Friday, 15 March 2013

The Deciders

“Now that you have, hopefully, understood the general guidelines of the concept of “truth” as well as how it can be manipulated to suit agendas we can now speak about the grouping of the various Black Hat cliques.”

“Are there that many?”

“Yes, and many, as you’ll see, are interlinked and intertwined in such ways that they can be allies with each other in certain matters whilst be the fiercest foes on others.

“But let’s start with that one group that couldn’t care less about the truth.”

“What? Didn’t you just say that the way truth was manipulated would define the type of BH?”

“Yes, I did, and maintain what I said. Ignoring the existence of truth is another way of manipulating it. It’s not just cutting off a tip of the "truth block" but cutting the whole block off!

In fact, not only not touching it but keeping it at a very comfortable distance and preferably hidden away. If it’s not possible to hide it, then it is to be ignored. That simple and, what is important, that powerful.”


“History as shown that in conflicts those who are able to remain neutral aren’t those who desire that status but those who have enough power to determine they will be such.

One doesn’t just say one wants to be neutral. One either has enough power to say it, such as Switzerland in WWII, or it is because it is in the interests of the belligerents, or the powerful, for one to be so, as was the case of Portugal in the same conflict.

And one can only brazenly ignore truth if one has enough power to do so.

In the Maddie Affair who is powerful enough to do just that? ”


The Deciders, obviously.

The first and most important group of Black Hats. So important that the fate of the case is in their hands.

But before we get to what they can do let’s first look how it evolved since that fateful evening of May 2007.

The moment Maddie died the Decider Group was confined to the T9. However, the only decision this particular Decider Group made was to introduce the “bully-effect” into the equation.”

“The what?”

“The “bully-effect” or the calling on for external help.

You know, remember back in high school when one had a problem and one called on a bully for help? What one was effectively doing was transferring all the capability of making the crisis management decisions on to him/her.

From then on all decisions on how to solve the problem started to be made by the bully and not by the one with the problem. It continued to be that person’s problem but its solution depended no longer on him/her. S/he asked for a favour and in turn gave up control.

Basically it’s an escalation in importance of who is the Decider.

Imagine now that this bully who had been asked to help, and agreed to it, sees that s/he’s unable to provide the adequate solution and decides to call on a bigger bully to help out. This decision, which didn’t involve the initial person with the problem, is directly related with that particular problem so it affects him/her but s/he has no say in it anymore.

And the moment the bigger bully agrees to help the bully that is helping the person, three people are now involved and the importance of the initial person in the decision process is not reduced but completely nullified.

And that is what happened in the Maddie case. The Decider Group very quickly escalated to the second-highest threshold of importance that it could rise up to.”


“Yes, the one short of having officially the direct involvement of the British PM.”


“Well, once you had the UK Ambassador at the time being directly involved, as he was, it meant that the UK Government was also directly involved.

The only thing left to escalate would be to have had the Foreign Secretary at the time, Margaret Beckett, involve herself directly in the affair and if she had done so it would be an official position by the UK Government, which would mean the direct involvement of the PM, Tony Blair.

So what happened, in practical terms, is that all that favour-calling on the night of the 3rd caused that the participants in the Decider Group to change successively and incrementally in importance.

On May 4th, 2007, you had basically the same Decider Group in place up until the "12May2011 Armistice", when the last possible threshold was reached. When David Cameron ordered the SY Review he got himself officially directly involved in the issue and you can’t get more important direct involvement than that.”

“The same Decider Group? You said it changed with time… all that conversation about the monkeys in business…”

“Yes, I did say that. But if you recall, what I said was that the people making the decisions changed, not the Decider Group.”


“You’re confusing people who made decisions with Deciders.

The Deciders have the capability of influencing, decisively, others into doing what is their will, while people who make decisions are just enablers of what the Deciders have ordered.

The power-shift to the “monkeys” was simple and pure delegation. The enablers were "trained" to decide always within the boundaries set by the "pleasure" of their "masters". The important strategic decisions remained with the stakeholders, the Deciders.

In the Maddie case we saw that with time the Deciders delegated to these "monkeys" the necessary decisions to achieve their desired outcome. If you remember I explained extensively why this happened.”

“Yes, you did.”

“And after a certain point in time hardly any Decider decided! They had that “chore” delegated to the “monkeys”!

It’s very easy to mistake a deciding “monkey” for a Decider but all becomes clear once one understands that the difference between them is the “bully-effect” I mentioned just now.”


“Remember me saying that with the involvement of the bigger bully that the decision went higher in importance? I also said that once the bully got himself involved the problem to solve became his/her problem too!

The difference between a Decider and a “monkey” is that the first is a stakeholder while the latter is but a parrot that is told to say “Polly wants a cracker!!” and will say it to perfection.

When the parrot starts to come up with adequate phrases of his own to express that it is but a cracker that it wants, those around tend to overlook the feathers and start to give the enabler more “decision space”.

But the mistake of mistaking the “monkeys” for Deciders was one crucial mistake that happened within the Decider Group.

That’s what happens when you get sloppy in delegating.”

“How did that even happen?”

“Well, I’m referring to the Tabloids of course. Their initial mission was to parrot away what they were told. With time, they became more and more freelance on the subject.

As you know, the Great Maddie War, or GMW, took place on all communications platforms but mainly on two: Tabloids and internet.

So you can easily understand the importance that the tabloids started to gain in the affair. So much so that when the Decider Group “convened” in 2010 to decide the launching of the 2011 version of “The McCann Hunting Party” it was, we think, made up mainly of Tabloid “monkeys”.

Note that they were part of the Decider Group meeting but it was completely overlooked that weren’t Deciders at all but only people who had been just making decisions, and so many of them, up until then!

These people were not stakeholders.

They not only didn’t practically have anything to lose as they weren’t in possession of all the relevant information.

There was one commonality between the Decider Group of 07 and 10 and that was the “master-bully”, which was the British Government.

In 07, the British Government adequately staffed by those in the know took the right decision, for them mind you, to not to prosecute the McCanns while in 10, the same British Government but now staffed with those who weren’t effectively in all the know, took the disastrous decision of ordering a the SY Review, a should-be “piece of cake” that has now grown mould for two years...

For their own sake. the Decider Group of 07 would have never allowed the SY Review to go forward. They would have staffed David Cameron correctly and he wouldn’t have made such a disastrous decision for himself and all Black Hats.

And that’s why they’re where they are now, isolated and blocked.”

“Isolated, how?”

“Well, as I’ve said, the Guests at PdL weren’t your common Joe. I’m sure that with the SY Review decision David Cameron lost some “friends”. He clearly promoted the Tabloids to a “teacher’s pet” status that most likely didn’t go down well with many.

Then, having realized that he had driven into a sort of narrow “cul-de-sac” in a car without a reverse gear, mind you with no ill-intent from anyone as I’ve explained, he turned on to those he felt had “betrayed” him, those who had convinced him to make decision: the Tabloids

So no more “we’re friends” with them too. Thus the Leveson Inquiry.

So now we have this completely surreal situation which unfortunately is too real for everyone. Without the former “friends” and without the new “friends” the UK Government is “isolated” on this issue.

And as the British Government has since then become as much a stakeholder as anyone else involved, it can’t make a move without implicating itself so is blocked.

Isolated and blocked.

It’s rather pitiful to see the Government of a Nation “subdued” by a situation that it thought would be easy to control but fate and time proved to be the exact opposite.”

“So you’re saying the British Government is powerless?”

“What? How could I say that the powerful were powerless? That would be a contradiction in terms!

No, just because they can’t have it their way, because of self-interest, doesn’t mean that they can’t act. They have done so and will continue to do so.

Let’s first see what they have done.”

“What have they done then?”

“They have done the one thing that only Deciders can.”

“And what is that?”

“They’ve created truth.”

“What?!? Have you lost your wits, woman?!?”

“The Deciders are the ones who say what the Official Truth is and what it's not. Irrelevant and independently of what Factual Truth is.

Official Truth and Factual Truth may even be coincident but when that happens it's because it's in the Deciders interests for that to be so and not because truth is... truth.

They are sufficiently powerful to just look at the real truth block, the Factual Truth, and simply ignore it.”

“Ignore it?!?”

“Yes, and not only pretend it doesn’t exist but replace it, not in part but on the whole, with something that has nothing to do with Factual Truth.

In the Maddie case the only similarity between the Factual Truth and the Official Truth is that this child, Madeleine Beth McCann, disappeared.

Absolutely nothing else is common between the two.

“That’s impossible.”

“I’ll show you. Let’s take the Archiving Dispatch as example.”


“I’ll even use Black Hat wording so that there’s no possible misunderstandings about it or be accused of being gibberish:

bb1 on Fri Feb 22, 2013 2:34 pm

Isn't it amazing the difference a PROPER, PROFESSIONAL, translation makes?

Amateur version of a key section of the Archiving Dispatch as translated for the Morais site:

The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics’ conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.

To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated. If not, let us see: the information concerning a previous alert of the media before the polices was not confirmed, the traces that were marked by the dogs were not ratified in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email, better clarified at a later date, ended up being revealed as innocuous.

Proper, professional translation as used in court:

The non-involvement of Madeleine's parents in any criminally significant action is apparent from the fact that they were not in the apartment at the time of her disappearance, their normal behaviour up to that moment and afterwards, as witnessed by the statements of the witnesses, the analysis of the telephone communications and the conclusions of the experts reports…

None of the indications which led to their being made suspects was substantiated later; there was no proof of them having notified the media before the police, the laboratory did not confirm the traces found by the dogs, and the initial e-mail indications transcribed above later turned out to be harmless

Which led to:

b) Filing of the papers concerning the suspects Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, as there is no evidence that they committed any crime defined by Article 277.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure".

Subtly different, aren't they - and they are far from the worst examples. Does Bennett really feel like taking his chances on the Dodgy Translations With Bits Left Out?”

As far as I can see both say basically the same and stating otherwise is just childish distracting wordplay.

But what is relevant is that both versions show how the Deciders were able to make official Judicial institutions blatantly lie about their own conclusions.


“Yes. Lie. Don’t you see it?”

“Must confess I’m not…”

“In both versions, and I’ll tell you that the original Portuguese one confirms it, it is said that one of the main reasons for not prosecuting the parents is because they were not in the apartment at the time of her disappearance”.

Well, that, according to the abduction theory is false and so to state it is to tell an absolute lie in terms of the Official Truth.”

“It’s false?!? They created a version that doesn’t exempt the parents?!?”

“No, at least not when it says that the parents weren’t at the apartment at the time of events. Let’s for a moment assume that the whole abduction baloney is true, as that is the Official Truth.

So to what “events” is it referring to?”

“The… abduction?”

“Exactly, the action of kidnapping. In a murder it’s quite easy to identify the beginning and the end of such an act but in kidnapping those limits aren’t as clear.

Help me out here. When do you think the act of "abduction" started and when did it end?”

“It would have started when the abductor went inside the apartment and would have ended when he, or she, got out of it with the child.”

“Right. So you agree with me that according to the Official Truth, the Tanner sighting is after the events, right?”


Tanner sees the man as she’s passing by Gerry and Jez although neither of them realize it, right?”


“And according to the Official Truth, Gerry had just walked out of the apartment and had just started a short conversation with Jez right after he walked out of the gate.

That means that in order for Tanner to see what she says she does, Gerry had to have been inside the apartment with the abductor!

It’s impossible for Gerry to have left the apartment, engage in a short talk, and only then the abductor enter the apartment, pick up Maddie, fly out the window, walk around the parking lot and be seen by Tanner when she states she sees him.

In fact, it’s a quite accepted fact, in the Official Truth, that there was a 5 minute window of opportunity for the abductor

That time window when the abductor was supposedly surprised by Gerry’s entrance and hid behind the bedroom door, wait for Gerry to finish his business in the toilet and leave the apartment and only then, supposedly again, pick up Maddie and be seen by Tanner in accordance with her statement.

So there’s no doubt that one of the parents, the father, was, according to the Official Truth, inside the apartment at the time of the events.

There’s absolutely no question about that, in the Official Truth, that is.

Do read the dispatch again.”

“Oh… I see what you mean… it wasn't either "the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared" or "the fact that they were not in the apartment at the time of her disappearance" was it?”

“And what "analysis" of what "telephone communications"? I guess they "forgot" to add that the analysis of the credit card reports also confirmed the absence of any foul play...

That dispatch is the result of the Deciders brazenly telling an official Judicial institution to act like a parrot and to obediently just say “Polly wants a cracker!!” and that official Judicial institution obeying by acting to perfection like the parrot it was told to be and dutifully just saying “Polly wants a cracker!!” independently of what was written in the process.

Is that brazen or what?

It's the Deciders not calling us all stupid but telling us all that when it comes to their personal interests your interests just don't matter and like the bullies they are things "were" the way they, the Deciders, said they were simply because they said they were, irrelevant of logic or reason, so it's not open for debate. They know we're not stupid so they resort to shameless and arrogant brazenness. 

And if that crucial fact is a lie in the Archiving Dispatch then one can only assume the rest of the following blabber "there was no proof of them having notified the media before the police, the laboratory did not confirm the traces found by the dogs, and the initial e-mail indications transcribed above later turned out to be harmless" was written with the same seriousness. 

Now you have to have power to be able to do this, don’t you?”

“You sure have…”

It wasn't written with seriousness but it was serious. That's how powerful and brazen the powerful can be. A simple ideal such as Justice should never be an obstacle to their interests.

And you know what power then they also have?”


“To do this:

To let the SY Review to disappear into thin air…”

What? How? What and how?”

“By simply by not letting the Review come to any sort of conclusion. Make it be a permanently “cold case” review waiting for “new evidence”… much like the Portuguese did, just without the brazen dispatch.

Make “time return” to the Summer of 2010 and oursurprise attack with our LastCall post, you know, when they had the GMW practically won and almost threw that all away.

Now they will have to retrace their steps, which will basically be to stop talking about the issue. Once the last obstacles are overcome they only have victory ahead of them, or almost that is…”

“What last obstacles?”

“The legal issues. Both with Mr. Bennett and Mr. Amaral.

About Mr. Bennett we won’t voice our opinion as we aren’t aware of the final decisions made by both parties involved as we most definitely don’t want to influence in any way whatever is being decided.

 With Mr. Amaral we know that the BHs can’t afford for things to go to Court.

In our opinion, they either buy out Mr. Amaral or drop the case and I’m not seeing Mr. Amaral being for sale.

Yes, it will be embarrassing but with enough image management and shameless brazenness the Official Truth about the McCanns dropping the case will certainly be due to their magnanimous mercifulness, which as we know, has nothing to do with the Factual Truth.

But once Mr. Amaral is “out of the way” then all that has to be done is what I’ve already stated. Shut down gradually the information tap about the subject. Let it dwindle away.

Note that when I say that Mr. Amaral is put "out of the way" I'm speaking purely from a Black Hat perspective. It was their doing in putting him "in the way" in the first place so I'm speaking as to how they will try to undo what they've done.

What Mr. Amaral does, or doesn't, do on own initiative afterwards is a decision that belongs to the man alone and there's absolutely nothing the Deciders can do about it. For example, if the case is to be dropped, albeit the message of McCann magnanimous kindness that the BH will most certainly make an effort to push, there's nothing that may stop Mr Amaral from speaking publicly about the case if he so desires.

Bloggers will start to “lose interest” or feel “tired” or deem their efforts “pointless” while meanwhile an extra effort is made, as is being made by the way, to intensify clutter spreading in forums so that current readers are driven away tired of reading the most lunatic theories about simple facts and that the most resistant ones faced with such persistent ridiculousness will start also to abandon both blog readership and forum participation by accepting fate as inconclusive.

How many good posters have we lost already? People who just got fed-up of trying to express with reason their reasonable ideas against relentless brick walls one after the other. With each good, caring and interested  poster gone the "brick walls" get to get a huge pat on the back as it indeed is a victory that they can, and should, rightfully claim for themselves.

However it all boils down to what extent the “Savile-effect” will affect the issue.”

Savile-effect? What is that? A cover-up scandal that will shock the world? But that then means that truth will be known and then that will mean they will have lost!”

“No dear. You’re reading the Savile scandal the way the majority does, which I’m afraid, is the absolutely wrong way of reading it.”


“Tell me dear just one name, one name only, of someone being accused of helping cover-up Mr Savile’s evil deeds.”

“The BBC?”

“I said a name, not a non-personalized entity. We hear that it was 40 years of cover-up and we’ve heard what organizations were involved in that cover-up. 40 years means a lot of people certainly looked the other way when it came to Savile.

Where are they? Where are the names of the people who indeed covered-up for Mr. Savile? Are they being made accountable for what they did?”

Err… no…

“Exactly! And that is the Savile-effect: it compensated to cover-up for Savile, didn't it

How many people turned their face and got away with it? Many and none made accountable

The question now is to know when one day the McCann scandal is to break, those who helped in the cover-up will remain as anonymous as the Savile-helpers or on the contrary, their names and faces will be known to the world and they will be accountable for their actions.

It all depends on that one factor that differentiates both cover-ups.”

“And that is?”

“The internet. Unlike with Mr Savile, with the Maddie case all is documented on the internet. Both all the clutter and all the facts

And if we were able to sift through the clutter, others certainly will be able to do the same.

The question is what, once they “discover” what Factual Truth indeed is, they will be able to do with it. Will they be able to overcome the power of the Deciders?

History has shown that righteousness is a luxury exclusive to the powerful but maybe, just maybe, the internet will change all that

That’s why from the first moment I set eyes on the Maddie Affair I quickly understood it to be historic.

Post Scriptum:

The news originated in Murdoch’s The Sun about the “cleaning team” is apparently so obviously made up in content that it can only mean one thing: it isn’t fake.

Between the Deciders things aren’t pretty. In fact they’re very, very ugly. This article reflects exactly that.

We imagine that many a VIBH (Very Important Black Hat) wasn’t at all happy with this Murdoch’s indiscretion when showing Cameron his teeth to pressure him on what the PM intends to do with the conclusions from his Leveson Inquiry.

At least we now have, in our opinion, seen answered one of the biggest mysteries of the Maddie Affair: who cleaned so well Apartment 5A.

We always knew that it was too professional a job to be done by some doctors.

Pity to see SY used like a common harlot again.


  1. Eu agradeço este novo post. Eu gosto da desmontagem dos acontecimentos e, do crescendo dos colaboradores da Equipa de Lavagem British.

    Ler é bom. Trocar ideias é muito melhor.

    Muito obrigada.

    I appreciate this new post. I like the dismantling of the events and the growing employees' Team Laundering British.
    Reading is good. Exchanging ideas is much better.

    Thank you.

    Long life to internet without censorship.

  2. E a saga continua:

    "New lead in hunt for Madeleine McCann: Police look for team of British cleaners in white van who were working in resort"

    Read more:

  3. Anon #2,

    Other tabloids picking up The Sun's story is called damage control.

  4. Is this enough 'new evidence' for the PJ to re-open the case?

  5. textusa do understand what you are saying in your posts but still cannot understand why they would cover up a little thing like swinging against the death of a child these people could have covered up their involvement in swinging in a variety of ways without getting involed in a big cover up over a child. I can only see that the tapas 9 and lets be honest all the attention on gerry/kate they all left the children everyone LEFT the children alone 1 as young as 1 year old Swinging does not seem that big a deal for this big cover up.

  6. And if the Bristish Cleaners, a team composed of men and women, are the Ts?

    And if the tabloids at the moment are pushing on someone? On a matter to be decided on Monday?

    Maybe there between Deciders TODAY more than just parrots?

    Parrots that are a lobby?

  7. Anon #5,

    For arguments sake, let's suppose you're right. That they left the kids alone in the apartment.

    Now, we know that they didn't have dinners at Tapas.

    So where did they eat? Or better yet, according to you, where were the T9 when "they all left the children everyone LEFT the children alone 1 as young as 1 year"?

    About if swinging was, or wasn't important to generate such a cover-up, I recommend you read the following post:

  8. And if swingers are behind a series of depraved sex?

    Being adept swinger, as was written in one of the posts on this blog, relates only to couples. It's a personal choice.
    For the McCouple, it would be the shame of the family come to know. And this initiation with reasons for social and political, could progress to other levels and lead the group to know too much unmentionable secrets? Or already knew some secrets that should not see the light of truth?

  9. Anon #8,

    There's nothing depraved about swinger sex. It's between consenting adults.

    What is indeed depraved is the cruelest exploitation of any sexual activity outside what society has deemed as "proper". It is immediately labelled as scandal and its interventionists rudely insulted.

    I agree fully with your second paragraph with the exception that the secret to be hid was the swinging itself. Things in life are usually very simple.

  10. Text: i write " " relates only to couples and it´s a personal choice".

    The secret is or was to hide from some particular families,Mc.

    Many thanks for all.

  11. If Cameron is not happy with Murdoch/Brooks for being convinced to go ahead with the SY Review, Murdoch for sure isn't also happy with having to publicly pretend that he suffered from acute amnesia (the pie in the face episode) and with what is happening Rebekah. She faces jail whilst Gerry hobnobs with politicians and pontificates on BBC. News Corporated must be livid after all they did to protect the PDL secret.

  12. I agree, there is nothing drepraved on the swing and is a personal choice, but not sure about the legality/ illegality related to the place where is praticed. One thing is a group of people doing that on their private home and a different thing is doing it in a Resort and having the Resort openly, or not, promoting that kind of holidays. I think, that was the problem, the place where the swing happened and the unfortunatelly decease of a child from one of the couples involved. Without the swing, probably the accident will had follow the normal way. Because of the swing and the legal implications for the Resort and the people involved on that, they decide to divert the attention in to an abduction and keep the police away from a deep investigation into the Resort and the clients. Probably a deep investigation will have shown the same activity on other resorts were that clients use to have holidays or in other OC in other countries.
    Is very tiny the border between criminal or not for sexual activities developped in public places. The problems increase a lot when the resort accepts children and when one of the children dies.
    The OC could not claim that was not a public place. In fact the concentration of tourists in a low season and the big number of nannies contracted for that low season could not be explainned by the Resort based on coincidental tourists who decide to choose that resort instead of any other on. Statistic works against that. To have that lucky booking, the resort had to offer something special, out of the package of better places in Algarve. And swing is advertised from mouth to mouth... The resort don't need to have it openly popped on their packages. Who practice that activities knows well where to do them.
    I remember reading few years ago, that a private house in a cottage in UK got a police ride and the owners have faced justice because they use to attract swingers to the house and rent it for that activities. Then, even in Uk, in private properties this seems to be not legal when money is involved.
    And I still not understanding if there is any difference between a group of swingers and an orgia. People involved in orgias always hide that from their relatives, friends and neighbours. Imagine having that investigated and exposed in all papers because one of your childs died while you were enjoying your adult games instead of giving to that child a memorable family holiday. Their reputation will be killed in all places where they were known.

  13. Boa tarde!

    Gosto do comentário 13, principalmente da parte final. Imaginem serem investigados por....... em vez de darem às Crianças uns dias felizes.

    No livro de GA, ele refere que num daqueles dias do início de Maio havia uma festa tradicional e popular e, acreditava que nenhuma Criança do grupo lá teria ido. E, se M. tivesse visto teria sido um dia inesquecível.

    Foi e é um enorme desgosto, quando as Crianças são usadas como escudo , de modo a não se poder ver a realidade dos adultos.

  14. Anon #13

    Understanding your comment, which we than you for making it, let me clarify that there’s absolutely nothing illegal about swinging, in Portugal or in the UK.

    As the events took place in Portugal let’s focus on its sexually related legislation.

    As far as we’re aware, only non-consensual sexual practices are a crime. For example, pimping is a crime and prostitution is not. Prostitution without a pimp legal as it's considered as a consensual sexual act between two adults whereby one agrees to pay for sex and the other to engage in sexual activity in exchange for that amount of money.

    With a pimp, the sexual act is forced. But according to the Portuguese law, only the pimp is to face prosecution as the prostitute is considered a victim.

    You may not agree with this but that’s the way it is.

    The Ocean Club didn’t bill swinging. It didn't do so because it was hiding anything but because there was anything to hide.

    First because it offered what a Resort is supposed to offer, which was bed & breakfast (and other tourism related activities and facilities) and nothing else.

    Second because in swinging, the swingers are volunteer participants and there's no exchange of money involved.

    Third because what guests choose to do inside their rooms is their business and responsibility.

    If guests wish to engage in illegal activities, for example, drug consumption, the Resort has no responsibility in that, although as a legal issue it is, the police may, and should be, called to intervene.

    If guests wish to engage in perfectly legal activities, such as swinging, then it’s no one’s business but to those engaging in them.

    The problem with swinging is not isn’t its legality but the negative effect on individual reputations in one of the most hypocritically prudish societies, the UK.

  15. You are maybe correct Textusa, regarding the legallity of the swing. But on that panic moment, after having one of the childs being the victim of a tragic accident, I don't know if they had the coldness enough to think that what they were doing was legal. I think, even the resort got fears of having any complications with situation. But I agree, the main reason was the fears of the criticism of the society. In fact, UK loves to appear as an open country, but when we look deeply to individuals, they are very conservative and trashing who behave out of what they consider normal. For a reason, UK is one of the countries where the school bullying is very high.
    A lot of hypocrisy. But on that, Portugal is not different.
    From 13

  16. Anxious to read Anon's 5 answer.


    "In an interview with the Observer, on the eve of a historic Commons debate and vote on press regulation, the Labour leader says that for too long politicians have been scared of acting against the powerful media magnates who have the capacity to destroy political careers and wreck governments. Miliband admits that he was personally worried about the consequences when he called for the resignation of Rebekah Brooks, the News International chief executive, nearly two years ago. His officials at the time were allegedly warned by one senior executive of the company, that having "made it personal about Rebekah, we are going to make it personal about you"."

    It seems you're not far off Textusa...

  18. They're really in a vicious fight!

    "PM 'missing historic opportunity'

    A "historic opportunity" for press reform could be "squandered" following the end of cross-party talks into regulation, the father of missing Madeleine McCann said.

    Gerry McCann said David Cameron was faced with a "binary choice" between newspaper barons or the victims of press intrusion.

    His comments come after the Prime Minister yesterday pulled the plug on efforts to reach a cross-party consensus, announcing he will bring the matter to a head by forcing a vote in the House of Commons on Monday.

    The dramatic move prompted campaigners to accuse Mr Cameron of a "shameless betrayal of victims of press abuse".

    Mr McCann and his wife Kate, whose daughter went missing when the family was on holiday in Portugal in 2007, gave moving evidence during the Leveson Inquiry about their experience at the hands of the media, where Mr McCann described how his wife felt "mentally raped" by the News of the World's publication of her intensely-personal diary."

  19. #17, what do you mean? #5's answer to Textusa's #15 post or Textusa's answer to comment #5?!
    If you meant the later then #5 alredy got his/hers Textusa's #15 comment! In my humble opinion it answers #5 doubts completely. Swinging might not be a big deal when it concerns plain Tom, Dick, Harry, and Mary or Jane (but, even ordinary folks do not go around advertising their uncommon sexual practices for fear of their relatives, neighbors, employers criticism), but, and this is a big but, imagine VIP's involved in such practices, people who are seen as pillars of society, people in high places, politicians, royals, nobility, religious leaders, celebrities from the screen and so on. People who live in "one of the most hypocritically prudish societies" as Textusa so appropriately put it, where one must put on the mask of "moral superiority", and a society where the all powerful and watchful media can trash and shred reputations to pieces in a heart beat!
    Would such people go to any lenghts to protect themselves? Even covering up a terrible "colateral damage" as the death of a child...? I most certainly think they would!
    For those kind of people, swinging or any other activity that is in society's hypocritical list of "no-no behaviors" it is absolutely essential to live by the rule of "you may do as yoy please, but never ever get caught"!
    And, yes, I am sure that some of those kind of people where in the resort with the McCanns in April/May 2007, it's not about the McCanns, it's all about those people and their absolute need to not be named and shamed!


    Kate "Kennedy" McCann!

    That really is scrapping the bottom of the barrel! Are they that desperate...?!

  21. Anon 20,

    Anon 17. I thought I made it very clear when I said I was anxious for Anon 5's answer: "Anxious to read Anon's 5 answer". I didn't mention Anon 15 anywhere. Incidentally Anon 15 is Textusa. Making connections between unidentified ANON comments is abusive unless you're all the ones you refer. All other readers have no way of knowing.
    What I remain anxious for is the answer to Textusa's question: where were the T9 when they left, as Anon 5 says, the children alone?
    As Anon 5 says "let's be honest" here.

  22. Anon #21

    We do not advocate or support any abuse or threats towards Kate McCann in her Marathon run or in any other situation in her life.

  23. Boa tarde!

    Os tablóids estão a papaguear o que lhe dá mais jeito. E, essa história da K8 só serve para vender mais .

    Mas, o pior que eu vejo nalgumas rede sociais são os de UK com medo de escrever.

    Não esqueçam que a própria K8 ameaçou a vida de RM no livro de ficção , fora os insultos a uma série de Pessoas e Portuguesas.

    The tabloids are parroting what they are most convenient.

      And this story of K8 only serves to sell more.

    But the worst I see some social network of the UK are afraid of writing.

      Do not forget that the very K8 threatened the life of the RM fiction book, and insults to a number of people and Portuguese.

  24. To our readers, please note the following unpublished comments we’ve received on this post:

    Comment #1:

    “Swinging is not illegal.

    There was no evidence whatsoever that any such behaviour had gone on.

    Regardless, explain why hundreds of people would or could conspire together in a way that would earn them a very long prison sentence for covering up the death of a child, in order to divert attention from an activity that was completely lawful......

    Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at Mar 16, 2013, 6:12:00 PM”

    Comment #2:

    “So you understand that swinging is not in any way illegal.

    Yet still you claim that hundreds of unconnected people would allow themselves to be used by these people, risking very substantial jail terms, all to avoid a little social embarrassment?

    Nonsense, Complete nonsense.

    Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at Mar 16, 2013, 10:01:00 PM”

    Comment #3:


    Cobblers. Absolute cobblers.

    It was a mid-priced family resort. You are allowing your paranoia to run rampant.

    The very notion that people would be so worried about being exposed as a swinger - which contrary to the hysteria on here hardly raises an eyebrow in the UK - that they would conspire with total strangers to cover up the death of a child, is beyond ridiculous.

    Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at Mar 17, 2013, 1:10:00 PM”

    I know the first comment does say that “there was no evidence whatsoever that any such behaviour had gone on” but that has the same validity and the exact same conviction and intent as the repetitive refusal to accept no Tapas dinners that we’ve grown used to in some comments, published and unpublished, despite the evidence to the contrary.

    The 12 Tapas Quiz posts remain for all to read and be rebutted in their content.

    What called our attention about these comments was the implicit tone that is implying the acceptance of swinging, only vehemently refuting that the swingers would participate in the cover-up.

    To respond to this Anon, let me say three things.

    Firstly, if Justice really worked then indeed “hundreds of people”, both present in PdL on May 3rd and later nowhere near it, would risk “very substantial jail terms”.

    Second, if someone had a crystal ball that evening that would tell them that the PJ Inspector would be uncooperative and publish a book and that the PJ Files would be made public then probably they wouldn’t have gone for the absurd abduction theory to cover-up the swinging because they would indeed risk “very substantial jail terms”.

    Thirdly, going back to the first point, as is said in the post, could you please name those that are currently “risking very substantial jail terms” for covering up Savile’s crimes?

    By the way, have you read our The Best Answer post?

    It shows clearly that someone, one “Chaz”, knew something before the PJ Files were released.

  25. Textusa, why does the person you mention in those unpublished comments mention hundreds of people? Who has ever put a figure like that? Some will be more culpable than others. Signing a statement with a wrong timing or day is one thing. Making up a completely false story is another. At the time, some people might have thought that an abduction had happened and they were helping the parents to keep custody of the other 2 children by covering up what they thought was neglect. Having done that , they may have regretted it later, but how to withdraw their testimony?

  26. “The very notion that people would be so worried about being exposed as a swinger - which contrary to the hysteria on here hardly raises an eyebrow in the UK”
    I think Max Mosley would disagree…

  27. #26

    Numeracy is clearly not a strong point for you

    Tapas staff
    Mark Warner staff
    Local residents
    Members of media organisations
    Members of the police and judiciary
    Embassy staff
    Members of both governments

    These are all the people textusa claims were involved

    Of course it was hundreds
    Any false testimony given is Perverting the course of justice, regardless of whether it was lying about a date or time or making up a false account. In the UK that can carry up to a life sentence

    Are you saying you would lie for another holidaymaker whom you knew to be involved in the death of their child? I don't think much of your morals that you would risk going to prison for life in order to cover up the death of a child.

    #27 Max Mosley didn't even have to resign his position - that's how much of an eyebrow it raised. The fact that his wife may never get over it is immaterial. She wasn't a part of it.

  28. Anon #28

    Thank you for summing it all up so nicely. Looking at your list, yes, then we might be speaking about a three digit figure. You should know.

    Your comment speaks for itself as to why there was a reactive cover-up, not a planned one.

    Your obsessive persistence in the matter also speaks for itself. All you have to do is leave us with our tinfoil hats talking gibberish between ourselves.

  29. Anon 28,
    You're forgetting Bloggers. They also have their hands dirty with this.

  30. About going to prison- no one thought that remotely possible then. They may be more worried now.
    Why would the Mccanns be escorted back home from the airport by security services, as Kate writes in her book, rather than being met by supportive relatives?
    This must have made everyone feel very protected at the time.

  31. Ridiculous to suggest we condemn ourselves to a prison sentence by giving false testimonies if we're not directly related to events. It's always serious but there are different degrees of seriousness.
    If one of the witnesses gave a different timing for an event, how likely is it that they will be prosecuted if the timing is found to be incorrect?
    If one of the T9 were found to have done this, as compared to a Tapas worker, as an example, who is most likely to suffer consequences?

  32. Textusa, your message was great....let you mad old biddies gossip between yourselves if it’s all nonsense then you should have hardly any supporters/readers plus you provide a laugh for this person's secret blog. I bet this person would love to be part of your little ‘coven’ to find out what you're going to put out next.

  33. In my comment #21 I meant that I believe that was a "fake" threath, something purposedly put in the social networks by "you know who" to generate a wave of simpathetic news in the media.

  34. #32

    Presumably you haven't seen the recent press coverage of a man and his wife each jailed for 8 months for lying about a simple speeding fine?

    Perverting the course of justice with respect to the death of a child, as Textusa claimed hundreds have done, would attract a very long prison sentence indeed

  35. Anon @35
    That man and his wife lied. Even though they risked a jail sentence they lied. That’s why they went to jail. So why did they lie? According to you they shouldn’t have!
    I’ll tell you why they lied. Because at the time the risk of going to jail was minimal and the man and the wife thought they could get away with the lie.
    Driving under the influence is a serious offense but one that hardly raises an eyebrow. Except if you’re a politician or a public figure. The man and the wife lied to protect their reputation and as I said thought they could get away with the lie. They didn’t get away with it but they did lie.
    In the same way the people that lied in relation to Maddie also thought that the risk they were running was minimal or none. If you see the British Ambassador and the British Police covering for the lie what risks are you running by telling a lie that will protect your own reputation and that of your friends? Of course you would lie! I would!
    Also out of your list, not all lied. All have obstructed justice. Some by lying others by withholding evidence and others by turning a blind eye.
    There are many statements in the PJ Files that are true. I’ll give you an example: the waiter who says she sees the McCann family in the morning of the 3rd in the Millenium for breakfast. So it’s abusive to say all the OC Staff has told a lie.
    What is evident is that all that were involved in creating the Tapas dinners have lied. Why? Because at the time they were either “forced” to lie or thought it was alright to go along with that lie because there would be no consequences. And there wouldn’t have been if the PJ Files weren’t released to the public!
    What confuses me is indeed your obsession with Textusa’s claims about the swinging and the involvement of others besides the T9.
    She has challenged you time and time again to debunk her 12 Tapas posts. Why don’t you do it? Please don’t say it’s well documented in witness statements because its those same witnesses that are being implicated. Using you man and the wife, I’m sure it’s very well documented in their statements that she was driving that he wasn’t. Now we know that to be a lie.
    Please debunk specific details where Textusa is wrong and please explain why she’s wrong.
    Otherwise, let the rest of us be “fooled” by Textusa. I for one am finding it very enlightening and revealing.

  36. Textusa, I guess we'll have to wait until the cows come home to get Anon 5 to answer your question. It's the usual soft spoken "I read your posts but let me see if I can get in clutter into your blog" kind of comment. Like the reader on another post that was so looking forward to your posts but seems to have lost that interest just as quick!

  37. Unpublished censored comment:

    Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The Deciders":


    You clearly don't know anything about the case in question, it was nothing to do with driving under the influence. You also clearly fail to understand what Perverting the course of justice means,as it isn't just where people have lied, it also includes all those other circumstances you describe, such as withholding evidence.

    It is worrying that you freely admit that you would yourself lie about the disappearance of a child in order to save yourself from a bit of embarrassment.

    I also note you cherry-pick whom you believe - the waiter you mention did not see the McCanns having breakfast, she made a mistake.

    Textusa's (censored) theory is just that - a theory. The witness statements, whether you like it or not, are evidence. Textusa has no evidence that any of these witnesses lied. Just a theory. The theory is quite (censored).
    There is nothing to debunk. The scenario you all care to believe is dependent upon a massive conspiracy between hundreds of strangers, all of whom were prepared to pervert the course of justice and go to prison for years to protect people they had never met. Debunking requires nothing more than telling you to grow up and read the files. According to Textusa, this conspiracy also involved the police - it certainly could not have been attempted without their collusion - so you and she are accusing Amaral of being part of the ''cover-up''

    (censored). Mind you, you did admit you would lie about the death of a child, so maybe there is not much you wouldn't do.

    Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at Mar 18, 2013, 5:11:00 PM"

    Anon, your vitriol brings nothing useful to the debate. Your persistent use of the word conspiracy is understood and noted. End of conversation. Not even to explain where you've based the notion that the waitress made a mistake. It is indeed loathsome to lie about the fate of a child so don't go and accuse others before you've made peace with your mind.


    “His ex-wife, Vicky Pryce, had claimed Huhne coerced her into taking the penalty for his speeding violation. Pryce, 60, was convicted of perverting the course of justice last week.
    In his sentencing Monday, Judge Nigel Sweeney said Huhne had lied "again and again" and told Pryce she had a "controlling, manipulative and devious side."
    "To the extent that anything good has come out of this whole process, it is that now, finally, you have both been brought to justice for your joint offence," Sweeney told the pair at London's Southwark Crown Court. "Any element of tragedy is entirely your own fault."”

    Textusa, I apologise for the apparent incorrectness in detail of my comment about Chris Huhne and his wife. Reading about it seems that it was Pryce taking speeding points for Huhne. This means that she said that she was driving when she wasn’t. The alcohol bit must have been my brain associating not wanting to be behind the wheel with driving under the influence. It doesn’t change the point I wanted to make and that was that they lied.
    About me lying about the fate of a child, Anon BH has taken all out of context. He who hasn’t sinned is to cast the first stone. And if I had nothing to do with the death of the child and was facing a possible scandal and personal ruin and if I lied it would get me off the hook then yes, I would have lied like many did in PDL. Plus if I was coerced to lie by my peers, then to say I wouldn’t lie is to lie this instant. But would that make my attitude right? No. Would I be happy with all the glitter that the McCanns got? No.
    Would I be harassing blogs for telling the truth? No. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
    I don't appreciate receiving lectures from someone with absolutely no morals. I've said I would lie under an hypothetical scenario and the person who is criticizing me appears to have a guilty conscience based on real facts.

  39. "There is nothing to debunk"
    This person agrees with Textusa, so what is he rambling about?


    Very interesting read.
    I think over the next week it will occur to people it's more sinister than it first appears and will result in a total shambles.


    UK Bloggers & Tweeters: Be aware that the Royal Charter re: #Leveson is also aimed at regulating *you*

  42. I’m horrified about what is going on with the press, we already have laws in place to deal with what happens. This charade that is going on is not a subtle way to bring in legislation and few will be fooled. Those who have something to hide will support it. It’s now being said the Dowlers were not hacked and politicians and Leveson were manipulating them. I agree something sinister is going on. If bloggers sign up to the charter as Cohen predicts they will be obliged to do then those bloggers will have identified themselves and can expect the CR threats. Bloggers will be blackmailed into silence.

  43. Anon #43,

    To clarify, Milly Dowlers phone was hacked but her message wasn't deleted by the person who hacked.

    In Portugal it is wisely said "need is the mother of creativity". History has shown that anywhere in the world, repression of progress has only spawned other ways of doing the exact same, or, as in most cases, to be a fruitless and humiliating delay of the inevitable.

    Like when resisting the railway in the Wild West.

    If the UK Government chooses to continue to choose the path of ridicule against the free expression represented by blogs, it's their option.

  44. Textusa, the latest on Dowlers is more than texts not being deleted. Let’s see what is said next. Anon 43.

  45. The Sun is back to the circus, now with an article reporting a death treath related with Kate Mccann on London Marat.
    In another blog, people are discussing the possibility of being a pro with the nickname "Muratfan", the author of the threat. According to some posters that guy claims to be payed by newspapers to fabricate news related with Mccann's. If so, that condemnable behaviour could not be looked at without looking to the behaviour of the other side, the Mccann's and their no reaction against the guy. Is he being payed by the Mccann's as well? Well, clearly fake
    sights of Maddie are being feeding the papers with profits for the papers who increase their sales and the Mccann's, who got free publicity. On the other hand, looks like the guy favorite sports is persecuting TB.
    If Mitchell and Kate said GA is a shame because he made money out of Madeleine, why they remain silent regarding Muratfan who do the same and apparently claimedit openly? Mccann's game is being exposed. Where is SY, who let all that go on without bringing all this people to an interrogatory?

  46. I recommend bb1 to buy a dictionnary and learn how useful is it. One of the amazing facts a language has, is the multiple ways of saying the same just by using the magic of the synonims. You can transform a complicate sentence in to the most easiest or the most poetic, just by playing with synonims.
    That is what happen with the official translation and JM translation. They both say the same using synonims.
    The lake of synonims is also the main problem on the statements of the most important witnesses. They so hardly tried to say the same that they copy the same words and become parrots of an event they obviously did not experienced. People who experience facts, use their own words and synonims to explain what they saw or lived. People, who lie, they parroted a group of words or sentences they practiced to be delivered in an special occasion. Just have a look on the statements of Kate and Gerry and the Tapas 7 and you will spot the parrots words which must be praticed during the time they claimed to be at the Tapas dinning and enjoying a quiz night. Some of the sentences are exact copies, using the same words on the same sequence and were delivered to different officers at different time. They swallow a cassette to be delivered to PJ. One have to wonder where did they meet to practice and how long that takes to all the 9 to keep on their brains what they had to say and deliver. I believe, a deep investigation on their pockets that night will result in a confiscation of 9 small papers holding the same sentences and probably the same caligraphy. The base, police already knows, was Madeleine booklet where a schedulle of events was primarely drawn.
    Saying that they were not in the flat when the events happened ( no matter which kind of event was reported, if abduction or whatever) is again a lie as per the statements of 3 peolpe directed related with the case - Jane Tanner, Gerry Mccann and Jeremy W. JT claim to have seen GM when he was talking to JW, who claims to talk to GM when he left the flat and was on his way back to the Tapas. GM already delivered his poetic mommentum in the flat when he feels how proud he was about his 3 beautiful children. Wait a moment, that momentum was just to give strenght to the most important part of the message- Gerry inside the flat together with the abductor, who got again the special gift of becoming slim and invisible to the point of fitting behind the door. Then, trough GM own words, he was inside the flat when the events happen. He must be called to court to explain what should be size of the abductor to fit on the place he believe he was hiding. With his dr skills, dr. Gerry Mccann must be in position to even say what should be the BMI ( body Mass Index) of the abdutor to pass unnoticed.
    That what's happen when a talk has a lake of synonims and is full of lies. One lie to survive, need to buy another one and normally every lie becomes bigger and bigger on his attempt to appear like truth.
    What a shame bb1, your brain want other brains to fit the size more convennient to yours.

  47. Anon #46,

    Whoever did it shouldn't have done it. Resorting to the use of such language/methods only makes one lose reason.

  48. A white van with cleaners must have been there on the fatidic day. Knowing that and having fears of being spotted by outsiders, specially the portuguese residents they had to find a way to explain what independent witnesses could have seen and reported to the police.
    What was the nr plate of the Van? I'm not surprised if the Van had a portuguese nr plate, rented to easy hold a team of special cleaners who wanted to pass unnoticed. BTW, just my naughty mind working, the British lady who lives in the Spain at the time and quickly jumped to the papers to claim the first sight of Madeleine in Moroccos was not the owner of a specialized cleaning company in the south of Spain? Early reports said she or her husband was from the same town of GM and they know each other. Paulo Reis made a good report of that lady and exposed her on his blog. She reacted on a bad way. It is easy for a cleaning company to hire people in a blink and make them work quickly and properly. Money buys everything and money seems to be not the problem since minute one.

  49. Bom dia!

    E a notícia da van com a mão de obra barata de uk LOL não veio num jornal do Mr. Murdock?

    E a notícia da van com a mão de obra barata de uk LOL não veio num jornal do Mr. Murdock?

    Muito provavelmente, essa notícia apareceu antes da discussão da Lei da Rolha, para avisar que sabem quem limpou o apartamento. Dos Ts9, 6 limparam e, M. sabe os nomes.

    And the news of the van with the cheap labor of uk LOL did not come in a newspaper of Mr. Murdock?

    Most likely, this news appeared before the discussion of the Law of Cork, to warn that they- the tabloid -know who cleaned the apartment.

    Of the 9, 6 cleaned and M. seems to know the names and the secrets.

    Muito obrigada aos que me ajudam!

    Many thanks to All who help me.

  50. Tis case of that man Huhne, his scorned wife and the old speeding infraction is the perfect example of "zangam-se as comadres, sabem-se as verdades", an old portuguese folk expression meaning "when the cronies fall out the truth comes out".

    (the word "comadre/s" means someone who is the godmother of one's child, either when the child is baptized -christening godmother- or when he/she gets married -marriage godmother-, that person becomes our "comadre", co-mother, but it can also mean midwife, and, as in this case, it can also mean a "crony", sort of a caricature of old women from rural Portugal, in the close-knitt small villages where everybody is everybody's "comadre" or "compadre", the male form, where women sit together outside their houses gossiping. They are all cronies, they vouch to keep the "dirty" secrets under wraps until one day...they have a fall out and all hell breaks loose!)

    That's been my hope for the truth to come out in the Maddie case...that one day one the "comadres" fall out with each other...

  51. # 38 March 18 5.11pm

    There is plenty of evidence that witnesses have lied. Lets take the catering staff, several have stated meals could be taken at either the Millenium or the Tapas.

    Hoewever, the MW brochure clearly states meals on a package were only at the Millenium. This is a major problem in the farce. Why and for what reason, may be open to debate, but no one can show a MW brochure 07 stating the Tapas was included.

    If they could they would.

    Statements are easy to manipulate after events, it is not so easy to alter what went before as the brochures prove.

  52. From what I read on another blog, Muratfan reported the threat on a tweet to a newspaper. He didn't make the threat. I also read the tweeter was referring to the sound of the starting gun at the Marathon and that the issue has now been resolved.
    I'm no supporter of Muratfan or what he did, if indeed this is what he did, but we need to keep to the facts.

  53. Anon #53,

    Thank you for your input. Indeed we must keep to the facts.

  54. Guardian today headline
    Papers bridle at historic deal
    On press.

    Former Tory party cabinet minister Peter Lilley urged newspapers to boycott the new system.

    Deputy Editor of Telegraph .. We can never lecture a Mugabe or Putin on freedom of expression again. Quite an achievement for Hacked Off et al...

    The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe - representing 57 member states- warned that the new regulator could threaten the freedom of expression of the UK.
    The group urged Britain not to sacrifice its tradition of press self-regulation.

  55. It’s becoming very clear that people like the Dowlers, Jeffries and to a lesser extent Hugh Grant are just sympathy puppets being used as the face for imposing press regulation. This current debacle has nothing to do with what they have suffered. The fact that no-one will admit where Hacked Off money is coming from for this campaign is very suspicious. Jeremy Clarkson was said to be a donor but has tweeted he hasn’t donated. Watching LI and the whinging celebs like Sienna Killer proved to me that something more sinister was going on as much as hearing the Mcs lying. This is all about covering up the government and police doubt under the guise that it’s in the public interest to clean up behind the scenes so we don’t lose confidence in those who run and regulate our country. That is my prediction as the excuse we will be given.

    If this is true and what we know about Maddie is bad enough....what else has been going on we don’t know about.

    Bloggers are going to be more important than ever and I feel a sense of duty to make sure we are allowed to blog without fear of prosecution. We may as well live in a ‘book burning’ country if we can’t speak.

  56. About swinging not raising any eyebrows. This is from bb1, the BH in the post, about what supposedly is lewd reporting done by Correio da Manha: "In the UK, the participants in these public orgies would be regarded as a bunch of hard-faced slappers and dirty old men, not as 'artistes'."

  57. "Mind you, you did admit you would lie about the death of a child, so maybe there is not much you wouldn't do."

    I think this Anon has to read his own words. It's not needed for truth to one day surface for it to hit this person daily. That's what keeps him coming back here time and time again.

  58. "Responsável do The Sun acusado por pagamentos ilegais"
    In Sol

  59. Could someone tell me what exactly was agreed to on Monday about the Press? I think that the lack of details and transparency says that it is an all-round loss. Maybe call the 6 cleaners to help out again?

  60. Textusa why do you and some readers here consider people who think swinging is wrong to be prudish? That is insulting to bible believers who are given only 10 rules to follow, being the ten commandments; two of them being; Thou shalt not covet your neighbours wife; Thou shalt not commit adultery. You seem to cherry pick with what you think is acceptable human behaviour, such as swinging is ok but lying isn't. Swinging is harmful to the family structure and therefore harms the children. It reminds me of a saying; You swallow a Camel, but strain at a gnat...

  61. To all readers:

    From censored comment #38:

    “I also note you CHERRY-PICK whom you believe - the waiter you mention did not see the McCanns having breakfast, she made a mistake.”

    From Anon #61

    “You seem to CHERRY PICK with what you think is acceptable human behaviour, such as swinging is ok but lying isn't.”

    Isn’t this just one CHERRY-PICK of a coincidence?

    Now we’ve gone from swinging not raising an eyebrow to an absolutely sinful and condemnable sexual option.

    To Anon #61

    Let me tell you why lying is serious. It affects others besides yourself.

    Swinging is done between consenting adults and involves only those who indulge in its practice. It affects no else and is no else’s business.

    Unlike you’re trying to imply, we’re not promoting swinging. But we’re also not condemning it.

    It depends if you have a religious belief that is based on moral edicts.

    Some people consider gay relationships immoral.

    Some religious believers will punish women who are the victims of rape.

    Others who have religious beliefs will have more than one wife.

    Others may be religious but don't believe sexual behaviour is anything to do with belief, as long as it is legal and consensual.

    For some, swinging is not to their taste, whatever their beliefs.

    Lying is not against the law, but lying to the police or a court of law is.

    Some lies are serious, some are trivial and who can ever say they have never lied.

    Your comment puts everything into the mix in a ridiculous way.

    What we do know is that few, if any at all, public figures admit to their sexual behaviour, be it swinging, adultery, soda-masochistic or other legal, consensual sexual practices.

    We don't judge others for legal, consensual practices but many, such as you suddenly, obviously do

    However I do find this novel twist rather amusing. You people have appealed this far to the most basic emotions: fear and xenophobia. Religious bigotry was indeed missing as the CHERRY on the top of the cake.

  62. Textusa,

    Interesting to see a person so much worried about seeing an activity that doesn't even raise an eyebrow to be linked with Maddie's disappearance...

  63. Kindly remove your comment above which appears to claim that I authored comment #61. You are well aware this is a falsehood

  64. Anon #64,

    The fact that you credit our analysis capabilities with differentiating Anon comments one from another is quite a compliment in itself.

    You say you're not the same commenter as #61, which might, just might, be true. Then you go and say that we know that they are comments from different people... how, one wonders, do you expect us to know who comments are from?

    As you see your comment has been published for readers to know what you claim and to judge the comment I made and maintain.

    In future , to avoid confusion, you could sign with some nickname or refer to which number comment you made before.

    If you don't or won't, don't expect us to do the differentiation of authorship, which, in this case, we believe that there isn't one.

    Your reply is the expected answer of someone trying to get out of the "discomfort zone".

  65. Just had a mail from a campaign group I follow called Avaaz. Asking to support a 15 year old girl raped by stepfather in Maldives, now sentenced to be punished by lashing for her behaviour!
    This is religious belief at it's worst, as your comment pointed out.
    She will receive 100 lashes for sex outside marriage. Avaaz are asking for a tourism boycott. It's titled Hell in Paradise.

  66. Censored comment:

    "Don't talk rubbish, as the blogger you have access to information, including IP addresses which will indicate if it is the same poster. You also have an application installed showing the origin of contributions.

    Perhaps your posters are not aware of this. You are able to distinguish between the origin of posts, and if you are claiming you can't you are either a liar or (censored).

    Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at Mar 21, 2013, 7:52:00 PM"

    We don't have such a sophisticated system. IPs show but can't be linked accurately to comments and we don’t have a back record nor are we thinking of starting one.

    Anyway, you could mail a friend anywhere in the world and ask them to submit on your behalf, or hide IP or do it from work or a library...

    That's why we don't take too much notice. We prefer to concentrate our capabilities in the content of our posts instead of wasting any of them in some sort of persecution paranoia.

    Maybe your blog has a better system of monitoring? For whatever reason.

  67. Yes you do. You have no problem identifying the source of a post when you want to make sure you don't publish anything from me.

    Heard from CEOPS again?

  68. O.k. I need to put anon.sixty four out of his/her misery. I am anon. sixty one, not anon. sixty four. (Sorry, but my numeral six on my keyboard has just got stuck).
    Textusa you have mentioned in more than one of your blogs that you think swinging is fine between consenting adults etc. (therefore you yourself judged), and people who do not think so you alluded to as being prudish. Just like everybody lies, (though some try hard not to). Everybody judges other peoples behaviour. We need discrimination and judgement to survive, develop our own personality, moral fibre, and grow as people. Without we would be no better than an amoeba. There is a difference between discrimination/judgement and punishment.

    @Anon63. Maybe swinging does not raise your eyebrows, and I would not stop you from doing it, or stone you for it, but I still think it is wrong.

    @ anon sixty six. As I have stated before there is a difference between discrimination and judgement (which is healthy), and the evil execution of punishment, never mind the unjust lashings for the rape victim such as you describe. Please get your facts/judgement straight. It is not the religious belief, but rather laws made by evil people used in the name of their religion.

  69. Anon #69,

    It's content not ISP that determines what is published or not.


Comments are moderated.

Comments are welcomed, but its reserved the right to delete comments deemed as spam, transparent attempts to get traffic without providing any useful commentary, and any contributions which are offensive or inappropriate for civilized discourse.