Monday, 31 October 2011

Beware The Bogey Man The Disingenuous and The Back Door

We witnessed it with the Patriot Act, although in the case of Bush, even that wasn't enough, Bushco and the American state going on to engage in all kinds of illegal domestic activities, from.... well you name it.

But what we did witness, was the wheeling out the terrorism bogey man and subsequently the enactment of the Patriot act, that did for privacy and civil rights in one fell swoop, what the Taliban did for cultural appreciation. Guardian, video below.

There is another bogey man I want to make mention of, and although not directly related to the main body of this post, it is important that I mention it for reasons manifold.

Voter disenfranchisement has been around in the US for long enough, but is seemingly ever on the increase in the red states of America. And shamelessly so I have to say; well it would be wouldn't it? Shame and Republican, being two words that don't belong in the same sentence.

I'm not going to explain the nuts and bolts of it all, but do Google it for yourselves. It's quite an eye-opener, even if you are somewhat au fait with the US voting system, even more so if you are not.

But it is under the guise of voter fraud, albeit so minuscule that it could, and should be ignored, nevertheless, this is the bogey man that Republican held states and districts offer, quite transparently and shamelessly, as the excuse to enact restrictions, usually in the form of voter ID, on that section of the public that would normally be associated with voting Democrat.

Update: The Guardian has a piece on this.

The Republican 'voter fraud' fraud

All over the US, GOP lawmakers have engineered schemes to make voting more difficult. Well, if you can't win elections fairly… Guardian

More recently and closer to home however, we have witnessed the use of, and not always for reasons noble, that most emotive of bogey men, the paedophile.

And what better example do we need of seeing the paedo bogey man being run out, and for sure without a noble reason in sight, than that of Jim Gamble, recently of the CEOP.

In chronological order I reference three previous posts, all featuring the use of emotive bogey man to further someone's agenda, an agenda I have to say, where the protection of children slips down the ladder of priorities. We only need to recall Jim Gambles attempts to whitewash the McCanns to have that observation confirmed.

The first up then: CEOP: More Toys Out Of The Pram Our bogey man, this time under the guise of cartoon porn, starts proper at the, A comment from the web mark. But please, don't miss out on the comments, they say as much, if not more than the article itself.

That's The Trouble With Hysteria follows next, and it is this post that is the meat and potatoes of it all. Referencing the toys out of the pram article at the outset, it delves a little deeper into the use of the bogey man as tool, but does moves on to cover one or two other points.

Now I know Why is pure Jim Gamble, well it is if you ignore, Ed Smart, Isabel Duarte and Keith Vaz. But for the main, it is Gamble, his methods and his empire building.

So to the article in question, two actually, there was something else that caught my eye on the same site.

Here again we see the same bogey man employed, he does get around doesn't he? But what this fellow is proposing, in the name of the bogey man of course, is nothing more than data gathering on a grand scale, and not least shall we say, a tad intrusive?

Details of all internet traffic should be logged, MEP says

A member of the European Parliament wants users' "traffic data", rather than the specific content of online communications, to be logged under expanded EU laws on data storage. This is according to a statement from the European People's Party (EPP) at the European Parliament.

Tiziano Motti, an Italian MEP, wants to extend the EU's Data Retention Directive "to content providers (social networks etc) in order to identify more easily those who commit crimes, including paedophilia through sexual harassment on the net," the EPP said.

"This is a request which does not refer specifically the online content, which falls under the Regulation of Wiretapping, but to the traffic data developed by the person uploading material of any kind on the net: comments, pictures, videos," it said.

The Data Retention Directive was established in 2006 to make it a requirement for telecoms companies to retain personal data for a period – determined by national governments – of between six months and two years. The Commission decided to regulate following terrorist attacks in Madrid in 2004 and London in 2005.

Under the Directive, telecoms firms are required to retain identifying details of phone calls and emails, such as the traffic and location, to help the police detect and investigate serious crimes. The details exclude the content of those communications.

Motti's proposals, developed with the help of Italian computer expert Fabio Ghioni (author of Hacker Republic), would involve the data being stored in an internet "black box" enabling the "truth of what happened on the web" to be recorded, according to an automated translation of a report on Ghioni's website (in Italian).

Ghioni's "Logbox" system would involve encrypting the traffic data and giving the "key" to access it to the user, an "authority" and a lawyer, according to an automated translation of a report (in Italian) by Italian Christian magazine, Famiglia Cristiana.

Ghioni said his "precise mechanism" would need the "collaboration" of operating system manufacturers such as Microsoft and Apple to log all activities on their systems, according to the automated translation of the report. That data would be "digitally signed in order to be traced to a specific computer and its user", allowing paedophiles to be identified "regardless of any trick [they may use] to anonymise any illegal activity", and would be inexpensive to operate, Ghioni said, according to the automated translation of the report.

Motti believes that establishing a system for storing "traffic data" would make it possible to enforce suggestions he previously made regarding data retention laws last year, according to the EPP.

In June 2010, the European Parliament backed proposals outlined in a "written declaration" by Motti and fellow MEP Anna Záborská to set up a system to act as an "early warning" system to identify paedophiles and other sex offenders. A written declaration has no legislative effect on its own, but is formally communicated by the Parliament to the European Commission in a bid to influence its policy if adopted.

The adopted declaration also called for the scope of the Directive to cover "data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks" and be extended "to search engines in order to tackle online child pornography and sex offending rapidly and effectively".

In April this year, the European Commission said it would update the Data Retention Directive after conceding that it does not always adequately protect privacy or personal data.

The Commission was responding to a critical report that it had commissioned to provide feedback on the impact the Directive was having on businesses and consumers, and how it was being implemented in EU countries.

At the time the Commission said that it would consider strengthening regulations of the storage, access to and use of retained data to improve the protection of personal data.

In May, UK Justice Secretary Ken Clarke said that the Commission's plans to revise the Directive should be viewed "with caution" after he listed examples of how stored communications data had been used to thwart terrorism and serious crime during a speech at the British Chamber of Commerce in Brussels.

This is the other article that caught my eye, but don't be mislead by the header, it goes deeper than that.

YouTube asked to remove 135 videos over 'national security issues', Google says

The UK Government asked Google to remove 135 YouTube videos for national security reasons in the first half of this year, the internet search giant has said.

In total UK content removal requests increased by 71% compared to the previous six-month period, Google said in its twice-yearly transparency report.

The Government raised no national security concerns between July and December 2010.

Google fully or partially complied with 82% of the Government's requests, the report said.

In total the UK Government requested the removal of 333 items including web search results, images and videos according to the figures.

It also asked for 61 videos to be removed for 'privacy and security' reasons, three for violence and one for hate speech. 20 videos were removed for 'other' reasons, according to the figures.

Google started publishing its Transparency Report last year. It outlines traffic patterns and disruptions to Google services, as well as providing details of content removal requests and requests for user data received from governments around the world.

Removal requests ask for the removal of content from Google search results or another one of the company's products, including YouTube, it said. Data requests ask for information about Google user accounts or products.

The company said it received 1,273 user data requests relating to 1,443 individual users. It fully or partially complied with 64% of those requests, it said.

A Home Office spokesperson told that where unlawful online content was hosted in the UK, the police have the power to seek its removal. Where the content is hosted overseas, the Government works with its international partners to have the content removed.

"The government takes the threat of online extremist or hate content very seriously," the spokesperson said.

National governments asked Google to remove content for many different reasons including defamation allegations and breaches of local laws prohibiting hate speech or pornography, it said.

Google said that it did not comply with government requests which were not specific enough for the company to know what should be removed, or allegations of defamation through informal letters from government agencies.

"We generally rely on courts to decide is a statement is defamatory according to local law," it said.

Brazil made the most content removal requests, the report said. China only made three removal requests, each covering a large amount of data. Google was unable to disclose the details of one of those requests as it "had reason to believe" the Chinese government had prohibited disclosure, it said.

The search engine received a request from police in the US to remove videos it was alleged depicted acts of police brutality, it revealed.

"We received a request from a local law enforcement agency to remove YouTube videos of police brutality, which we did not remove," it said.

"Separately, we received requests from a different local law enforcement agency for removal of videos allegedly defaming law enforcement officials. We did not comply with those requests, which we have categorised in this Report as defamation requests."

Content removal requests from authorities in the US increased by 70% compared to the previous six-month period, it said. In addition, the US authorities made more than 11,000 requests for user data - a higher figure than any other country, the report said.

Wednesday, 26 October 2011

Leicestershire The Most Incredible Statement Made By A Police Force Ever!

Have they learnt nothing from the resignation of John Yates, that casting the blind eye and ignoring the evidence, or the obvious, is only going to end in tears?

How on earth can a County Police Force come out with such a statement as this, is so totally and utterly beyond me.

Leicestershire Constabulary: A number of law enforcement agencies, including Leicestershire Constabulary, have a link to the 'Find Madeleine' website. Whilst we encourage anyone with information about Madeleine's whereabouts to contact the Portuguese police or their local police, we recognise the fact that some people may not feel comfortable in doing so. This link provides them with an alternative means of passing information.

The web site suggested by Leicester police, the one that the public might want to pass information to, is the one hosted by the two persons that were made Arguido, persons of interest, uncleared suspects, the last persons to see Madeleine McCann alive and statistically most likely to be involved the disappearance of the child. And yet Leicester police think it's quite acceptable for them to say: ''Don't phone us, phone the suspects!''

This transcends 'stuff you couldn't make up' to such a degree that I'm lost for words to describe it.

But it's not as though the circumstances surrounding the girl's disappearance are cut and dry; far from it, they are about as dodgy as they could be. And one doesn't have to be Sherlock Holmes, or even a cop for that matter, to know that these two should be sat in separate interview rooms giving answers to questions.

And the same applies to the Tapas lot. A three year old girl, Leicestershire resident and British subject I remind you, disappears off the face of the earth whilst in the care of her parents and surrounded by seven other adults, and nobody is curious enough to want to find out what happened to her?

And it is that lack of curiosity that speaks volumes, isn't it?

FOI Request

1/ Do the Leicestershire police agree with the McCann website that a man seen by a Mrs. G. Cooper probably abducted Madeleine?

2/ Is there any information that any particular man was "Madeleines probable abductor?"

3/ If so, why has this information never been released to the public?

4/ If not, how can they be helping the search for Madeleine by referring the public to a dishonest website that makes that claim?

5/ Are the Leicestershire police going to continue to aid a deception or are they either going to remove the website link or insist the McCanns remove the false statement?

Response – No information provided except for the following statement

A number of law enforcement agencies, including Leicestershire Constabulary, have a link to the 'Find Madeleine' website. Whilst we encourage anyone with information about Madeleine's whereabouts to contact the Portuguese police or their local police, we recognise the fact that some people may not feel comfortable in doing so. This link provides them with an alternative means of passing information.

We are unable to provide the information that you request concerning the number of complaints regarding the website link.

What must be borne in mind is that at the heart of this tragic case is an innocent little girl who went missing in May 2007. Our focus has, and will always be, to do everything we can to assist our Portuguese colleagues who lead the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance. I would hope that you will support us in this.

And the last paragraph! it is beneath contempt.

This is just a tiny part of Freedom Of Information requests, the majority being denied, directed at Leicestershire Constabulary. More here

This is not the first time that I have said a few words on the subject. Let me re-up a comment of mine from a previous post. And I remind you it is from the comments section.

Evenin' all.

Yes the manuals, courtesy of whom I wonder, a corrupt CEOP or the corrupt Leicester plod? Takes your pick.

As you say, apart from not wanting to be in the same room as the wee shite, I don't think I would trust myself to be so.

Regarding your two choices of thought, it has to be the former because quite frankly he's had enough fuckin' rope to rig the Cuttty Sark and still have enough left over for a bondage session.

We must never even think of considering that the wee man and the position he finds himself in today is by one of chance.

The position he finds himself in is due to one thing only, corruption. I don't know how high up it starts, nor do I know at what level it finishes, but what I do know is Leicester plod is smack bang in the middle of it.

I get tired of drawing the same conclusion, LP are either so fucking stupid that they can't see what's going on, or they're so fucking bent they don't want to see what's going on.

It's why, unless some private enterprise nails them with irrefutable evidence, that I think they will get away with it.

Can you imagine what the LP and this case would look like to an outside police force? stroll on! they'd take one look at Leicester plod and say, are you so fucking stupid that you can't see what's going on, or are you so fucking bent you don't want to see what's going on.

But that, judging by what has come to pass so far, ain't going to happen.

Drive on McCanns, no matter that you've fucked your daughter into a hole somewhere, taken the piss out of everything and everybody, Leicester fucking plod will continue to ignore what must be apparent to five year old, just as they will continue to sit on their fat corrupt fucking arses and carry on in the manner that which they have become accustomed, the one they have so clearly demonstrated, past and present.

From this post: Uncleared Suspect in Simulating a Crime and Hiding a Cadaver to be Guest Speaker at CEOP Conference on Child Abduction link

Something else from a previous post.

Footnote: It's not an impossible scenario to imagine, although a lot less likely, (and even less likely knowing the parents) although a lot less likely because of the age of the child involved, but I have taken other people's kids on on foreign holidays. And anybody who has ever had kids of their own will know why, Daaaad, Muuum, I'm bored.

But had for instance the McCanns taken one of our Matty's sprogs, or our Stu's kids abroad, and one of them was "abducted." I can't help but ask myself, would 'because Gerry McCann says the kid was abducted' be good enough for any of these parents and upholders of the law?

Answers on a postcard please.

Home Secretary Perhaps You Might Care To Review This: Re-Up

In light of me writing these few lines only a day or two ago, I can do no better than to re-post this article from August 2010. As ever, there is nothing in the article that hasn't been freely available to Leicestershire Constabulary and the Metropolitan Police.

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 at best.

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.

Perhaps Madam Home Secretary, given the harm done by your predecessor, Jacqui Smith, to the Office of the Home Secretary, you might wish to consider the behavioural patterns of the two people who have recently appealed to your person and to your office, the Doctors McCann.

Though I have no doubt, now ensconced in your new position, you might be somewhat ill disposed to reading about the conduct of your predecessor. Be that as it may, I cannot help but feel that the few lines I lay before you might be best read rather than ignored, if for no other reason than you might not wish to appear, shall we say, Jacquiesque?

I am far from alone in feeling displeasure about the performance of Ms Smith as Home Secretary, and it is not the claiming of, as her main residence, the spare bedroom in her sister's semi, no not that at all. It is rather Ms Smith's rather anomalous behaviour when charged with the duties of high office.

Far be it for me to remind you of those duties, and I leave this link only for the benefit of my global readership, and global it is, as it is with others who write about the travesty of the Madeleine McCann affair, such is the interest. As is I must add, scrutiny, and it too on global scale, scrutiny that focusses equally on the actions of yourself and your Office.

But fair to say you are charged with the general well being of the country, and of course not forgetting your mandate regarding the policing of this Nation.

Given then that these are the responsibilities of the Home Secretary and as such the Home Office to reflect the policies of the Secretary, it troubles me greatly the way these obligations have been implemented in the past.

Typically; the personal support by the then Home Secretary of the last two people to see Madeleine McCann alive, uncleared as persons of interest in her disappearance, and statistically the most likely persons to be involved in that disappearance, the parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, is quite frankly, scandalous.

Included in the same example is a person and an organisation, who's actions and public stance constitute such an abuse of office that it can be deemed nothing short of a criminal. That person, Jim Gamble, that office the CEOP.

I quote:
"We absolutely support the McCann family," he says, sitting in his glass-walled office in Pimlico, Central London.

"They are to be applauded for their tireless work to keep the campaign to find their daughter in the public consciousness. It is a case for every parent of 'There but by the grace of God, go I'."

And the timing of this message of unequivocal support from Jim Gamble? thirty days after the McCanns were declared Arguidos by the investigating authority, the Polícia Judiciária.

From the press.

Better protection through better understanding

UK’s Centre for tackling child sex abuse launches new unit to increase knowledge on child sex offenders
Tuesday 30 October - Home Secretary, the Rt. Hon Jacqueline Smith MP will today accelerate the fight against the sexual abuse of children by opening a new dedicated unit focused on improving and sharing understanding of how sex offenders operate and think.

She will visit the UK’s dedicated organisation for tackling child sex abuse – the Child Exploitation and Online Protection (CEOP) Centre and see first hand how the Centre intends to link behavioural analysis of how offenders operate with a unique academic national qualification programme for child protection professionals who specialise in this area of criminality.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said:

I am serious about protecting children from sexual predators– online and in the real world. We are working hard to close the net around them to make it harder for them to prey on vulnerable children.
The UK has some of the strictest regulations to manage sex offenders in the world. CEOP’s new unit (Behavioural Analysis Unit) is another example of how we are leading the way in tackling child abuse. By studying the behaviour, mannerisms and language of both the abused and the abusers we will learn more about these crimes than ever before to help us investigate, deter and catch offenders – ultimately to prevent these horrific crimes.

Behavioural Analysis Unit! analyse this.

One of a pair of now iconic videos, behavioural analysis! you couldn't make it up.

And this is the other. No comment required.

To fully understand the importance of this clip one has take into account that having just fled Portugal, the McCanns feel free to tell all the lies they wish and to do so with impunity. Never realising of course to just what degree the files of the investigation would be made available to the public once the investigation was shelved.

I won't make mention of Kate McCann having the presence of mind to selectively delete the call register from her mobile phone, no that wouldn't be fair, not with her daughter just having been abducted n'all. But I have no such qualms in supplying this link that questions somewhat the veracity of NHS Doctor Gerald McCann's statement on the issue.

Blinking heck! and we have only just begun, but don't blink yourselves because you wouldn't want to miss, starting at the twenty second mark, a display that would give a criminal profiler nothing short of a category nine orgasm. It drones on from this point, though ten minutes long I couldn't get past the three minute mark, if this bugger can't keep his eyes open during the interview, then it's a big ask for me to do likewise. Behavioural analysis! you couldn't make it up.

There is much in this short video, Kate McCann talks about logic but that's by the by. Plenty of talk about "our investigators" and their many years of accrued experience. Experienced in what I must ask, drinking tea? because it doesn't sound as if it were investigative technique, and that's not just my opinion; this scathing article from the Daily McMail of all papers.

Try as she may, the interviewer attempts to pin the McCanns down on re-opening the process, they are having none of it, just the usual waffle and bullshit and of course no interview would be complete without the usual straw man, "who ever took Madeleine is sill out there."

In spite of a valiant effort from Sara Antunes de Oliveira pitching some decent questions we are treated to more nonsense from the McCanns until.....

Until that is, at the four minute forty second mark, the question is asked, "Do you consider the possibility of Madeleine not being alive?" then watch the reaction, this time, not just from Doctor Dangerous alone but from Doctor Dim as well. Guilt in stereo, behavioural analysis! you couldn't make it up.

Hey up! it's Doctor Angry. Have you heard this one before? "There is absolutely no evidence that Madeleine is dead and there is absolutely no evidence that we were involved in her disappearance." and concludes his tirade with, "That is the conclusion of the process." Err, which process? It must be a different one to that which I read, the one I read is below, I'm at a loss to which one Doctor Angry is talking about.


“From everything that has been exposed, it RESULTS from the Files THAT:

A) the minor Madeleine McCann died in apartment 5A at the Ocean Club resort in Praia da Luz, on the night of the 3rd of May 2007;

B) a simulation of an abduction took place;

C) in order to render the child’s death impossible before 22H00, a situation of checking of the McCann couple’s children while they slept was made up;

D) Kate McCann and Gerald McCann are involved in the concealment of the cadaver of their daughter, Madeleine McCann;

E) at this moment, there seem to be no strong indications that the child’s death was not the result of a tragic accident, yet;

F) from what has been established up to now, everything indicates that the McCann couple, in self-defence, doesn’t want to deliver the cadaver immediately and voluntarily, and there is a strong possibility that it was moved from the initial place of deposition. This situation may raise questions concerning the circumstances in which the death of the child took place.

Therefore, we suggest that the case files are sent to the Republic’s Prosecutor, in the Lagos legal district, for:

G) a possible new questioning of the arguidos Kate and Gerald McCann;

H) an evaluation of the measure of restraint to be applied in this case; more

I include this one for the bizarre behaviour exhibited by Doctor Dangerous, in truth I have no idea what it is all about. At the one forty eight mark watch Gerry McCann invade Kate McCann's space. By her reaction and the look on her face there is something going on, but what?

Below, a still of the incident courtesy of the McCann Files.

Nothing quite so ambiguous in this short wooden performance by Kate McCann. Five seconds in it would appear Doctor Dangerous isn't too happy with Kate, wandering from the script? Whatever it is, we have McCann's eyes shut and a squeeze to madam's shoulder. A rather strange look passes (1m 07s) from him to her after Kate has finished giving what has to be the most unconvincing appeal by any mother of a missing child in the annals of history.

The now infamous reply by sniggering father of missing girl, "Ask the dogs Sandra." Sandra Felgueiras starts the questioning about the dogs at the four minute fifty mark, receiving a truly outrageous answer from the repulsive Gerry McCann.

Poor sound on the first clip, so you may wish to push the thing on to the relevant mark. A three second version on the lower clip.

Perhaps it's a blessing that I cannot find the clip from which these stills originated. I don't know about you guys but I have certainly had my fill of watching these two creatures for a while.

A few pics to wind up this sordid exhibition.

And no show would be complete without the dogs, but we all know just how terribly unreliable they can be. Just ask Gerry McCann.

To finish up let me try and apply some perspective to this staggering and blatantly obvious miscarriage of justice.

If our featured two were suspected of robbing a Post Office, and it's not by accident that I use a PO as an example, because, you may be surprised to know, there is no greater crime in the UK than making an unauthorised withdrawal from said establishment.

So if our two suspects, under questioning, displayed the same behavioural patterns as we have witnessed, what might you think the outcome would be?

Similarly, I have in the past asked pretty much the same question.
Jim Gamble CEOP a question if I may.

Saturday, 22 October 2011


I am posting the few lines below, just as I found them.

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.......

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
Yes imagine, and imagine what he must have been thinking. The sum of two plus two equals four.

h/t Lillyofthevalley

This is not the first post where I have made use of the word Imagine.

Thursday, 20 October 2011

Reactions Are Somewhat Telling Aren't They?

Well! whose door am I going to lay this at? I have slagged off Twitter, having likened it to being poked periodically with a sharp stick. What was it that I said a few days ago, this I think?

But it's that damn Twitter thing, it's almost as if someone is poking me every couple of minutes with a sharp stick and saying, what about this then, you remember this bit dontcha? And that's the trouble, I do, and unfortunately, all too well.

Yes quite.

But it would be unfair to single out Twitter for this very reluctant part time return to blog about injustice. Injustice personified by a slithering visage of the globules of evil that shape themselves into a vaguely human forms every now and again, the Doctors McCann.

And part time it will be, I must stress, for who would want to give their undivided attention to two bowls of discharge, who fuck for money but refuse to call themselves whores. To a couple so odious, that they make a living out of their dead child, and refuse equally to call themselves pimps.

No, it's like cleaning the bog I suppose, and just as attractive, something that must be done out of necessity, but not something you would want to do every day.

But Twitter becomes quite incidental after what we have all witnessed recently, the shameless face of corruption that masquerades as law enforcement here in these British Isles. It too flaunting itself as shamelessly as any desperate crack addicted street whore, all too wiling to fall to its knees and suck ageing, wrinkled, flaccid cock, providing the price is right. To say nothing of those among us that adopt the position, and just as eagerly go down on that same distasteful, shrivelled appendage, and do so free of charge. Free to them of course, but not so for us plebs, who ultimately pay the price for these parliamentary promiscuities.

No, justice and the the stalwart defenders of the law in this shabby country, are like justice itself, such rare animals, bordering on extinction, save perhaps for the odd one of its species, tucked away in some forgotten backwater.

What a sad state of affairs then, that is the status quo, where one has no recourse in seeking justice in the slightest. Where exists, from the very top to the very bottom of law enforcement and Parliament alike, such a degree of corruption as to be the envy of any third world banana republic. What an accolade!

So what is the answer? I wish I knew, but I know it does me no good as a person, to simply rail against injustice if I'm not prepared to speak out and be counted on the issue. As oppression can only survive through silence, much the same can be said of injustice.

And the third factor in my reluctant return, not something blameworthy, more a catalyst, and a very simple one at that, courtesy, I have to add, of the dreaded Twitter. This pertaining to another missing white girl, and lost on nobody, is why there is such an incredible interest in the McCannesque style disappearance of the infant. Neither I'm sure is it lost upon the McCanns, who if they don't have justice to look forward to, they can look forward to the same spotlight being refocussed on them every time a child disappears under similar circumstances. Understandably so.

I would have paid to see their reaction to the hoax sighting last night, I'm sure it was very telling!

Yes reactions are somewhat telling aren't they?

Which prompted me, in the middle of the night I might add, to scour Youtube, all be it to no avail, for a fifteen second clip. No harm done, I did come across the desired footage, in still a short clip, only this one includes Kate McCann's now iconic few seconds of squirming as she confesses, for all intents and purposes, two things. That she didn't 'physically search for Madeleine' and that she didn't do so, because there was no point. And if anybody doesn't see it that way, Scotland Yard included, then I have a bridge I want to sell you.

The moment is brief, but I hammered the capture key, and the result is below. If you think, why so many, it is only because experience has taught me to go with everything, because once you start to try and edit stuff out, it ends up quite simply, a mess. Not only that, it does give a better feel for the moment.

The key then to all this, the McCann's reaction to this question. (full transcript)

Amanda Walker: Just take us through the emotional experience that you go through from the moment that someone says 'I'm definite I've seen Madeleine' to when it's discounted.

I remind you, not that I have to, this and all other such material has been freely available on the net, to the public, successive governments, and law enforcement alike, for years.

It was only the other day that Ian Puddick informed us of the priorities of the new head of the Metropolitan Police, Bernard Hogan-Howe. Visit Ian Puddick's webpage, and he will inform you of one or two other things as well.


You couldn't make it up.

Not for the first time have I used stills from this interview, as you will see below. I had to cut the original in half in order for it to be read, reminding you that the main body of the text is a special report by yours truly on a Sun spectacular non-story, the Raymond Hewlett letter that never was