And Now For Something Completely The Same (Apparently)

I’ve been warned, more than once, and by more than one person, to stop writing.

I’m not talking about, obviously, threats from Black Hats, which are taken as certainties that this blog is following the right path.

I’m speaking about those that defend that whenever I expose the McCanns here, I’m giving them an opportunity to defend themselves.

I’m, according to them, helping, their defense in times to come.

I may be naïve, but I’m a firm believer that Justice is what is, and the System each country designates for its implementation, is a totally different thing.

But a crime is a crime, anywhere and anyhow you look at it. It seems, and allow me the lack of modesty, that AFTER we posted here something VERY incriminating to the “McCann Cause”, they’ve reacted, by trying to make it unimportant, almost routine and apparently blasé. Well, it isn’t.

It seems that the Express, today, October 31st, 2010, has made an appeal to the German public because “so many Germans were holidaying in the Algarve at the time Madeleine disappeared”.

The exact same content, nationalities aside, posted by Gerry McCann, on June 9th, 2007, made an appeal to the Irish because “there are a lot of Irish tourists in and around Praia da Luz”

A blatant attempt to minimize the importance of the June 2007 appeal, which we now know WAS a DIRECT appeal for the Smiths to come forward.

 It seems that it took 1240 days to realize that besides British and Irish, there were also “a LOT” of German tourists also there.

It seems PdL has won the prize for the most popular touristic worldwide mid-spring destination of 2007.

Yes, McCanns, you may NOW think you can babble into the wind that you didn’t appeal ONLY to the Irish... but 1240 days are a bit hard to explain, aren't they?

Everyone knows that the Algarve is a popular destination for British, German and Dutch tourists, but then, you DID NOT make any such a DIRECT appeal to any of these nationalities like you did with the Irish, and are now doing with Germans, and that is what matters.

So fellow White Hats, if, today I explain the importance of the absence of a "White Swan" in the McCann Saga, the fact that they produce one the next day is relevant only because it will be a tacit recognition of importance of said fact.

The McCanns have had ALL the time in the world to produce the relevant evidence, anything produced NOW to “explain” a major mistake, confirms only that that mistake needed to be corrected.

For me, today’s appeal to the German’s is their recognition that when it was important to jolt memories, they ONLY “remembered” to appeal to the Irish.

"Tanner's Abductor", A Tale Told by a Special Friend

Personal Tragedy

A father wakes up, and finds his 24-year old daughter dead, lying on the floor of her bathroom.

Apparently she had been deceased for hours.

She was last seen saying good-night at 23:30.

She practiced sport, and was on the final stretch of her education, a life just starting to be enjoyed that was brutally taken away.

Nothing to be angry against, nothing to blame, nothing to point a finger to.

Nothing, just absolute puzzlement and pain.

I didn’t know her, only the little brat around her daddy’s legs or on her mum’s lap, realizing only now that you became so quickly a woman.

 I don’t know the ratio of genes you inherited from either your father or your mother, but just by doing simple math, the result could only be what it was, a 100% of goodness.

Maybe that’s why God was so eager to have you near him, as soon as was possible.

To both of you, my friends, that God chose for you to remain behind, I could only wish that pain was measurable, so that I could cut one huge chunk for myself of what you’re carrying right now.

To my readers, I know you understand the silence.

Big Man Just Keeps Coming Back

 

On SIC, Gonçalo Amaral believes that the process will be reopened... and THIS TIME the words are not coming out of a McCanns mouth.

The Odd One

I’ve read, in more than one place, that Jim Gamble is a Mason. This, it seems, is based solely on this picture:


Can you tell who the odd one is?

Hint: the guy on the left.
 
If you base yourself solely on this picture to affirm that he’s a member of that organization, please do me a favour and do NOT invite me to go hunting with you. Or to go with you to anything that involves your recognition and danger to my life.

I’m not saying Jim Gamble is not a Mason, just saying, without a shadow of a doubt, that Jim Gamble is not THAT Mason.  

Masonry is a secret society, and the reasons behind this secrecy only them are able to fully understand. We cannot but provide subjective opinions, and those, whenever based on the unknown, are seldom right.  

Jim Gamble might be a Mason, but I have as many reasons to believe that he is, as I have that he isn’t: none.

What I’m not going to say is that whenever he slants his eyes that means he’s from the Chinese Triads, nor when I see him eat pasta, will associate him with the Sicilian Mafia.

People, be reasonable, because they’re relying on you to follow on all these senseless leads, so that they can say “see, all those people saying that Kate and Gerry are fakes are conspiracy lunatics that should not be taken seriously”.

Seriously, be serious.

The English Stove

Imagine, if you may, that you’re English citizen, sailing in your English yacht, somewhere inside Portugal’s territorial waters.

You and your yacht suddenly find yourselves not only in the middle of a huge storm, but, for whatever reasons, in an imminent sinking situation, leaving you no choice but to send out a distress call.

A somewhat uncomfortable scenario to be in, but it can’t get much simpler than that.

The choice of countries was done in a completely random manner. It was just required that they be physically apart so that no jurisdictional issues can add to any confusion.

Because there will be confusion, I guarantee you.

Now, once the scenario has been assimilated, let me ask you this question: who do you think will come to YOUR rescue?

Yes, you’re right. It is a trick question.

If you’ve answered that it would be the Portuguese Navy and the Portuguese Air Force, the adequate Portuguese entities responsible for ALL “Search & Rescue” in the Portuguese Territorial waters, then you’ve failed this test.

And I'm honestly considering to ask you to stop reading any further.

If, however, your answer was that it would be English Firemen, then, my friend, you got yourself full marks!

Yes, yacht, sea, storm, distress, in Portuguese Territorial waters, all added up, evidently result in… English Firemen.

Quite evident, once you sit down for a minute to think about it.

Logical, I would even say, unless, of course, you, illogically, tried to apply logic in your answer.

But, logically, you wouldn't be that illogical, now would you?

No, we know you wouldn't.

I’m seeing some confused rising of eyebrows, and some people have even gone back to reread, needlessly, the above written.

Illogical effort as anyone logical will remain clueless about what is completely evident. You see, those that have applied logic, have forgotten THE golden rule that is applicable on anything that has to do with the disappearance of Maddie McCann, so it’s completely illogical, here and anywhere where this issue is handled, to be logical unless you intentionally substitute any and all logic argumentation with, logically, an illogical one, but that is so logical that goes without saying although I’ve just said it.

Following me up to now?

If you even thought that English Firemen do NOT make any sense with yacht, sea, storm, distress and Portuguese Territorial waters, it’s YOUR fault for your lack of reasoning in trying to be reasonable.

That said, it’s quite clear that the distress call COULD easily be motivated from a possible fire in the yacht’s stove.

Notice that from now on, the “could” very quickly becomes a “would” and even faster turns into its final form of “was”, so the sentence above once read ONCE has from then on to be read as “it’s quite clear that the distress call WAS motivated from a fire in the yacht’s stove”.

This way we set aside, once and for all, such minor details as sea, storm and Portuguese Territorial waters.

We’ll keep the “distress” because it’s convenient, as without it, the English Firemen wouldn’t have a place in this story, and they must be present.

We’re left then with a fire on a stove.

Who better than a fireman to put out a fire?

But why not Portuguese Firemen, that are supposed to be much nearer?

Because this stove is not ANY stove, but an English stove. Designed with non-metric measures, and that alone demands, unquestionably, that it cannot be just a fireman, but it has to be an English one.

Furthermore, we also know that the both the Portuguese Navy and Air Force personnel, in their rare moments out of permanent drunkenness and incompetence, know absolutely nothing about English stoves.

Does anyone now question that you, in your yacht, would expect none other than English Firemen to come to your rescue, and that it’s absolutely ludicrous to think otherwise?

Logical, right?

I could not find a better analogy to explain the coming of CEOP agents to PdL on the days following Maddie’s disappearance.

A child went missing in a Portugal, a sovereign state, so what was the British CEOP there for?

Was Portugal in any way incapacitated to undertake, under its sovereign territory, the task of executing a police investigation of a missing child? Not that I remember.

If out of the various scenarios, the referred child had in fact been abducted, what was the British CEOP there for? Was Portugal in any way incapacitated to undertake, under its sovereign territory, the task of executing a police investigation of an abducted child? Not that I remember, once again.

If Portugal, requested, which I doubt very much, English “help” (which I believe to have been an imposition) what was CEOP there for? Is CEOP the best British police force, or the most adequate police, that the UK has to execute an investigation of a missing, or abducted child, even in the UK itself? To the best of my memory, there weren’t any computers involved in downloading naked pictures of Maddie nor was that minimally likely.

Then, why was the CEOP even present in PdL?

I can see ONLY one possible scenario for the CEOP to have moved in and in such a quick manner: they had information, resulting from ongoing investigations, that a clearly identified suspect, an internet paedophile, had been demonstrating an evident and an unusual interest in the child in question. Had been stalking Maddie, and CEOP was on to him.

Finally, you breathe, some logic.

Well, time has proven that that was not the case.

First they’ve been trigger-happy to produce photofits at every possible opportunity and there’s hasn’t been ONE for an internet stalker.

Nor has there been ONE word, all this time, about anyone stalking, on the internet, Maddie McCann.

Second, would be completely illogical for a 3 year old to be navigating on the net.

So, I ask again, why was the CEOP even present in PdL?

Any which way you look at it there’s simply NO REASON for the deployment of CEOP agents to PdL.

Maybe they were putting out a fire in an “English stove in an English yacht”.

While everybody is looking for a possible freezer in which Maddie’s cadaver was supposedly kept in, I say do look for an “English stove” instead.

And once you find THAT stove, then you’ll find a yacht around it, and around that yacht you’ll find a storm, one huge hurricane, the size of a Perfect Storm. And when you find THAT storm, well, THEN I advise you not to call the adequate authorities, but to call the FIREMEN, because there the temperature will be hot, insupportably hot.

So, maybe, just maybe, I might now say, there was a REASON for CEOP to be in PdL.

I hope that you know understand how Maddie turned from dead to "missing" and then to "abducted", almost as fast as the speed of light, without ever having left the apartment, for when she did leave it, she was in fact dead and trying to be "abducted", but never, ever, missing, only "missing". To this day.

You can’t beat the logic in that, can you? If you have any questions, please ask Mr. Gamble. But please be quick about it, as he's on his way out, quite soon, and very few will miss him.

Update: A comment from an Anon, that I could not let it pass unnoticed: "Text, you forgot to say, and I think it would make your post make even more sense, that there's nothing like a fireman to make it look like there was a fire where there was never one... so, if you wanted everyone to think that a fire was to blame, "who you gonna call"? FIREMEN! " Spot on!

The Book is Coming Back, so Start to Watch YOUR BACK, McCanns

The Portuguese TV Stations SIC (our "The Sun" in the Maddie saga) and RTP (our BBC) have reported that the Portuguese Higher Court has considered as invalid the injunction placed by the McCanns against the SALE (they never, ever contested the content) of Amaral's book.

I told you that it was their greatest mistake in picking the Portuguese Justice for the battleground to fight Amaral.

Much more to come... Rats, do start to pack.

Update: Before I pour myself a nice smooth brandy, and with sinful pleasure dive into the various maggots' lairs for yet another fun reading (I do so much enjoy their lovely compliments, and I'll sure miss them when they, very soon, will rush back to wherever it is that rats like to hide), let me just show a first reaction from a dear friend of ours (hint: she was last seen in PdL saying goodbye to... PdL):

 
From the brazilian noticias.terra:  
"A Portuguese Court today overturned a ban on the sale of the book on the Madeleine case by former investigator responsible for its investigation, Gonçalo Amaral, which connects the British child's parents to her hypothetical death. 
The lawyer for the parents of Madeleine McCann, Elizabeth Duarte, confirmed with Efe the decision, contrary to the claims of her clients, that was issued today by Lisbon’s Appeal Court (Collective Board) after the appeal from the author.  
The girl's mother, Kate McCann, called the court ruling "unbelievable," said the lawyer, who is studying possible measures to be adopted. 
Madeleine disappeared on May 3, 2007 in southern Portugal and their parents have organized a worldwide campaign to find her, although Amaral suggests in his book, published one year later, that the girl may have died accidentally and that the corpse was hidden by the McCanns. 
The work, "Maddie, the Truth Lies", was suspended on a precautionary basis in September 9, 2009 and the prohibition of sale in Portugal and other countries was confirmed on 18 February this year when the Civil Court of Lisbon gave reason to the complaint of defamation and damages filed by the parents. 
With the appeal filed by former investigator upheld today by the Court of Appeal, the book can be re-marketed, the same way as other publications related to content such as DVD produced by a Portuguese television channel in collaboration with the author. 
Amaral is also released from the ban to give lectures or speak publicly about his work. The former investigator, who retired because of the episode, could not prove the involvement of parents in the girl's disappearance. 
On July 21, 2008, the Portuguese Attorney General closed the case and acquitted the McCanns."

New update: 

Sorry, had to get out. Safety reasons, choked on the brandy. 

Where it’s written: “In the ruling of the TRL, released this Tuesday and plays through the online edition of the Journal News, reads that the exercise of writing and publication of the book 'is contained in the constitutional rights guaranteed to all by the European Convention on Human Rights and by the Portuguese Constitution. " they're able to read that Portugal has turned itself against the European Convention on Human Rights. 

 Please do read again. It says the writing and publication of the book “is contained”, NOT, as you so wish to read “is against”…. and unlike all that you thought you had under control, this reality you can't bend to your taste... 

I’m starting to believe that these people were REALLY able to see “an abduction”…

And now UK? What are you to do when YOUR citizens are reading that the book is not the incarnation of the devil itself?

 

Post Scriptum: I cannot let this moment pass by without recalling my friend IRONSIDE whose one of her biggest objectives, when she wrote here, was the restoration of Gonçalo Amaral's stolen dignity. In this particular fight, she was much a of fiercer soldier than I was.

Evil is Evil

Evil is evil. Evil has no remorse, no sense of guilt or decency.

Values, for Evil, are not irrelevant, nor inexistent, as many might think. Evil uses these “values” for his own profit, so he not only must he understand them fully as he's able extricate the maximum out of them.

Emotional blackmail is a tool that Evil finds particularly fond to use. All in the name of expected "respect", "gratefulness" or even "love". All the best of values, only intentionally misused.

Psychological violence is the greatest pain one can inflict. Physical pain can be identified, and be treated either by containment or battle, but any blow to the self-esteem wounds a person in uncharted places of his being, scars that remain left bleeding for a lifetime.

Another tool Evil loves to use is goodness. The use of words like “Child Protection” immediately causes a sympathetic reaction from the listener, and if you’re on a convincing path, you’ve, with just two words, made “half way” through a very simple and very convincing stroke. Very simple, very effective.  

Evil knows, and Evil uses this method so frequently. Added bonus is the fact perceived that anyone opposing whoever claims to be "protecting children" can only be evil, independent if it’s the devil himself, horns and tail, who uses them.  

Evil branding others as evil and getting away with it. Can't get any more perverse than that, can it?

That’s why the Black Hats immediately, and purposefully, make the association that anyone that is against CEOP MUST and CAN ONLY BE a paedophile, or, at least a pro-paedophile. Basic exploitation of basic concepts. If you’re not for me, you’re against me, and if you’re against me, you’re my worst enemy. Nothing less will do.  

CEOP, Child Exploitation and Online Protection, four awesomely powerful words, that one just cannot go against. You simply CANNOT go against anyone that states they’re "protecting children". Or can one?

Yes, one can. And one should.

Because THAT expression is either naïve, or Evil, and I’ll explain why.

But before explaining how distorted it is the use of the expression, let me just say another thing. In the sick, repulsive mind of a paedophile, there’s, say the experts in the matter, a concept that he/she REALLY thinks that his/her actions are GOOD, when they’re cruelly molesting a child.

I will not get into the the paedophilic pleasure felt from the sadism or from the overpowerment of an helpless weak human being. Just saying here that paedophiles that have a preference for victims within in the age range of 10/14, think they are doing a great job in initiating their victim in their sexual life. That they are teaching them the facts of life as they should be taught.

They REALLY think that they are being the best pals to that victim that is suffering indescribable pain. That’s how distorted is the mind of these ignominious, horrible, people. And that’s how I think twice when somebody calls him or herself a “child protector” of children OTHER than their own.

And that is the relevant point.

Let me then use a simple an analogy of you being responsible to keep a given fox away from a given chicken coop. A chicken coop owned by someone else. You're just contracted to guarantee that the fox DOES NOT get to the chicken coop's owner's chicken.

Would you call yourself a "Fox Hunter" or a "Chicken Protector"? Would you “communicate” with the chicken, explaining to them the dangers of the fox, or would your focus be on the fox itself?

Would it even occur to you to place a “fox-button” on the fence so that any chicken whenever they felt the presence of the predator, would beak it and warn you? Isn't the “communication”, to the chickens, of the specifics, characteristics and potentialities, of the threat and the respective danger it represented to the them be CLEARLY the responsibility of the chicken coop owner, and not yours?

The interest for the safeguard of the chickens is primary his, not yours. Your interest is that you contribute the best way possible that the chickens remain safeguarded from the threat, as that will mean the owner's satisfaction and your payment.

So it is your responsibility to inform him, in the best way possible, what he can do to face the threat, and not the chickens themselves. They are like children, they lack judgement to understand what really is at stake, and it's his job, not yours, to protect them, his responsibility, not yours.

He’s has to take the necessary actions to protect his chicken, not you. You should give him the “fox-button”, so that he could warn you, and not to the chickens themselves, although ANY "fox-button" is of dangerous use, even by adults, as I'll explain in another post.

A fox is predator, and the chicken only realizes that when its too late. That's the unfortunate truth for the chicken and the basis for the fox to guarantee its own feeding. That's why the "fox-button" would be ridiculous.

Unless your objectives to putting up one would other than the apparent intent. But that's another issue, not for this post.

Your MAIN job would be to understand the fox’s motives, techniques and preference of victims, and act in to prevention. Your job is to hunt and catch the animal, or, at least. convince him that that chicken coop is a worthless target.  

CEOP is a farce. If you want to implement child protection organization, then let me suggest the creation, not of a QUANGO (Quasi-Autonomous Non-Governmental Organization), but of a TANGO (Totally Autonomous Non-Governmental Organization) fully dedicated to this objective.

I call it the People Absolutely Responsible for Effective Notion of Total Safety (PARENTS). PARENTS would be only volunteer based, and would only be responsible for all those underage within THEIR own household.

The tax-payer wouldn’t have to pay a single cent for PARENTS.

PARENTS wouldn't have an HQ nor a President /Chairman / Whatever pompous title.

PARENTS would be made up of simple volunteers, hundreds of millions of them, already existing and already distributed evenly throughout all possible households.

Supporting PARENTS, the Police, in all its strength. A department specialized in paedophilia. Police officers who would have the ungrateful task of posing as these horrific criminals, so they could infiltrate the most heinous of worlds.

Humble heroes that would find fulfillment in each and every monster captured and brought publicly to justice.

Mr Gamble is evil. That’s a fact.

And the way he has used the words “Children”, “Exploitation” and “Protection” only is further proof of the stated.

Three powerful words, and when combined, become simply gigantic, as gigantic is their misuse.

For me, paedophilia is only second to another in the worst of crime list. There’s one that beats it quite clearly in gruesomeness: the intentional profit from paedophilia.  

Mr. Gamble is correct when he says he ran a “Children Exploitation” center, because that is EXACTLY what he did.

 And before you dare say that I’m withdrawing these two words out of context by withdrawing the other two, Online Protection, do reread what I’ve written about who I think should be responsible for all “Children Protection”, ON and OFFLINE.

Jim Gamble's Hearing

I’ve received the following from our reader totallyconfused:


Jim Gamble’s Hearing

Here is a comment, by MM, at Uk.Legal, about it:

I watched the whole of the proceedings of the Home Affairs Select Committee today from just after 11 o'clock onwards. Kit Malthouse, first up, London Deputy Mayor, especially was a model interviewee with precise, comprehensible and comprehensive answers that rarely strayed off the point.

Those that followed him, especially Bernard Hogan-Howe, were also lucid and helpful. 

Then it was Jim Gamble's turn. I watched and listened to Jim Gamble as he gave evidence, but his whole delivery was one long ramble, skittering from one topic to another in a weird mishmash of what I could only describe as jumbled thinking. 

First, he made the committee wait a good 30 seconds before he took his seat after being invited to do so. He sat there, his face sullen, looking like thunder. For the next 30 minutes his mien didn't soften much, if at all. 

Then he wanted at the outset to deliver an opening statement, but Chairman Vaz quashed that, saying firmly that it would be better for the committee to ask him questions instead. 

As the interviews with Mr Gamble passed off, I was becoming ever more perplexed as to what he was on about most of the time. I could hardly believe that he constantly gave the impression that he and only he was capable of heading up the serious job as boss of CEOP. I don't know whether the committee members warmed to him (difficult) or started to wonder to themselves, why this intense confrontational style?  

Gamble now appears to think that maybe there will be moves to have him reinstated before his 4-month notice expires. However, at one point near the end a committee member asked him to confirm or deny whether rumours were true that he had another job lined up already. He denied this emphatically. The man is a total enigma.

TC’s comment to this gentleman’s performance:  

Rambling is right with nonsensical answers. Why the attempt to compare the priorities of policing vs. children? 

"We are no more about organised crime than domestic violence.' 

HUH? What about Gamble's constant bleeting about organised crime running indecent websites? 

"We are not about fighting serious crime'. (around 1 hour 26/27 minutes) 

Why is the relationship between CEOP and SOCA 'tortured'? (Talk about laying into your former boss Jimbo- did you and Hughes fall out big time?) 

Jimbo- if you are all about child protection and 'the big society' why is in run by a cop? 

Jim I loved how you tied yourself in knots at 1 hour 33/34 minutes!!!!!! (Don't think MP Reckless will be joining your fan club begging you to come back- love the MP's name by the way) 

So hang on- IWF keeps the list of 'dangerous sites' but CEOP manages the 'behaviour'. ?????

There's that word 'safeguarding' again....... As for child trafficking....let me get this right......the McCann case should ACTUALLY have been dealt with by SOCA not CEOP? 

'Only 7% of CEOP's work last year had to do with activity for profit.' HUH????? 

Dear Lord Jim- what's wrong? You afraid that your 'culture' if you have to mix with accountable organisations might force you to be accountable yourself? 

CEOP isn't about being 'offender focussed'? But if your job is about regulating behaviour, then it is about stopping offending. 

Is this about saving children or saving face? For you Jim it is all about your face.......  

Links: CEOP chief accuses UK.gov of putting kids at risk Jim Gamble – Select Committee – 12.10.10 (thanks Bren)

An Almost Perfect Blogger

“A lot of bloggers seem to be socially inadequate, pimpled, single, slightly seedy, bald, cauliflower-nosed, young men sitting in their mother's basements and ranting.” BBC Political Presenter Andrew Marr 
   
Sir, Assuming that you are the serious journalist you claim to be, not prone to easy stereotyping and particularly careful in providing opinion only on well researched and fully understood subjects, let me suggest that you do change your circle of friends, as it can only improve... aren't you just a little too old to hang around "a lot" of pimply people? 

By the way, if it weren’t for the lack of both your youth and pimples, you’d be the picture of a perfect blogger. 

And am I angry? No, even if I try, I'm just unable to be angry when giggling… sorry.

White & Silence

Some people make the common mistake of associating the concept of White with the one of Silence, whereas they are the exact opposite.  

White is the sum of all colors, whist silence is the absence of sound.

One is everything, the other nothing, both magnificent in their magnitude.

However a correct association can be made between these two concepts, as their commonality lies in the infinite interpretations of their applicability, so a common message can be extracted from both.  

Silence is as explicit as the white of an untouched canvas it can mean a lot or simply mean nothing. And this infinite vastness of meaning is what binds these two together.

A white unpainted canvas is but a womb waiting for the delimitation of color to give it meaning; to be brought to life.

As it is, all white, due to its infinite accumulation of colors that are impossible to distinguish from, represents only emptiness.

What is whole, because it’s limitless, is nothing, so what has been limited becomes then something. Important is then to understand the various boundaries and limitations of each messages, both sent and received, to be able to grasp its full meaning and intent.

Let’s look at sound. Like a stone, a said word can never be taken back.

The infinite possibility of silence has been limited by being molded into that particular, specific word, making it, as I said before, an unchangeable something.  

Silence, although infinite in its possibilities, can however be different as per each one of its origins. For example, a silence from a foe is as different as night is from day than one coming from a friend. A silence from a foe can mean many things, such as defeat, tactical rethinking or pouncing repositioning. From a friend, it can represent his pain or our abandonment, or neither, or both, or anything our imagination spawns, from unwillingness to impossibility.

It’s of human nature to come up with worst case scenarios that, at best, involve only tragedies, so the silence from a friend is unquestionably the harshest of silences, the harshest of realities.

But we’re not talking about friends here, we’re talking about Jim Gamble, so, at best also, we may, possibly, just be talking about FWDIF (Friend with Direct Interest in the Friendship).

Some argue that the first “F” of the acronym should be read as Fiend instead of Friend, but that is a whole different topic altogether. The words coming from a FWDIF, or commonly known as “friend”, may be almost as harsh as the silence of a friend, for ONLY ours ears can hear what has EXACTLY been said and EXACTLY has not been.

And what is not been said says much more than that that was.  

Silence in-between sounds, much like the white in reading in-between lines, subjective nonetheless. Like Gamble’s presence today at the Home Affairs Committee at the House of Commons today.

A FWIFD just telling Jim that it wants to listen to him. Is it a last effort from the System to make government change its mind? Is it the System telling Jim that he has become a collateral victim of higher interests? Or is it a just show of loyalty in a desperate plea for silence from someone terrified by what Jim knows? Who knows?

But if the words from a FWIFD may be subjective, a silence is not. It is the only silence that leaves nothing for the imagination. It means, very, very clearly “I’m just waiting to see on which side of the fence the rooster will fall”.

If it falls on one side, then barbeque it is, if on the other, we’re in for a saving in alarm clock expenditure. Important, is that that particular kind of silence considers, ALWAYS, the possibility of a barbeque.

This just to say that I’ve found VERY interesting the awkward detachment of the tabloid “The Sun” that has NOT reported anything after Oct 6th about Mr. Jim Gamble’s resignation saga.

And even then, you had to search really hard. Not even to express the indignation of a Mr. and Mrs. McCann of Rothley.

And it seems that Gamble’s FWIFD are diminishing by the day (thank you TC for the link). Teriyaki sauce, anyone?

Thank You, UK

As you know, I consider Mr. Jim Gamble a pivotal character in the Maddie McCann Saga.

 I believe he played a significant role in the protection, or better said, cover-up of all the events that occurred between April 28th and May 3rd, 2007.

I also believe that he intervened directly in the “role-playing” on the evening and night of May 3rd, 2007, date that marks the beginning of various criminal acts undertaken by some British citizens, and surely some Portuguese, in PdL, in Lisbon and various places all over the UK.

Sensitive and powerful places, but also in some "posh" or "wanna-be-posh" neighborhoods...

With his “resignation” (that unexpectedly, for Gamble, became a resignation) and with the upcoming Operation Ore Court Hearings (the latest I heard, postponed to Nov 12th) this blog will obviously center its attention to this gentleman.

The fall of this man, will not turn the tables over immediately, but I have an idea that for some people out there their survival instincts are making them try NEW clothing for sizing.

We all know what happens to old rags... or to people who just won't, or can't, keep up with fashion.

The overall criticism of Gamble’s performance in his job is quite adamant and CLEAR. Either the UK, using his supporter’s terminology, is populated by paedophiles or it is then by VERY SANE and VERY WELL EDUCATED people that are showing the System that things just are not exactly what they are because the System says they are, but because they simply are.

And when they aren’t, they aren’t. Like Jim Gamble isn't the hero the System has tried to make him, for we know, not only he's NOT an hero, he's the stuff that makes anyone a hero for catching him.

People are votes, no one better than politicians to know that. Let's be realistic and say that we know that votes can, and will, always be oriented by opinion manipulation and crowds are, and will, always be politician's favorite victim for fools, but from what I’ve witnessed this far, it's that the UK is showing that there’s a limit in all that, and that that limit has, and is, to be respected.

Either Jim will go or May will. Jim has got a lot of powerful friends, who, as expected, have reacted, rather flimsily I may add, which means he’s either packing up at this moment, or his personal stuff will be flying out of his ex-office’s window, but against Jim is one the most powerful of all: YOU.

No, the McCanns will not be arrested on the day after he falls, but, if we keep on putting on pressure that day is now feasible (it become on Oct 5th, 2007).

And on that day, we will have reached one enormous victory, not only for Justice, but for Mankind itself, which in the future many will thank us for having stood our ground with determination and resilience.

In the picture the man is wearing a poppy. This post is to show that man that THAT poppy has a meaning, a purpose and a heritage, and for people like him to wear it is to insult all those whose sacrifice gave it its such treasured meaning.

An image sent by Maria, who I, and all those seeking Justice, so much thank for her tireless efforts:

What WOULD They Do If They COULD?

It seems that a gentleman has met his death while engaging in the practice of an unusual, but commonly known (and practiced), sexual activity.

 Let me upfront say that I think that that what is done in PRIVATE between CONSENTING and ABLE adults is no business but of their own and I’m not one to pass judgment on how people obtain pleasure in, I repeat, a CONSENTING and ABLE manner.

But Britain thinks otherwise.

Yes, you may right now say that you, like me, agree that this shouldn’t even be news, but I’m not referring to individuals, but to the attitude of the nation as a whole.

The U.K. has been through many a sex scandal, which I might add, they are, were and will be, the main fuel feeding an industry that Britain invented, and is a master at, the tabloid news.

But out of all those sex scandals, I ask, how many of those who played a part in them came out unscathed?

Better put, how many of those were NOT publicly insulted with “perversion” and “shame” right off the bat?

This gentleman, was, as the tabloid so rightfully says, a “respected jeweller Mr Webster, a Sunday league soccer chairman” who “on the day he died he told wife Jackie, 46, he was visiting an engraver.”

Instead he was “secretly visiting the Richardsons at their quiet suburban home next to a primary school”.

 Apparently “Mums at the school near the Richardsons' home said they were stunned to hear of the bondage dungeon. One said: "It was such a shock because this area is so quiet and well-to-do."“

But who are the Richardsons? Well, according to the tabloids they are “Shamed ... Anne and Colin Richardson”.

Will ever Anne and Colin Richardson be able to walk in their neighborhood in peace? If they work, although by the ages referred are not likely to, how will they feel, or made to feel, there? And what about their family? What will their children / grandchildren / in-laws / parents-of-in-laws / etc., think and act towards them from now on?

Their lives ruined. Their crime? PRIVATE Pleasure.

Yes, they received money and were professional enough to have a panic button, but the tone of the article is not against prostitution, but rather in the type of the sexual activity engaged, which, as far as I know, is not illegal in any way.

I ask you, and this is the message that I would like to get across, what WOULD the Richardsons do if they COULD to hide this from the rest of the world?

What WOULD the Richardsons do, and GET OTHERS to do for them, if they had the right connections and contacts?

And if some, or all neighbors of this “so quiet and well-to-do” area were also in on this, what WOULD they do to help in whatever the Richardsons WOULD, if they COULD, ask them?

No, not saying they are, just raising the mere possibility…

 If they COULD, what WOULD the Richardsons be able to get away with?

We know that “they tried to lift dad-of-two Mr Webster - but he was too heavy. And they could not release the collar because he had locked it and hidden the key in his orange boiler suit”, so at least we know that they wouldn’t go for an “abduction-scenario” cover-up…

 Is this in any way related to the McCanns?

I’ll leave it up to you to judge.

No, it’s got nothing to do with a coincidence of a surname. Coincidences do happen, just not as many times as some are so hard trying to make us believe they do.

Gamble is Gone - The Beginning of the End

Now, here’s something nice to wake up one morning to:

Head of online child protection quits  

“Relations between Gamble and May appear to have soured over the issue of merging Ceop with other crime agencies in a new super-organisation announced as part of a review of policing in July.

The National Crime Agency is due to be launched by 2013, but Ceop sources said there were growing fears that child safety would be a low priority alongside organised crime and border policing. 

"Ceop does not feel that it is in the best interests of children and young people for Ceop to be assimilated into the National Crime Agency, as was announced a short while ago," the agency said on Sunday night in a statement expressing solidarity with Gamble. 

"This direction of travel does not seem to have changed and Jim Gamble has therefore today offered his resignation to the home secretary with a four month notice period." 

Gamble has argued that online child safety is so important it requires its own dedicated force.”

Yes, we know how much you would like to act all by yourself and be accountable to none.

But you shouldn’t have taken such a hasty decision… there are people out there that really, REALLY need you. And they aren’t children.
 

Textusa’s "Gamble" Bibliography:  

JIM GAMBLE:::::OPERATION ORE (April 6th, 2010)  
NOTW - Damning: Jim Gamble (April 11th 2010)  
Jim Gamble, The Top Child Protector Cop (April 11th, 2010) 
The Secret Of The Gamble Flavor (April 12th, 2010)  
Exemptions, Only For Those With Friends In High Places (April 13th, 2010)  
The Sound Of The Ore Tree (April 16th, 2010)  
Textusa Profiling: Jim Gamble (April 17th, 2010)  
Hardly Confusing, Certainly Not To Be Silenced (April 18th, 2010)  
The Power Grid (April 21st, 2010)  
Just A Clarification (April 23rd, 2010)  
Oh... What a Surprise! (April 23rd, 2010)  
Wherefore Art Thine "Great", Britain? (April 24th, 2010)  
Textusa’s Blogeditorial Communiqué (April 25th, 2010)  
Such Nice Compliments! (June 26th, 2010)  
What An Achievement!! (July 2nd, 2010)  

Thanks Maria.  

Post Scriptum: For future reference, I've put the above posts in my trunk in the loft: Gamble's Contamination

Mistaken Identities

Maddie’s bed is an entity by itself. Much has been written about being impossible that she slept in it that night as there it appears not have been as unmade as was supposed:

However, I can guarantee you that she did effectively sleep in her bed. Not on May the 3rd but on the night before, or nights before.

What we are here before is just a case mistaken identities.

What we call Maddie’s bed is NOT Maddie’s bed, and never was.

In that room there are 2 twin beds, and, as we all know, it’s quite natural and easy to confuse twins. Yes, the unmade bed is, in my opinion, where Maddie McCann did sleep:

Oh, say you that THAT unmade bed was where Kate slept in that sulking episode where she threw a tantrum out of jealousy, apparently due to a supposed flirting between Gerry McCann and a Najoua, a lady with an unforgettable bosom, and smile, that no one seems to remember either:

Well, first of all, as already been said here in this blog (and I intend to PROVE one of these days, once and for all, exactly that), Najoua never sat anywhere near any McCann anywhere near the Tapas Bar.

There was simply no reason to throw a tantrum, thus, no reason for Kate to sleep in that particular bed for that particular reason.

The fact that the McCann’s do have a VERY selective memory of the events, explains quite clearly why Gerry McCann didn’t realize his wife didn’t sleep next to him that night, and, with in the same line of thought, didn’t realize that they had woke up one morning in different rooms, nor once did he ask himself why one of the beds in his apartment just appeared unmade, like that, out of the blue.

For me this absence of memory is perfectly natural as it results from the inexistence of facts to remembered, so when Gerry McCann says he doesn’t remember this, he’s absolutely stating the truth.

Never expected to ever write such a phrase, but never say never, as said by James Bond, who happened to be one the greatest gentleman in the intelligence’s world. Pity that he’s but fictional.

 But it’s not THAT that proves that Maddie’s bed was the unmade one.

It's even irrelevant if he remembers or not if his wife slept all nights with him, as it is if it wasn't Najuoa that caused the supposed jealous fit.

What I've just said only corroborates the facts, and the facts are there for us to see.

So what are the facts?

Well, only one: the difference in height between an adult (Kate McCann) and a child (Maddie McCann). This means that it is COMPLETELY different an unmade bed by a child than that by an adult.

The difference? If you have a child, around 4 years old, than do the following experiment: tomorrow morning, make a comparison between your own bed, and that of your offspring.

If you don’t have a child that age, just, also tomorrow morning, a comparison between your unmade bed and that of the picture below (already shown above, but that I’ll show again):
 
Because we don't have the time to wait, let me anticipate the result of your experimentation.

In your bed, you’ll see that it will be completely unmade, while a in the toddler's bed, usually the foot of the bed remains almost untouched. Ruffled, yes, but far from unmade.

And I say “usually”, because a child may go under the sheets all the way down the bed (one of my daughters used to do that to hide from monsters, so that is how I know), so, yes you can have a completely unmade bed done by a child… but what you can’t have is an adult unmaking only partly a bed. As it happens in this case:

  
Anybody, when getting up, has a tendency to throw the sheets back enough to liberate the legs and feet, so that the movement of rising can be done easily.

Just with that information you can judge the size of the human body that slept in that particular bed: that of a child.

Even if an adult doesn’t move much during the night, it occupies practically the whole length of the bed (enough to unmake it completely), unlike the small body of a child.

And Kate, not being the tallest of women, is not exactly a dwarf. We know, as we’ve seen, that she's much taller than her lawyer Isabel Duarte:

 
For the bed to present the state of "unmadeness" it presents, after an adult slept in it, it would have to mean that the Kate would have to go to bed in the fetal position, have remained so throughout the whole night, without even turning, then getting up from that exact bended knees position and, then and only then, stretch the legs, after some eight hours of some relaxing contraction of limbs.

 Impossible? It’s not as much as is you flying through a window with closed shutters with a child in your arms, and that is a statement that two countries from the so-called western civilized world still maintain, to this day, as truthful.

As you can see there’s a part of the bed that is not unmade. That proves that a child slept in that bed. Not an adult.

It proves that Kate McCann lies when she says that the reason that that bed is unmade is because she slept there.

That bed is unmade because a child slept there.

The most likely child to have slept there would have been her eldest child, Maddie McCann.

That, my friends, is the last living testimony that Maddie McCann left for us to see.

But then, why lie? I have an idea as to the why, but I won’t reveal it for now, but one thing is certain, and that is that a child’s body laid on what is now the Maddie’s ex-bed, before the GNR arrived.

Below a sequence of this bed, made by me, to determine in the most exact possible manner the mark left on the bed. I first turned the picture into black and white, heightened the contrast and drew the contour:

By the size of the mark, that could only have been made by a child.

Some say it was Maddie.

No, it wasn’t.

By the shape, it appears to have been laid sideways, and you only lay a child like that when she’s sleeping, or sedated, to facilitate the breathing.

A dead child, you lay her on her back, not sideways. Notice also that the child has been laid with the head towards the foot of the bed. Completely illogical, at first.

Whoever was holding this child when she was laid on this bed, had the toddler’s head on his/hers left side, probably shoulder, much like was seen by Mr. Smith, and that, would withdraw any lack of logic in how and why this child was laid this way, wouldn't it?

 Yes, there was a child laid on that bed that night, unconscious, and it wasn’t Maddie.


Post Scriptum:

IRONSIDE’s "retirement" has taught me that life is to be enjoyed. The pleasure of the company of friends and family is to be savored. I have determined to myself that weekends are to be weekends. There’s a world of sights, smells and textures out there waiting for me, and I hate keeping things waiting for me. I know you’ll understand, and comments, as will be usual from now on, will only be published upon my return to the computer, which might be during the weekend, as hard habits are hard to break, and I may come and check the mail. But, as determined that I know I am, that on/off button will soon be out-of-bounds for whole weekends.