suffering and dying than is imaginable. But don't take my word for it, watch the great man himself, Christopher Hitchens on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65JxnUW7Wk4
The CSA Enquiry needs to look at the overall picture, rather than deal with each case individually on its own merits. The Roman Catholic Church needs to accept that those nuns who were committing crimes in Eire, were committing exactly the same crimes in the UK (and probably worldwide) - they were the same nuns, from the same backgrounds, with the same 'batter little children' training.
Bizarrely, we accept without question that Priests, nuns, any clergy actually, are intrinsically good people because they have sacrificed their lives to God. And a lot of them are good people. Unfortunately, there are also many within their ranks who at some have point have thought, 'feck, I really didn't think this whole sacrificing thing through when I signed up, so I'll make everyone else suffer'. There are also a few good eggs, who just think, 'well now I'm here, I'll make the most of it'. And then of course there are many who genuinely want to do good in the world, but need the security of being part of a group with a common goal in order to do it.
At the moment the focus of the CSA Inquiry is to track down and punish the perpetrators of these crimes. Having battled and campaigned on this issue for way too many years, I can say to other survivors that bringing the abusers to justice doesn't heal the wounds and they are still hurting you if you believe it will. In my case, Peter Rands and the nun were still alive, but very old and very ill - although there was certain irony that Peter Rands was dying from cancer of the anus. I would like to say that they were remorseful and sorry for what they had done, but they weren't. They lied to the bitter end. If their faith is as strong they as they claim, they will take their lies with them when they meet their maker, that's fine by me.
We shouldn't be campaigning for more trials, we should be campaigning for compensation. Not only were we being abused, our abusers were being paid for it, handsomely! The Catholic Church should acknowledge the disparity between admitting the guilt of the Sisters of Mercy in Eire and the denial of it in the UK. The wealth of the Vatican should be dipped into to improve the lives of those they wrecked and ways need to found to prevent institutional abuse ever happening again.
From an economic perspective, it will cost much less to give each survivor a nominal sum, than to fight each case on its individual merits. I estimate that my case must have cost a minimum of 500K, that money could have settled the claims of 50 survivors at £10,000 each and prevented 50 further trials at a cost of £500k a time. Its economics Stupid, and the only way this never ending Jarndyce .v. Jarndyce saga to reach a conclusion, is for both sides to put their cards on the table and find an economic solution that will suit everyone.
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZwfNs1pqG0 The Stanford Prison Experiment - Zimbardo
The main purpose of the Inquiry, seems to be to disprove the stories of the victims. And in this instance I will use the word victims., because they, and indeed I, were victims of the 'don't spare the lash' ideology that prevailed at the time. There is not very much that can be done about that, 85% of us come from dysfunctional homes, and none of us knows what goes on behind the white nets. Even the most 'respectable' families have many dark secrets.
What was unacceptable however, was the sexual, physical and emotional abuse that would NEVER be acceptable in any compassionate society. Acts that would incur criminal charges outside of an institution. How can you justify raping kids and dragging 5 year olds from their beds and locking them in a cupboard for the night? How can you justify making a child eat its own vomit? How can you justify forcing children to do hard physical work (often completely pointless tasks dreamed up out of spite) to the point where they can barely keep their eyes open?
Institutions were not too dissimilar to prisons, which is why the huge Mental Institutions of old were shut down and their inhabitants moved into the community. Institutions are a breeding ground for 'Zimbardo' mentality. Those with power over others, especially the vulnerable, become tyrants*. To deny its existence, in the face of the evidence, over and over again, is futile. It happened in the past, and it is happening still, psychopaths hone in on the weak and vulnerable, look at what happened at Winterbourne. Its not just kids who suffer, anyone who is vulnerable is at risk. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13548222 and of course the horrors of Deepcut.
The failure of the local authorities to check on HOW we were being cared for and who they were employing to take care of us was criminally negligent. In my case, Peter Rand, a fanatical lunatic and ex Jesuit monk who envisaged himself as an Opus Dei martyr. This man who should have been in a straight jacket and on very strong medication, had day to day care of us and he continued working with children until the late 1980's, despite in 1972 being found with 15 year old boy in his bed and crimes of serious financial fraud. But he was a good Catholic.
Does anyone actually believe that creature treated us with responsible loving care and affection? His favourite saying was 'Mortification of the Body is Good for the Soul', he believed pain would bring us closer to God. Just how much evidence do they need? Must we all be paraded as Victims, A, B, C, etc and reveal in excruciating detail the humiliation and physical beatings, and for some gruesome sexual ordeals, we endured for the delectation of the Media and those making a beeline for the juicy stuff.
In the 1960's, some bright spark in high office thought it would be a good idea to employ good, catholic, single men, to be house fathers and mentors for children in care. They opened up the sweetshop for every pervert, sadist, psychopath in the vicinity and of course many who were happy to travel any distance. Who advertised, interviewed, and encouraged these lunatics, the local authorities or the Catholic Church?
At some point in the early 1970's the insanity ceased. I remember my last year in Don Bosco as being happy, the nuns and lunatics had gone, replaced by a middle aged single lady, who was well educated, well travelled, and who understood us, from the little ones up to the sulky teens. She was Aunty Mary, and we loved her dearly. For some of the kids, those who had been in care since they were babies, it was the first love and kindness they had ever experienced in their lives.
In trying to understand what led to the freaky behaviour of Aunty Mary's predecessors. St. Anne's Convent was an institution like many others that existed at the time. Each run by their own Mr. Bumbles who saw 'abandoned' kids as a commodity. And we were. The local authorities were paying extraordinary amounts of money to the Catholic Childrens' Authorities to take care of us. My father a student nurse at the time had to contribute over half his wages, the Borough of Richmond paid the rest. In many cases, the full amount was paid by the taxpayers. Institutions are run on belief systems, and if that belief system preaches pain, suffering and hardship, that is what the inmates will endure. There is no kindness in moulding a chid into a 'good Catholic'.
Being 'moulded' in your formative years by an institution based on the ideology of religious fanatics can be very damaging indeed, especially if you refuse to believe the same shit they do. And if your education is restricted to religious indoctrination that convinces you that your life is to be a journey of suffering, then you will be very fucked up indeed.
In my own lifelong quest to understand what it is that makes people evil, I tried to understand the nuns' stories, I tried to think of them as the young girls they once were, and I tried to understand what drove them, at a tender age, to give up all of life's pleasures to devote themselves to a man in the sky they couldn't see. I hasten to add I didn't move into this mode of thought until past middle age, prior to that I just thought they were demons from hell sent to wreak vengeance and retribution on the offspring of lowlives.
All the nuns I knew were Irish, the Sisters of Mercy, but the mere mention of that particular Order's name sends shivers of fear worldwide, so its probably not confined to the Irish. Fair dues to the Irish though, because their Government and indeed the Roman Catholic Church have admitted liability for the crimes committed by the Sisters of Mercy in Eire and anyone who was ever in their care (in Eire) is automatically compensated without the ordeal of a trial.
Those investigating historic child abuse should start with the religious indoctrination and practice of this Order of nuns, and indeed many of the other particularly vicious Orders, that these (mad)women received before they were unleashed onto the world. What made them behave in the way they did? Those who believe Mother Theresa was a Saint, need to think again. She wasn't and her form of 'faith, kept the poor, poor and inflicted more suffering and dying than is imaginable. But don't take my word for it, watch the great man himself, Christopher Hitchens on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65JxnUW7Wk4
The CSA Enquiry needs to look at the overall picture, rather than deal with each case individually on its own merits. The Roman Catholic Church needs to accept that those nuns who were committing crimes in Eire, were committing exactly the same crimes in the UK (and probably worldwide) - they were the same nuns, from the same backgrounds, with the same 'batter little children' training.
Bizarrely, we accept without question that Priests, nuns, any clergy actually, are intrinsically good people because they have sacrificed their lives to God. And a lot of them are good people. Unfortunately, there are also many within their ranks who at some have point have thought, 'feck, I really didn't think this whole sacrificing thing through when I signed up, so I'll make everyone else suffer'. There are also a few good eggs, who just think, 'well now I'm here, I'll make the most of it'. And then of course there are many who genuinely want to do good in the world, but need the security of being part of a group with a common goal in order to do it.
At the moment the focus of the CSA Inquiry is to track down and punish the perpetrators of these crimes. Having battled and campaigned on this issue for way too many years, I can say to other survivors that bringing the abusers to justice doesn't heal the wounds and they are still hurting you if you believe it will. In my case, Peter Rands and the nun were still alive, but very old and very ill - although there was certain irony that Peter Rands was dying from cancer of the anus. I would like to say that they were remorseful and sorry for what they had done, but they weren't. They lied to the bitter end. If their faith is as strong they as they claim, they will take their lies with them when they meet their maker, that's fine by me.
We shouldn't be campaigning for more trials, we should be campaigning for compensation. Not only were we being abused, our abusers were being paid for it, handsomely! The Catholic Church should acknowledge the disparity between admitting the guilt of the Sisters of Mercy in Eire and the denial of it in the UK. The wealth of the Vatican should be dipped into to improve the lives of those they wrecked and ways need to found to prevent institutional abuse ever happening again.
From an economic perspective, it will cost much less to give each survivor a nominal sum, than to fight each case on its individual merits. I estimate that my case must have cost a minimum of 500K, that money could have settled the claims of 50 survivors at £10,000 each and prevented 50 further trials at a cost of £500k a time. Its economics Stupid, and the only way this never ending Jarndyce .v. Jarndyce saga to reach a conclusion, is for both sides to put their cards on the table and find an economic solution that will suit everyone.
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZwfNs1pqG0 The Stanford Prison Experiment - Zimbardo
Friday, 27 February 2015
THE SECRET
So child abuse is a subject that should ONLY be addressed by professionals in the field of psychology. So what about ex police? Those notable child abuse experts Jim Gamble and Mark Williams-Thomas, are they trained psychologists? Is the subject of 'child abuse' safe in their hands?
If a child is abused, do they have to get a degree in psychology before they are allowed to discuss it?
For those screaming I am not 'qualified' to address the subject of child abuse, I have a degree in Humanities, and as a writer, I have spent a lifetime studying psychology and human behaviour. I also spent several years of my childhood in the care of psychopaths. Ergo, I have a heightened sense of injustice, a will to pursue it, and the ability to spot bullshit in a nanosecond. If anything, I am over qualified. I want to know what it is that produces pure evil. I don't yet know the answer, but I am getting ever closer.
Meanwhile, if my words of empowerment can resonate with even one struggling family, or single mum', or dad, then I know that I have done the right thing. My words are addressed to the 'young me', to the young mums and dads out there struggling to know what is right and what is wrong and they are putting their faith in people who are giving them advice that is terribly, horribly, wrong.
If we raise our children to be victims, then that is what they will grow up to be. If we tell them on a daily basis, that they are incredible, amazing and have the power to be whatever they want, their lives will be completely different. Negative energy attracts negative energy, and positive, attracts positive.
These child protection professionals are programmed to deal with the aftermath, I am tackling the prevention, and I make no apologies for it. The best way to protect kids is to raise them in such a way, that they can protect themselves. Parental responsibility doesn't stop at care and control, it includes teaching their young how to survive.
Having raised two children as a young, single, working mother, I have experienced exactly the same hazards and pitfalls of many of my readers. I was fortunate because I had an amazing, enlightened father, who was way ahead of his time in the field of raising children. He taught my brother and I how to read and write BEFORE we started school and for my critics, no, he wasn't a 'teacher', he was a hospital cook at the time, how dare he eh! Demarcation and all that.
I didn't always take his advice, preferring to listen to the raging hormones instead, and I fell the 'bad men' - I didn't move them in, but I saw the effects first hand, because a lot of my friends and work colleagues did. Its one of the hardest things in the world to raise kids on your own and at times it can be heartbreakingly lonely. Young single mothers are among the most vulnerable groups in society, particularly for predatory, controlling men with a penchant for disciplining kids. And again, I stress, physical and mental abuse is far more prevalent and equally as damaging as sexual abuse.
What I am preaching (and I do hate to preach) is self empowerment. If you fall to pieces because some Norman No-Mates has published one of his sick fantasties about you online, then you will have a very difficult (both real and cyber) life indeed and the internet is probably not for you. The old adage 'sticks and stones' still applies. Punishing your name callers and the critics, will not stop the name calling and the criticism. I used to tell the nuns 'I swear not to say 'whatever' again' with my fingers crossed behind my back, and a vow in my head to keep on thinking it.
Unfortunately, NNMs are everywhere, some of them acquire mates through dubious means and pacts, but they will attack and spit venom regardless. The only thing that matters is the way in which you handle it. That I said I 'squish' those who snap at me on twitter, brought cries of shock, horror and outrage. These matters should be dealt with through the 'proper' authorities, not one line gags. Ouch. Next time, I'll report it to the police, get a crime number, and start a Petition for the next NNM to be de-bollocked.
Why is it so dangerous to advise people to empower themselves? Why should that power be reserved for a select few? The sheer snobbery of those who have responded to my opinions on child abuse post astounds me. ANYONE can read about and discuss any subject, philosophy, psychology, politics, cooking, the Hadron Collider, etc, etc, etc. There are no closed doors. And if a subject interests me I don't need any form of authority or permission to research and discuss it, and my sympathy lies with those restricted by those boundaries that say they do.
Anything I publish is based on years of research and life experience, and guided by honesty and integrity. The advice I am giving is based on The Secret known by every successful person who has ever lived and bits I clearly practiced to survive thus far, and of course the words of my mother when I entered the convent, 'if those bastads come near ya, fecking give 'em what for'.
If a child is abused, do they have to get a degree in psychology before they are allowed to discuss it?
For those screaming I am not 'qualified' to address the subject of child abuse, I have a degree in Humanities, and as a writer, I have spent a lifetime studying psychology and human behaviour. I also spent several years of my childhood in the care of psychopaths. Ergo, I have a heightened sense of injustice, a will to pursue it, and the ability to spot bullshit in a nanosecond. If anything, I am over qualified. I want to know what it is that produces pure evil. I don't yet know the answer, but I am getting ever closer.
Meanwhile, if my words of empowerment can resonate with even one struggling family, or single mum', or dad, then I know that I have done the right thing. My words are addressed to the 'young me', to the young mums and dads out there struggling to know what is right and what is wrong and they are putting their faith in people who are giving them advice that is terribly, horribly, wrong.
If we raise our children to be victims, then that is what they will grow up to be. If we tell them on a daily basis, that they are incredible, amazing and have the power to be whatever they want, their lives will be completely different. Negative energy attracts negative energy, and positive, attracts positive.
These child protection professionals are programmed to deal with the aftermath, I am tackling the prevention, and I make no apologies for it. The best way to protect kids is to raise them in such a way, that they can protect themselves. Parental responsibility doesn't stop at care and control, it includes teaching their young how to survive.
Having raised two children as a young, single, working mother, I have experienced exactly the same hazards and pitfalls of many of my readers. I was fortunate because I had an amazing, enlightened father, who was way ahead of his time in the field of raising children. He taught my brother and I how to read and write BEFORE we started school and for my critics, no, he wasn't a 'teacher', he was a hospital cook at the time, how dare he eh! Demarcation and all that.
I didn't always take his advice, preferring to listen to the raging hormones instead, and I fell the 'bad men' - I didn't move them in, but I saw the effects first hand, because a lot of my friends and work colleagues did. Its one of the hardest things in the world to raise kids on your own and at times it can be heartbreakingly lonely. Young single mothers are among the most vulnerable groups in society, particularly for predatory, controlling men with a penchant for disciplining kids. And again, I stress, physical and mental abuse is far more prevalent and equally as damaging as sexual abuse.
What I am preaching (and I do hate to preach) is self empowerment. If you fall to pieces because some Norman No-Mates has published one of his sick fantasties about you online, then you will have a very difficult (both real and cyber) life indeed and the internet is probably not for you. The old adage 'sticks and stones' still applies. Punishing your name callers and the critics, will not stop the name calling and the criticism. I used to tell the nuns 'I swear not to say 'whatever' again' with my fingers crossed behind my back, and a vow in my head to keep on thinking it.
Unfortunately, NNMs are everywhere, some of them acquire mates through dubious means and pacts, but they will attack and spit venom regardless. The only thing that matters is the way in which you handle it. That I said I 'squish' those who snap at me on twitter, brought cries of shock, horror and outrage. These matters should be dealt with through the 'proper' authorities, not one line gags. Ouch. Next time, I'll report it to the police, get a crime number, and start a Petition for the next NNM to be de-bollocked.
Why is it so dangerous to advise people to empower themselves? Why should that power be reserved for a select few? The sheer snobbery of those who have responded to my opinions on child abuse post astounds me. ANYONE can read about and discuss any subject, philosophy, psychology, politics, cooking, the Hadron Collider, etc, etc, etc. There are no closed doors. And if a subject interests me I don't need any form of authority or permission to research and discuss it, and my sympathy lies with those restricted by those boundaries that say they do.
Anything I publish is based on years of research and life experience, and guided by honesty and integrity. The advice I am giving is based on The Secret known by every successful person who has ever lived and bits I clearly practiced to survive thus far, and of course the words of my mother when I entered the convent, 'if those bastads come near ya, fecking give 'em what for'.
Thursday, 26 February 2015
HOW TO PREVENT CHILD ABUSE
Firstly lets define child abuse, it shouldn't be confined to sexual abuse, sexual abuse is often the least of these kids problems, the starvation and battering usually kills them first.
1. Neglect. This can range anywhere between feeding them a poor diet, cutting them off emotionally, ignoring their needs and failing to prepare them for the outside world. Neglect leads to 2 and 3 below.
2. Physical abuse. Far more prevalent and harmful than its popular stablemate No. 3. In this topsy turvy world, we can almost imagine a Judge addressing a latter day Oliver Twist; 'and whilst you were being forced to work inhuman hours, starved, beaten and locked in a cellar, were you at any time fondled?'
3. Sexual abuse. The stuff of tabloid front pages and over zealous 'child protectors'.
The most important issue to tackle in my opinion, is number 1, Neglect. And neglect is a widespread and often ignored issue that inevitably leads on to numbers 2 and 3. - yet it is the easiest and most cost effective to tackle.
Over 90% of child abuse happens within the home or at the hands of people who know the child. Some would have us believe our children are in constant danger from paedophiles and perverts lurking on every corner and hiding away in every bedsit. That simply isn't true. The dangers are much closer to home.
The way in which society has evolved has led to many young parents, girls especially, being left alone to raise young children without the advice, support and wisdom of their mothers, aunts, and wider family. These support networks have existed since time began, in every society, but as we move away from our home turf, we lose the basic and moral guidelines of loving relatives as we get lost in a sea of new ideas and information.
I have long advocated teaching parenting within schools, possibly led by an army of older 'Mums', who could pass on their own experiences and tips for how to deal with fractious toddlers and keep your sanity. Sadly many young people have no-one to talk to, and fewer still have parents who will inspire them to want more from life than a baby, a Council flat and a boyfriend who doesn't hit them. These dysfunctional families rarely move far from their 'estates' and bad parenting in one generation, leads to bad parenting in the next, and so the cycle goes on.
Child abuse stems from ignorance. Parents who do not know how to love and care for their children will quickly lose control. And once they lose control, alienation and behavioural problems set in. Most bad behaviour in children is born out of frustration and the child's need for attention - even negative attention is better than nothing. And of course, it is hard to love a child who is screaming blue murder when your head is pounding and you are desperate for some sleep.
To a small child, or even a big one, you, their mum, their dad, are their world, they love you more than anything else and they want to please and impress you. Listen to them, even if they are babbling and struggling to find the words to form a complete sentence, give them your full attention, praise their attempts and help them! The sooner you and your child can communicate with each other, the more peaceful all your lives will be.
Children who are abused are vulnerable because they are unable to communicate. That vital part of parental teaching is missing from their make up. They are neglected, whether it was deliberate or not, because their parents failed to provide them with the 'shields' they need to protect themselves in this world. And the fault lies with the parents, not the 'authorities', the NHS or the Education system (well partly), it lies with those who shape the child's outlook on the world in those early, vital years, 'give me the child until he's 5 etc'.
But it isn't entirely the parents' fault, because they have had the same crap indoctrination that they are passing on. Don't aspire for too much and accept as gospel everything people with white collars tell you, and for good measure, it wouldn't hurt to doff your cap on occasion. Learn only enough to remain content with your lot.
But this isn't a Marxist rant. Child abuse occurs because lives get out of control. Women with very low aspirations accept into their lives angry, abusive men because it is better than being on their own with kids. They are vulnerable to predators of the worst kind. And because they think so little of themselves, they are unable to protect their offspring. Their victimhood is reinforced by people with good intentions, whilst their ability to do anything about it is sidestepped because their urgent and dramatic needs must come first.
It is easier to find a villain to blame for the circumstances you find yourself in, rather than accept that you, yourself, have made those life choices. As well as practical assistance, these women, and indeed evermore men, need to be taught that they don't have to live that way. Unfortunately, child abuse and domestic violence is a pattern they will go on to repeat again and again until they realise that they and their children deserve to be treated with kindness and respect, and they shouldn't accept anything less.
If hundreds, or even thousands, of children are to be 'lifted out of child abuse', then we must educate the parents, the mothers especially. Family dynamics are an ever shifting entity in the 21st century, it is a fact of life and one that won't change, despite all the cries for a return to Victorian values*. Remember those teenage and twenty something heads haven't seen life as we oldies have, they don't know what to look out for and what to avoid. They are almost as gullible and vulnerable as their kids.
To prevent child abuse, the best gift we can give our children is confidence. A child who is confident and self assured will be far better protected than a child who is nervous and paranoid. The world isn't full of bogeymen lurking in the dark waiting for the lights to go out. And looking at porn online doesn't lead on to serial killing. Whilst we must teach our kids to be cautious online, turning them into pill popping neurotics will make them more vulnerable, not less.
The world is full of abusers in every way, shape and form, from those in authority over us as children to those in authority over us as adults. How much of this abuse we are prepared to tolerate depends on the way in which we view ourselves and the world around us. If we feel worthless/powerless, we will accept it, if we feel strong and confident, we won't. We only have control over our own lives and if we choose victimhood, that's what we will get.
As I write this, the UK remains in hysteria over the abuses of Jimmy Savile and other old 'celebrity' men, who are being dragged from their homes, publicly castigated and sent to the dungeon for the remainder of their lives. Do they deserve it? I dunno, but one look at the sad, hurt, dirty, snotty, little faces queuing up with their stressed out parents at this decade's food banks, reminds me of Dante 'Abandon Hope all ye who enter here'. Dickens too, must be weeping.
*Perhaps not so 21st century, who can forget David Copperfield's first scary encounter with his 'new' stepfather.
1. Neglect. This can range anywhere between feeding them a poor diet, cutting them off emotionally, ignoring their needs and failing to prepare them for the outside world. Neglect leads to 2 and 3 below.
2. Physical abuse. Far more prevalent and harmful than its popular stablemate No. 3. In this topsy turvy world, we can almost imagine a Judge addressing a latter day Oliver Twist; 'and whilst you were being forced to work inhuman hours, starved, beaten and locked in a cellar, were you at any time fondled?'
3. Sexual abuse. The stuff of tabloid front pages and over zealous 'child protectors'.
The most important issue to tackle in my opinion, is number 1, Neglect. And neglect is a widespread and often ignored issue that inevitably leads on to numbers 2 and 3. - yet it is the easiest and most cost effective to tackle.
Over 90% of child abuse happens within the home or at the hands of people who know the child. Some would have us believe our children are in constant danger from paedophiles and perverts lurking on every corner and hiding away in every bedsit. That simply isn't true. The dangers are much closer to home.
The way in which society has evolved has led to many young parents, girls especially, being left alone to raise young children without the advice, support and wisdom of their mothers, aunts, and wider family. These support networks have existed since time began, in every society, but as we move away from our home turf, we lose the basic and moral guidelines of loving relatives as we get lost in a sea of new ideas and information.
I have long advocated teaching parenting within schools, possibly led by an army of older 'Mums', who could pass on their own experiences and tips for how to deal with fractious toddlers and keep your sanity. Sadly many young people have no-one to talk to, and fewer still have parents who will inspire them to want more from life than a baby, a Council flat and a boyfriend who doesn't hit them. These dysfunctional families rarely move far from their 'estates' and bad parenting in one generation, leads to bad parenting in the next, and so the cycle goes on.
Child abuse stems from ignorance. Parents who do not know how to love and care for their children will quickly lose control. And once they lose control, alienation and behavioural problems set in. Most bad behaviour in children is born out of frustration and the child's need for attention - even negative attention is better than nothing. And of course, it is hard to love a child who is screaming blue murder when your head is pounding and you are desperate for some sleep.
To a small child, or even a big one, you, their mum, their dad, are their world, they love you more than anything else and they want to please and impress you. Listen to them, even if they are babbling and struggling to find the words to form a complete sentence, give them your full attention, praise their attempts and help them! The sooner you and your child can communicate with each other, the more peaceful all your lives will be.
Children who are abused are vulnerable because they are unable to communicate. That vital part of parental teaching is missing from their make up. They are neglected, whether it was deliberate or not, because their parents failed to provide them with the 'shields' they need to protect themselves in this world. And the fault lies with the parents, not the 'authorities', the NHS or the Education system (well partly), it lies with those who shape the child's outlook on the world in those early, vital years, 'give me the child until he's 5 etc'.
But it isn't entirely the parents' fault, because they have had the same crap indoctrination that they are passing on. Don't aspire for too much and accept as gospel everything people with white collars tell you, and for good measure, it wouldn't hurt to doff your cap on occasion. Learn only enough to remain content with your lot.
But this isn't a Marxist rant. Child abuse occurs because lives get out of control. Women with very low aspirations accept into their lives angry, abusive men because it is better than being on their own with kids. They are vulnerable to predators of the worst kind. And because they think so little of themselves, they are unable to protect their offspring. Their victimhood is reinforced by people with good intentions, whilst their ability to do anything about it is sidestepped because their urgent and dramatic needs must come first.
It is easier to find a villain to blame for the circumstances you find yourself in, rather than accept that you, yourself, have made those life choices. As well as practical assistance, these women, and indeed evermore men, need to be taught that they don't have to live that way. Unfortunately, child abuse and domestic violence is a pattern they will go on to repeat again and again until they realise that they and their children deserve to be treated with kindness and respect, and they shouldn't accept anything less.
If hundreds, or even thousands, of children are to be 'lifted out of child abuse', then we must educate the parents, the mothers especially. Family dynamics are an ever shifting entity in the 21st century, it is a fact of life and one that won't change, despite all the cries for a return to Victorian values*. Remember those teenage and twenty something heads haven't seen life as we oldies have, they don't know what to look out for and what to avoid. They are almost as gullible and vulnerable as their kids.
To prevent child abuse, the best gift we can give our children is confidence. A child who is confident and self assured will be far better protected than a child who is nervous and paranoid. The world isn't full of bogeymen lurking in the dark waiting for the lights to go out. And looking at porn online doesn't lead on to serial killing. Whilst we must teach our kids to be cautious online, turning them into pill popping neurotics will make them more vulnerable, not less.
The world is full of abusers in every way, shape and form, from those in authority over us as children to those in authority over us as adults. How much of this abuse we are prepared to tolerate depends on the way in which we view ourselves and the world around us. If we feel worthless/powerless, we will accept it, if we feel strong and confident, we won't. We only have control over our own lives and if we choose victimhood, that's what we will get.
As I write this, the UK remains in hysteria over the abuses of Jimmy Savile and other old 'celebrity' men, who are being dragged from their homes, publicly castigated and sent to the dungeon for the remainder of their lives. Do they deserve it? I dunno, but one look at the sad, hurt, dirty, snotty, little faces queuing up with their stressed out parents at this decade's food banks, reminds me of Dante 'Abandon Hope all ye who enter here'. Dickens too, must be weeping.
*Perhaps not so 21st century, who can forget David Copperfield's first scary encounter with his 'new' stepfather.
Wednesday, 25 February 2015
THE WAITING GAME
Like Blacksmith, I believe this case is finally nearing an end. I had thought it would all reach a conclusion prior to the General Election in May, because if a massive fraud and cover up are exposed under this tory government, they could make a meal of it.
It may of course be that I am giving this case way too much importance from a political perspective, but I don't think so. As George Galloway said, if (when) this case is exposed it will the 'Mother of All Justices'. It will be a scam on a scale never seen before. From a financial perspective, more money has been raised/spent/misused in the name of Madeleine McCann than any missing child or person in history.
However, much seems to depend on the proceedings in Lisbon. Either by accident or design, news from Scotland Yard seems to coincide or at least run parallel to news from Portugal. Both countries seemingly afraid to make the first move.
As an outsider, it seems to me that the Portuguese have no appetite for the Scotland Yard investigation and the only reason I can think of for this, is that Operation Grange are determined to pin this on anyone other than the McCanns, preferably a Portuguese citizen. The endless rogatory letters and requests to interview oddbods, misfits and anyone swarthy who ever had a manual job at Warners, must be time consuming and irritating for those who know darn well what happened on 3rd May 2007. I hope I am wrong, but it looks to me as though the Portuguese have washed their hands of this.
The Portuguese police don't appear to be building a case of any sort whatsoever, if they are, they are keeping it very tightly under wraps, but I sense that they don't want to be dragged up the garden path again. In 2007 they were put to the time and expense of investigating every loony sighting from every corner of the earth, and I doubt they will be doing that again.
I have always thought that all the delays and the faffing about by Scotland Yard, is some strict adherence to building a concrete, 100% solid case for the prosecution, one that left no wriggle room for the high flying barristers for the Defence. But almost 8 years on there doesn't seem to any sign of this. If I were a pessimist I would say Scotland Yard appear to have no more evidence than the Portuguese did when they filed the case away 7 years ago. What I find worrying however, is the way in which the investigation seems to be having its strings pulled by people intent on proving there was a stranger abduction.
Actually it would be more than tragic if Scotland Yard too have hit a dead end, it would be a downright injustice, and one that will never, ever go away. If the intention of Operation Grange was to bury the case and prove beyond reasonable doubt that the McCanns were not involved, then they have failed spectacularly. The case of missing Madeleine still makes the front pages and more people are asking questions.
DCI Redwood introduced the idea that Madeleine may have died in Apartment 5A. Basically, the same thing that was said by Goncalo Amaral and for which the parents are demanding £1.2 million in compensation for their hurt feelings. The announcement didn't receive the fanfare that the 'McCanns (and their friends) are not suspects' did, but it won't go away. Anyone who knows even the most basic facts about this case, will know that it is impossible for the child to have died (and for cadaver odour to have accumulated) in the apartment without the knowledge of its occupants.
That Martin Brunt attempted to convince the Sky News audience that a 'burglar' took the dead child and buried her in the immediate vicinity of the crime after the alarm had been raised is an insult to anyone's intelligence. It may of course be part of a strategy to keep the heat off the families involved, but the pouncing on Brenda Leyland most certainly wasn't. I would hope that no-one 'official' was involved in that sickening PR stunt, and if they were, then they should be held to account for it.
Now that all these cans are open and lids off, the case MUST reach a conclusion which leads onto a couple of very big questions. Firstly, it must be pointed out that Scotland Yard do not have jurisdiction to prosecute someone for a crime committed in Portugal. So why have millions been spent on a Scotland Yard investigation that can never reach a satisfactory conclusion? There are no signs that Scotland Yard and the PJ are working together nicely, in fact, the opposite appears to be the case. I am hoping that it is a cunning plan, so cunning that it has outfoxed the lot of us.
Musing and speculating, I can only imagine that the UK and Portugal have reached some sort of agreement whereby any prosecution will be led by the British, but I can only see that working if British citizens were involved and the trial were to take place in the UK. The logistics of how, where and who will conduct a criminal prosecution are way above my head I'm afraid. Will, or indeed, can, the Crown Prosecution Service deal with this case 'as if the abduction/murder had occurred in the UK'?
The chances of the McCanns being arrested in Portugal, seem to be slim to zero. Both stood on the steps of the Lisbon Courts spouting the injustice of it all, without any sense of irony, or indeed fear. But then again, as two of the most famous faces on the planet, there isn't really anywhere for them to hide and they desperately need that money from Goncalo.
The big question for me at the moment is, what is Scotland Yard's agenda and what 'evidence' are they waiting for? Are they, like the PJ before them, stuck with only circumstantial evidence? Have all the witnesses, the inner circle especially, stuck to their original stories like glue? Does Jane Tanner still insist that the Frankenstein like creature carrying a child off into the night was not a figment of her imagination? Does Operation Grange have definitive 100% proof that the parents and their friends were not involved? In which case, why not release it and end their agony?
Where is Operation Grange heading? Will the investigation end in a trial? If so, where? The crime was committed in Portugal, any prosecution must be given the go ahead by the Portuguese Attorney General. Britain is not an empire, it can't cherry pick criminal cases involving UK citizens abroad and bring them back to the motherland to be tried and cleared. And if the investigation has been set up without the intention of bringing anyone to justice, then will there be an Inquiry?
It may of course be that I am giving this case way too much importance from a political perspective, but I don't think so. As George Galloway said, if (when) this case is exposed it will the 'Mother of All Justices'. It will be a scam on a scale never seen before. From a financial perspective, more money has been raised/spent/misused in the name of Madeleine McCann than any missing child or person in history.
However, much seems to depend on the proceedings in Lisbon. Either by accident or design, news from Scotland Yard seems to coincide or at least run parallel to news from Portugal. Both countries seemingly afraid to make the first move.
As an outsider, it seems to me that the Portuguese have no appetite for the Scotland Yard investigation and the only reason I can think of for this, is that Operation Grange are determined to pin this on anyone other than the McCanns, preferably a Portuguese citizen. The endless rogatory letters and requests to interview oddbods, misfits and anyone swarthy who ever had a manual job at Warners, must be time consuming and irritating for those who know darn well what happened on 3rd May 2007. I hope I am wrong, but it looks to me as though the Portuguese have washed their hands of this.
The Portuguese police don't appear to be building a case of any sort whatsoever, if they are, they are keeping it very tightly under wraps, but I sense that they don't want to be dragged up the garden path again. In 2007 they were put to the time and expense of investigating every loony sighting from every corner of the earth, and I doubt they will be doing that again.
I have always thought that all the delays and the faffing about by Scotland Yard, is some strict adherence to building a concrete, 100% solid case for the prosecution, one that left no wriggle room for the high flying barristers for the Defence. But almost 8 years on there doesn't seem to any sign of this. If I were a pessimist I would say Scotland Yard appear to have no more evidence than the Portuguese did when they filed the case away 7 years ago. What I find worrying however, is the way in which the investigation seems to be having its strings pulled by people intent on proving there was a stranger abduction.
Actually it would be more than tragic if Scotland Yard too have hit a dead end, it would be a downright injustice, and one that will never, ever go away. If the intention of Operation Grange was to bury the case and prove beyond reasonable doubt that the McCanns were not involved, then they have failed spectacularly. The case of missing Madeleine still makes the front pages and more people are asking questions.
DCI Redwood introduced the idea that Madeleine may have died in Apartment 5A. Basically, the same thing that was said by Goncalo Amaral and for which the parents are demanding £1.2 million in compensation for their hurt feelings. The announcement didn't receive the fanfare that the 'McCanns (and their friends) are not suspects' did, but it won't go away. Anyone who knows even the most basic facts about this case, will know that it is impossible for the child to have died (and for cadaver odour to have accumulated) in the apartment without the knowledge of its occupants.
That Martin Brunt attempted to convince the Sky News audience that a 'burglar' took the dead child and buried her in the immediate vicinity of the crime after the alarm had been raised is an insult to anyone's intelligence. It may of course be part of a strategy to keep the heat off the families involved, but the pouncing on Brenda Leyland most certainly wasn't. I would hope that no-one 'official' was involved in that sickening PR stunt, and if they were, then they should be held to account for it.
Now that all these cans are open and lids off, the case MUST reach a conclusion which leads onto a couple of very big questions. Firstly, it must be pointed out that Scotland Yard do not have jurisdiction to prosecute someone for a crime committed in Portugal. So why have millions been spent on a Scotland Yard investigation that can never reach a satisfactory conclusion? There are no signs that Scotland Yard and the PJ are working together nicely, in fact, the opposite appears to be the case. I am hoping that it is a cunning plan, so cunning that it has outfoxed the lot of us.
Musing and speculating, I can only imagine that the UK and Portugal have reached some sort of agreement whereby any prosecution will be led by the British, but I can only see that working if British citizens were involved and the trial were to take place in the UK. The logistics of how, where and who will conduct a criminal prosecution are way above my head I'm afraid. Will, or indeed, can, the Crown Prosecution Service deal with this case 'as if the abduction/murder had occurred in the UK'?
The chances of the McCanns being arrested in Portugal, seem to be slim to zero. Both stood on the steps of the Lisbon Courts spouting the injustice of it all, without any sense of irony, or indeed fear. But then again, as two of the most famous faces on the planet, there isn't really anywhere for them to hide and they desperately need that money from Goncalo.
The big question for me at the moment is, what is Scotland Yard's agenda and what 'evidence' are they waiting for? Are they, like the PJ before them, stuck with only circumstantial evidence? Have all the witnesses, the inner circle especially, stuck to their original stories like glue? Does Jane Tanner still insist that the Frankenstein like creature carrying a child off into the night was not a figment of her imagination? Does Operation Grange have definitive 100% proof that the parents and their friends were not involved? In which case, why not release it and end their agony?
Where is Operation Grange heading? Will the investigation end in a trial? If so, where? The crime was committed in Portugal, any prosecution must be given the go ahead by the Portuguese Attorney General. Britain is not an empire, it can't cherry pick criminal cases involving UK citizens abroad and bring them back to the motherland to be tried and cleared. And if the investigation has been set up without the intention of bringing anyone to justice, then will there be an Inquiry?
Tuesday, 24 February 2015
BURIED BY THE MAINSTREAM
There you go Tone, your expose of my officially being an egotist is not getting much interest on your forum, so I will put it here :)
In a series of tweets last summer, I disagreed with Brenda Leyland about the Richard T. Hall, Buried by the Mainstream videos, her argument being that it was my ego that prevented me from backing and promoting this series of videos that claimed to expose the truth behind the Madeleine McCann mystery.
It wasn't. It was Richard's use of Tony Bennett's appalling and biased research that pointed the finger at the first arguido Robert Murat via the Smith family who saw a man carrying a child on the night Madeleine disappeared. The implication being that the Smith family were lying to protect their 'friend' Robert Murat. It has of course since been proved that Tony Bennett was in fact investigating the WRONG Smith family, ergo, Video 3 (iirc) of the 4 piece is a load of bollocks. Sorry Richard, but you should have checked.
Whilst there was a lot of good work within the videos, an error of that magnitude destroyed the rest. My sympathy lies with Richard, but I could not in all good conscience, promote the videos, because:
a) They were giving out the wrong information.
b) I consider individuals investigating (stalking) witnesses in a high profile criminal investigation to be fundamentally wrong on every level.
c) I consider publishing the findings of such stalking, ie, the personal, financial and confidential details of potential witnesses for the Crown, on a public message board, morally bankrupt, and if not criminal, then it should be.
d) I do not feign affection. That is, I will only praise that which genuinely impresses me and I'm afraid these videos didn't because I was niggled by the errors and they were far too long. If I say something is brilliant, when it isn't, then that will reflect on my own reputation.
It is appalling now to see Tony elevate Brenda Leyland to sainthood because she became a victim of this case. She wasn't. She was an ordinary woman, no different to most of us, but on occasion she went too far. That sadly, is probably one of the reasons she was selected as the 'example'. I was not a fan, but the only exchange I can recall with her, was our disagreement over the Mainstream videos. And incidentally, why hasn't Tony put my tweets alongside Brenda's? He is showing only half the conversation!
I am sure that if Brenda and I had got to know each other, we would have had much in common but such is the nature of social media, we are all but ships that pass in the night. I was shocked and appalled when Sky News pounced on Brenda, and I tweeted my support for her, because no-one deserved that.
I would be curious however to know Mr. Bennett's views in the aftermath of Sky News, that intervening period before Brenda was found dead. In fact, I would be interested to see the 'views' and 'tweets' of a number of antis at that time, because I had more than a taste of it myself following the Sun article.
For the critics, yes, tis boring having to rebut Mr. Bennett's allegations, and being called an egotist is one of the more amusing and less harmful among them. But it is sickening that he is using Brenda Leyland in this way and that he caused so much damage to the work of Richard T. Hall. If I were Richard, I would edit it to the bone and re-launch it as one video focussing on the truth and avoiding armchair theorists.
In a series of tweets last summer, I disagreed with Brenda Leyland about the Richard T. Hall, Buried by the Mainstream videos, her argument being that it was my ego that prevented me from backing and promoting this series of videos that claimed to expose the truth behind the Madeleine McCann mystery.
It wasn't. It was Richard's use of Tony Bennett's appalling and biased research that pointed the finger at the first arguido Robert Murat via the Smith family who saw a man carrying a child on the night Madeleine disappeared. The implication being that the Smith family were lying to protect their 'friend' Robert Murat. It has of course since been proved that Tony Bennett was in fact investigating the WRONG Smith family, ergo, Video 3 (iirc) of the 4 piece is a load of bollocks. Sorry Richard, but you should have checked.
Whilst there was a lot of good work within the videos, an error of that magnitude destroyed the rest. My sympathy lies with Richard, but I could not in all good conscience, promote the videos, because:
a) They were giving out the wrong information.
b) I consider individuals investigating (stalking) witnesses in a high profile criminal investigation to be fundamentally wrong on every level.
c) I consider publishing the findings of such stalking, ie, the personal, financial and confidential details of potential witnesses for the Crown, on a public message board, morally bankrupt, and if not criminal, then it should be.
d) I do not feign affection. That is, I will only praise that which genuinely impresses me and I'm afraid these videos didn't because I was niggled by the errors and they were far too long. If I say something is brilliant, when it isn't, then that will reflect on my own reputation.
It is appalling now to see Tony elevate Brenda Leyland to sainthood because she became a victim of this case. She wasn't. She was an ordinary woman, no different to most of us, but on occasion she went too far. That sadly, is probably one of the reasons she was selected as the 'example'. I was not a fan, but the only exchange I can recall with her, was our disagreement over the Mainstream videos. And incidentally, why hasn't Tony put my tweets alongside Brenda's? He is showing only half the conversation!
I am sure that if Brenda and I had got to know each other, we would have had much in common but such is the nature of social media, we are all but ships that pass in the night. I was shocked and appalled when Sky News pounced on Brenda, and I tweeted my support for her, because no-one deserved that.
I would be curious however to know Mr. Bennett's views in the aftermath of Sky News, that intervening period before Brenda was found dead. In fact, I would be interested to see the 'views' and 'tweets' of a number of antis at that time, because I had more than a taste of it myself following the Sun article.
For the critics, yes, tis boring having to rebut Mr. Bennett's allegations, and being called an egotist is one of the more amusing and less harmful among them. But it is sickening that he is using Brenda Leyland in this way and that he caused so much damage to the work of Richard T. Hall. If I were Richard, I would edit it to the bone and re-launch it as one video focussing on the truth and avoiding armchair theorists.
Saturday, 21 February 2015
WHO IS MORE INTELLIGENT?
For my claim against the Catholic Church I spent two full days being psychology analysed and for comprehension it seems I am up there with the geniuses - aw shucks, though sadly, not a mathematician. And, for what it is worth, two eminent psychiatrists, one on my behalf, and one on behalf of the Defence, gave evidence, in the witness box, under oath, that I am not a liar, or indeed a bad person, they were both agreed in fact, that I am a good egg. Very few people have such character references, but due to exceptional circumstances, I do and they are publicly available as I am sure the compilers of 'the dossier' are aware.
What is intelligence? And what is it that makes Tony far more intelligent than I? I don't claim to be intelligent btw (my sons could give a 1000 reasons why I am as daft as a brush) nor do I document my research to bore others with online. I simply never feel the need to prove and justify everything I say with links - I have been on social media long enough to know that everything will be challenged and cross-referenced by those who keep such detailed files on me. - they have archives going back to 2007, lol. It keeps them busy I suppose, even if it is a bit creepy.
Tony is like many people who 'work extremely hard', he gets off on the martyrdom of sacrificing his life for his work and he wants everyone to know about it. If it brought him pleasure, he would just get on with it, but its the praise he seeks. He is the kind of guy who is still at his desk, head down scrivening away while the rest of the office head off to the pub, and he is first back there in the morning while they are nursing their sore heads. Does it make him more intelligent? In my long career as a legal secretary, the most successful and dynamic boss I ever had, had nothing but contempt for the 'kiss arses' who stayed late every night and sacrificed their weekends. His reasoning, if they can't get their job done between 9 to 5 with a lunch break, then they are crap it.
Tony's 'intelligence', I'm afraid, is painful to watch. He reads every text as if it were Janet and John Book 1 - deconstructs it, analyses each word individually, then goes on to miss the point completely by choosing only parts that fit his already established conclusions. An intelligent reader, skim reads the volumes, picks out the salient points, then interprets the information in its simplest and most basic form with ALL the key points, not just a select few. If they can do this for others, then their skills are much appreciated, because most people don't have the time or inclination to devote several years of their lives to a solitary piece of trivia.
I always thought academics, politicians and wordsmiths were the most intelligent among us, but I've since had a rethink. The cleverest I believe, are those who can sum up situations with the fewest words, those who are several steps ahead of the rest of us, the comedians who can say in one line, what everyone is thinking but dare not say out loud, they top the poll in my opinion, and are by far my favourites.
The politicians have gone way down my own list of intelligent people (bar Clinton) - because their lines are written by others and they can't handle the truth. Truth is of course essential if one line is to hit to the spot. Academics remain on their pedestal for reasons that would take several pages and another day to go into. But for genius, and intelligence then I would look towards the Art world, towards the creatives who are able to able to interpret and transcribe public feeling, in one painting, one song, one drama, one film, one book or even one line. They are the carriers of history, culture and time.
Tony is trapped in a blinkered world by his own ideology. He is physically and mentally unable to think outside the box - everything for him is clearly delineated and in many ways, that is very sad. I don't mean to pick on Tony personally, he is a product of his environment and the thought processes he was indoctrinated with as a child. He is however, for me, representative of all the stupid white men who preach racial prejudice, sexism, bigotry and hate based on shit written over 2000 years ago by other stupid white men. And in those days, the revered and intelligent ones, were those who spent 23 hours a day reading the bible, rather than ones who were out partying and sowing their seed. Even a non mathematician such as I, can see how mankind's progeny went slightly awry.
What is intelligence? And what is it that makes Tony far more intelligent than I? I don't claim to be intelligent btw (my sons could give a 1000 reasons why I am as daft as a brush) nor do I document my research to bore others with online. I simply never feel the need to prove and justify everything I say with links - I have been on social media long enough to know that everything will be challenged and cross-referenced by those who keep such detailed files on me. - they have archives going back to 2007, lol. It keeps them busy I suppose, even if it is a bit creepy.
Tony is like many people who 'work extremely hard', he gets off on the martyrdom of sacrificing his life for his work and he wants everyone to know about it. If it brought him pleasure, he would just get on with it, but its the praise he seeks. He is the kind of guy who is still at his desk, head down scrivening away while the rest of the office head off to the pub, and he is first back there in the morning while they are nursing their sore heads. Does it make him more intelligent? In my long career as a legal secretary, the most successful and dynamic boss I ever had, had nothing but contempt for the 'kiss arses' who stayed late every night and sacrificed their weekends. His reasoning, if they can't get their job done between 9 to 5 with a lunch break, then they are crap it.
Tony's 'intelligence', I'm afraid, is painful to watch. He reads every text as if it were Janet and John Book 1 - deconstructs it, analyses each word individually, then goes on to miss the point completely by choosing only parts that fit his already established conclusions. An intelligent reader, skim reads the volumes, picks out the salient points, then interprets the information in its simplest and most basic form with ALL the key points, not just a select few. If they can do this for others, then their skills are much appreciated, because most people don't have the time or inclination to devote several years of their lives to a solitary piece of trivia.
I always thought academics, politicians and wordsmiths were the most intelligent among us, but I've since had a rethink. The cleverest I believe, are those who can sum up situations with the fewest words, those who are several steps ahead of the rest of us, the comedians who can say in one line, what everyone is thinking but dare not say out loud, they top the poll in my opinion, and are by far my favourites.
The politicians have gone way down my own list of intelligent people (bar Clinton) - because their lines are written by others and they can't handle the truth. Truth is of course essential if one line is to hit to the spot. Academics remain on their pedestal for reasons that would take several pages and another day to go into. But for genius, and intelligence then I would look towards the Art world, towards the creatives who are able to able to interpret and transcribe public feeling, in one painting, one song, one drama, one film, one book or even one line. They are the carriers of history, culture and time.
Tony is trapped in a blinkered world by his own ideology. He is physically and mentally unable to think outside the box - everything for him is clearly delineated and in many ways, that is very sad. I don't mean to pick on Tony personally, he is a product of his environment and the thought processes he was indoctrinated with as a child. He is however, for me, representative of all the stupid white men who preach racial prejudice, sexism, bigotry and hate based on shit written over 2000 years ago by other stupid white men. And in those days, the revered and intelligent ones, were those who spent 23 hours a day reading the bible, rather than ones who were out partying and sowing their seed. Even a non mathematician such as I, can see how mankind's progeny went slightly awry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)