If it was the writers intention, and I'm pretty sure it was, it is the last sentence of the article that is the essence of the post.
It screams, well to me it does. Just who, and how many, were involved in directing the judge to grant an injunction prohibiting the sale of Goncalo Amaral's book, A Verdade de Mentira?
Books simply do not get banned in a European democracy in the twenty first century.
They simply don't. And they don't get banned for the unbelievably pathetic reasons the MCCanns proffered.
As equally, the government of a country, does not treat, or allow to be treated, by itself or by the scum of Europe, one of its Nationals in a manner described in the article, and that can only be described as appalling, Not if it has an ounce of pride it doesn't.
And not when they know in their heart of hearts, that the fellow was right.
Let us forget now for a moment, all that has preceded a quite recent event, the 'Review' by the Metropolitan Police. Because it is from a British perspective that the whole thing reads like a bad play. The governing power of the United Kingdom has undertaken to review the files at the behest of the two people who are to this day, the only persons of interest regarding the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
You simply just could not make it up, no matter how hard you tried.
And if anyone is expecting something positive out of this review, don't, it isn't going to happen.
I've just found this on Joana Morais' site, I've never seen this before but it makes interesting reading especially with the Court Case looming, if Gerry and Kate read this forum, I would be very worried if I were them.......Yes imagine, and imagine what he must have been thinking. The sum of two plus two equals four.
by Aníbal Ferreira
22nd Jan 2010.
Imagine you had been a police officer for 30 years and that you were investigating the disappearance of a little English girl named Maddie McCann.
Imagine that all the police officers, including you, concluded that the little girl had died and that the parents were suspects of being involved in concealing the body.
Imagine that the little girl’s parents were made official suspects and that the English press started to call you “bungling cop”, “amateur”, “corrupted”, “inept”, “incompetent” and “failure”.
Imagine that the English press started to announce on a daily basis that you had “manufactured the case”, “made stuff up”, “”ditched vital evidence”, “hampered the investigation”, that you were “biased”, “cruel” and “lying”.
Imagine that for month after month, the English press called you “fat”, “drunk”, “torturer”, “stupid”, “imbecile” and “infamous”, repeating 418 times that you were a “disgraced” man and that the mother of your children was a “prostitute”.
Imagine that the police’s political directory did not defend you and that, quite to the contrary, it took the case investigation away from you, allowing for the English press to print the headline “Sacked!” and to renew all previous attacks with increased violence.
Imagine that the Public Ministry declared that the process would wait for the production of better evidence and that said statement was understood in England as an “acquittal” of the little girl’s parents, prompting even more attacks from the press against the “bungling cop”, “amateur” and “corrupt”, who “manufactured the case”, “made stuff up” and “ditched vital evidence”.
Have you imagined all of this? Well, then answer this question: IF YOU COULD WRITE A BOOK TO DEFEND YOUR REPUTATION, WOULD YOU WRITE IT?
Now imagine that the book was taken off the market because it damaged the little girl’s parents’ reputation
This is not the first post where I have made use of the word Imagine.