An issue of far greater importance than that which has everybody's attention at present. I myself prefer to stay with the issues, particularly this one.
Why are you trying to legitimise McCann and his abduction theory?
This is the important part of Tony Bennett's letter to Jim Gamble, it is this issue that requires an answer before anything else. Are you going to give us one?
Click it again once you have opened it.
Your degree of commitment, on behalf of CEOP, to the McCanns, has been immense, despite the doubts prompted by their being made ‘arguidos’ and being pulled in for questioning and the contents of the interim police report of senior police inspector Tavares de Aleida.
You have heavily featured Madeleine McCann on your website and in other publications about your work. You appeared together with the McCanns 12 months ago in a one-minute ‘viral video’, strongly emphasising that Madeleine was still alive and needed to be found. You also appeared on morning news shows side by side with the McCanns.
You also invited Dr Gerald McCann in January to be the keynote speaker at a conference of the abduction of children by paedophiles, a matter that concerned many of us, as there is not a shred of evidence that Madeleine was abducted by a paedophile. On top of all that, Home Secretary Alan Johnson recently asked you to recommend a new British police force to carry out a review and possibly a re-investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance and, according to press reports, you have already delivered your recommendation to him. In view of this intense activity on behalf of the McCanns, then, you are without doubt in a powerful position to advise them as to their choice of images being used to remind people about Madeleine. We trust you will provide suitable advice to them.
I hadn't planned on going down this path this morning, I'm working on a bit of something, but I'm not sorry I did. The questions surrounding Gamble's association with McCann go to the very heart of the matter; that we receive answers is paramount.
Straw men have come into conversation of late, not that the above falls into this category, but no better an example will you find than that depicted below.
Every now and then, in the entertainment field, a little gem comes out of America. Only two shows in the last twenty years would I consider worthy of the "Gem" tag. The all time winner for me would have to be, HBO's Deadwood, the best bit of television and television series I have ever watched. Made even more remarkable by a superb performance of an actor I had always considered a bit of a tosser.
Ian McShane as Lovejoy was that tosser, but Ian McShane as Al Swearengen was little short of brilliant. Thoroughly recommended but not for delicate ears.
You might be wondering by now why I'm rattling on about all this. Well truth be told I have an hour or two invested in what turned out to be a very disappointing search for sufficient clips of Allan Shore, Boston Legal, to make a decent post out of them; hence I'm stuffing them on the end of this one.
In fairness I have to say, it is only due to brilliant script writing and the performance of James Spader as Alan Shore, that for me, gives the thing gem status.
As I say, it was a disappointing search, so two clips on Scientology, and one that has been overlaid by a political skin, not by the way, is the thing any worse for it. An unadulterated version I couldn't find, however don't let it detract you from script or performance.
Home of the brave, land of the free!