Friday, 5 April 2013

The Enablers

“So what BH group are we going to speak about today?”

“We’re going to speak about the Enablers, the toaster and bread for toast.”


“You need a slice of bread and a toaster to make a toast. The Deciders may decide they want toast but without Enablers that toast just won’t happen.

The Enablers are the ones who turn into reality all the decisions made by the Deciders.”

“Pretty important people, then…”

“No, not exactly. Unfortunately for them they’re the only ones that walk in the humiliating side of darkness as they’re unable to have their own opinion.”

“Why? Because they’re left out of the loop?”

“No, it’s not in the sense that they don’t have enough information to formulate an opinion because they do have all the information they need and I’m sure that they do have a personal opinion about what is going on.

They’re only totally unable to express it.”


“They’re just the parrots that they are. When a parrot repeats the sounds taught, it’s not exactly the expression of a “parrot’s opinion” is it?


“The reason behind this lack of opinion speech may be voluntary and self-assumed in nature, out of pure career-greed, or it may have been forced on the Enabler whereby the person was dragged into the mess and accepted just out of pure career-survival.

In the last instance, it’s applicable the mob-style “bribed-by-a-penny-bribed-by-a-million” principle.”

“The what?”

“You know, when one is bribed, more relevant than the fact that one is getting paid or how much one is receiving, it’s the fact that one is being sucked irreparably into something that will forever haunt one’s existence.

Once committed, always committed. Once compromised, compromised forever. Once dirty, forever dirty.

From that moment on one becomes a true stakeholder independently of the selling price being a penny or a million.

That’s why if one is to ever decide to walk on the “wild side” one should put into real consideration the initial price that one is to put on one’s soul, because after that first time one simply loses all negotiation capability.

Although, as I said, there were many that their price was to be able to continue to work.

The Enablers, by accepting to be part of the scam, sold their souls to a cause they knew to be criminal, not because of Maddie’s unfortunate demise but of the evident obstruction of justice with which they started to be complicit with.

Only they know the price asked but I think many got a really awful deal.

And by doing this they forfeited their own opinion. Now, they’re no longer able, or even allowed, to express publicly what their personal opinion is, which, by the way, is something that instantaneously became void of any interest.”

“So they don’t speak about it, is that it?”

“On the contrary, dear. on the contrary. They must and do express publicly their opinion. However these particular public opinions must be within the boundaries determined by those who’ve reaped their souls, the Deciders.”

“So they can speak but they can’t decide, is that it?”

“On the contrary, dear. on the contrary. They do make important decisions.”

“Make sense, woman!”

“Let me exemplify, imagine that the Deciders decide that as of today blue is yellow.

That is the framework decision.

Now it’s up to the Enablers to decide, in the exact same way and manner as the monkeys did in the monkey experiment.

“Explain, please…”

“It wasn’t the monkeys’ decision that the ladder wasn’t to be used. They were conditioned for that by a framework decision made by the scientists.

However, the decision on how to stop the new monkey going up the ladder was totally theirs.

It was up to them if they used either their hands or their teeth or both to make sure the new monkey understood that the ladder wasn’t to be used.

As monkeys, they knew best how to stop another monkey.

The same happens with the Enablers. They are the subject experts in their different areas.

They know best how to make the guilty look innocent.

They know best how to describe the sea is a deliciously yellow custard pie, as per framework decision, and not only how it is, but how it always was and how it will always be in the future.

The Enablers decide best how to express all the interesting variances of yellow’s most diverse tonalities regardless of the evidence that it isn’t yellow but blue.

They’re expected to make any and all decisions as long as they are within the framework and achieve what is decided by the Deciders.

As I said before, it’s completely up to the Enablers to make things happen… and not happen.”

Not happen?”

“As the subject experts they are also those who know best how to instill fear in all those that dare question their lies.”

“Oh, yes, I see…”

“The biggest problem that the Enablers face is the pigmentation dilemma.”

“What? No, I won’t even ask…”

“Continuing with our example, the Deciders decided that blue was yellow not out of any sort of colour preference but because it best suited their interests.

And when that stops being so, so does blue stop being yellow and begin to be another different colour altogether.

And once the Deciders decide that it’s no longer yellow but from now on it is to be red then the Enablers have to switch and change all previous colour “policies & opinions” and have to start, at once, to exult all the qualities of red

But the Enablers are before a real dilemma.”

“Which is?”

“To know exactly what the Deciders have decided when they decided from now it is to be red.”

“Well, they decided that now it is to be red didn't they? It seems pretty simple to me…”

“But is it that simple? Have the Deciders decided that blue, the pretence yellow, is now red or have they decided only that it is the yellow that is now to be red?

In the first instance, yellow returns to its original pigmentation and what is blue is to be treated as red like it was yellow when it was supposed to be yellow and not blue, while in the latter none of the three, yellow, blue and red, are what they really are. Blue is yellow, yellow is red and red doesn’t exist.

That’s why people mistake Enablers’ change of opinion with the lack of having one.

They never stopped having their conditioned opinion, only now they don’t know what exactly are the new conditions so they don’t know what their new opinion is!

The opinions that they’re allowed to have and express are absolutely conditioned by the direction from which the wind is blowing at an exact moment in time, which might be a completely different direction from which it blew just moments before

That’s why they seem to be as fickle as a cork floating on water but the problem is not their fickleness but that of the pigmentation.

So whenever the Deciders change their colour code, the Enablers are lost for a while, not knowing exactly what to defend until they grasp the full meaning and implication of the new decision.

Really confusing, and it’s worsened by the fact that it’s a repeating process every single time the Deciders decide to change colours to suit their interests.

And that happens more often than you think.”

“It does?”

“Oh yes, it does.

We saw a colour option being taken on May 3rd, 2007, the abduction theory.

Then it was decided a different one during that Summer of 2007, the “McCann Hunting Party 07”.

Another change on September 17th of the same year, the Great Maddie War.

And another on May 12th, 2011, the “McCann Hunting Party 11”.

And we’re currently under a change of colours.”

“We are?”

“Yes, only this time it’s taking quite a while to decide on the exact pigmentation and this is, as expected it would, driving the Enablers crazy.”


“It’s currently being decided what was the role of the tabloids in the Maddie Affair.”

“Everyone knows that their role was to support the farce! Wasn’t it?”

“You’re not listening to me, are you?”


“When I said that blue is yellow I was obviously aware that you know the difference between the colours.

But the point was that it was absolutely irrelevant whether you could tell colours apart if I, the Decider, decided that blue was yellow. It was yellow, end of discussion.

The same way, what is being decided is not what the role of the tabloids was but what the officially perceived role of the tabloids was.

It has nothing to do with reality. One is the Truth and the other the Official Truth and only, as you know, the latter matters to the Deciders.

Reality is inconveniently bothersome.”

“What roles then can the tabloids have?”

“To be good or bad guys.”

“I should have expected that. Do go on.”

“If the tabloids are to continue to be good guys to the BH cause, then the current status quo is maintained.

But if they are to be the bad guys, as it seems that the Establishment is trying to do, then the BHs are indeed in a pickle.”

“Just because of the tabloids? I mean, the rest of the media cooperated with the farce… the tabloids only used a more basic and vitriolic language…”

“Why do you keep seeing things at face value?

The current fight is using the tabloids as lab rats. What the Establishment is really doing is facing up to the Media but without touching the “serious media”, thus the isolated attack on the tabloids.

What are the consequences to the Maddie Affair? If the Establishment is able to succeed in this battle it’s openly and clearly changing its relationship with the BHs.

It will be a clear statement that the dam is to break entirely and not on a few chosen parts of it.

And this lack of definition is going on from the moment it was perceived that the SY Review was a huge mistake. That was in the Summer of 2011, so you can see how this is really confusing for all Enablers.

“All this mess about the Leveson Inquiry?”

“Yes. And until this is decided, the BHs live in a permanent state of suspense.

We believe that this decision is to come soon. The farce is reaching two decision points.

The first is the McCann vs Mr Amaral legal situation. They apparently can’t convince the man and they can’t afford to have the McCanns face him publicly.

There’s just no way to glamorize or even camouflage the implications of a McCann withdrawal.

So a decision must be made before then. It’s only our opinion and it’s worth what it’s worth.

The second is consequence of the erosion caused by the cumulative anniversary that early May represents. It’s the 6th anniversary of Maddie's disappearance, the 10th of Maddie and the 3rd of Kate’s Book/SY Review.

The Establishment is clearly showing signs of exhaustion on this issue. "Maddie May" has become a very uncomfortable time of the year for the UK.

And one asks why and the answers that one gets are starting to seem more ridiculous with each passing day.

We’ve noticed there is less and less information available and BHs are struggling to find anything to say. They are in a very difficult position as they can’t close every BH/”WH” site or stop commenting as that would be the final nail in the McCann support coffin.

The paid BHs are starting to wonder for how long they will get paid now that things are looking bleak. We're sure that the family and friends will keep blogging but others may stop if they don't get paid for their services..

Also, three of BH tactics are no longer credible. The first, slandering GA was emptied in content this week, the second, the false sightings are now greeted with ridicule and the third, the hoaxes like Birch are dismissed with the same ridicule.

The tension from all BH areas can be felt and David Cameron must be feeling quite worried at what is going on in his Country as it’s becoming so transparent.

So why not just put a full stop to all this? Why not put an end to this ongoing misery?”

“Because they’re all up to their necks is this mess?”



“Yes, you’re absolutely wrong and that, my dear, is the very crux of this question at this moment in time.”

“Explain please.”

“You have to ask yourself the following two questions:

Who is able put an end to this?

And what has, whomever is able to put an end to this, to fear from the truth?

The answers to these questions are very simple… to the first, David Cameron is the only one that can put an end to this, to the second, absolutely nothing.”


“Do think dear. The two biggest Deciders at the moment are David Cameron and Rupert Murdoch and they’re fiercely fighting each other.

Neither, as I’ll explain, are directly involved in the Maddie Affair.”

“They aren’t?!?”

“No, they're not and yes, I know it seems confusing but it really isn’t.

Let’s start with David Cameron. What is his involvement in the case? Only in having set up the SY Review. All other things were inherited from the past.

So, if the SY Review turns out to be "successful", what has he to lose? Nothing but he has much to gain.

Yes, it would have taken two years for the smart and formerly highly regarded Met to understand what is perfectly evident in a few minutes but that is a perfectly overlookable detail.

This is an important factor to take into consideration about the urgency in coming to a decision as the longer the SY takes to be "successful" the more is Cameron compromising himself with the issue. 

If two years is a ridiculous time to solve this “mystery” then with any more time then it becomes as absolutely incomprehensible as absolutely inexplicable especially after more than year has passed after the absolutely amazing 195 new leads were found and have produced absolutely no results.

Very soon the no-return point is surpassed .

The only thing that is apparently stopping having a decision already taken is UK’s useless efforts in “keeping up appearances”.

But if this same “appearance” is more hindered than benefitted by this farce, as it is, then logic dictates that it’s best to stop it once and for all.

Besides, Cameron has a lot to gain in doing just that when it comes to the power-struggle between himself and Murdoch.”


Murdoch is a very special Enabler. He holds so much power that he should be considered as a Decider. But he’ll always be an Enabler nonetheless, and that is what really bothers the BHs.”


“Because as an Enabler he is not a direct stakeholder, he’s an indirect one. The truth affects his power but doesn’t affect his reputation.

Just like Cameron can say that the fault for the two years that SY would have taken to solve the case was within that police force so Murdoch can just say that his reporters were fooled and apologise to readers while slamming away those who fooled his naive professionals, which are none other than the BHs!

But the Maddie Affair is something that Murdoch can hold against Cameron as was shown in the “6-cleaner” episode in the best “I know what you did last summer” style, an undertaking made out of pure despair. In fact, as we all know, Cameron didn't do anything about Maddie that particular "summer".

If Cameron comes clean with the Maddie Affair what will Murdoch have left to “bargain” with the Prime-Minister? Nothing.

Plus, this would make even more fragile Murdoch’s position as people aren’t stupid and know perfectly well that the tabloids weren’t fooled and Cameron could sit back to enjoy the apology to readers.

It wouldn't be the first humiliation that Murdoch would have suffered on this subject.

“It wouldn't?”

“Not after the McCanns "abandoned" Murdoch with the Hacked Off thing after all he, or his tabloids, did for them. 

They have now sided, as if they had a choice, with Cameron. I'm sure they're hoping for some sort of clemency just like is a mouse that after being caught by a cat, lays really, really still in the hope that fate isn't sealed. Unfortunately for the mouse, it is.  

To sum up, Cameron would win and Murdoch would lose but neither have anything to fear from the truth as this win/loss would be within their bitter struggle.

Fear of the truth is exclusive to the BHs, whose fate is completely in Cameron's hands, who after the launching of the SY Review became the sole Decider, and what is to be his next move.

It really feels as if something is in the air and about to explode. The pot must be boiling fiercely and the lid clattering about on the top allowing spits and dribbles to escape and a few people are desperately trying not to let the pot boil over.

A decision has to be made and has to be made soon, Very, very soon. Otherwise Cameron risks also falling definitely into that pot. Having the possibility to choose is something not many had and those that did have it now regret the choice made.

Mind you, we're not making any prediction. We're just calling it as we see it. As we've said many times before we don't have any inside information and who says otherwise is lying. Nor do we work with any group of privileged people in Portugal, in the UK or any other country. 

There will be a huge sense of relief for many once the contents are released and the fire underneath dies down and goes out. All these years of stress and suffering when it could have all been over long ago if some people had taken the responsibility they should have done.

But until then, as I just said, the BHs live in a permanent state of terrifying suspense and the Enablers live in a permanent state of uncertainty.”

“Go on.”

“Well, this happens because unlike the Deciders and the Riff-Raff are direct stakeholders while the Enablers are, as I just said, indirect ones.

They, like the Riff-Raff, have little or no say about their own fate but unlike them they aren’t directly implicated in the matter. The Enablers just answered, voluntarily or not, to a call about something that they had absolutely nothing to do with.

This indirectness not only obstructs the objectiveness of their analysis of the situation but enhances their importance which is none.

They exist to be used and serve a purpose that is not theirs.

All this is aggravated with the disaggregation of the Deciders. When winds blow simultaneously in more than one direction, which is one to follow when one is not allowed to decide to where to turn?” 

“Quite a pickle…”

“This indirectness also triggers two things.

The first is what I call the safeguard clause.

As they know they’re wrongdoing in a business that is not theirs, they will try to leave all options open. All possible options, that is. Some, as you’ll see, have no such luxury.

For them, their compliance to orders has left them no room to protect themselves from the flood when the dam breaks, so they’re left with no other option but to ensure, now out of self-interest, that the dam is to never break, irrelevant of justice, logic or both, the lie must be perpetuated.

Unfortunately for them, it’s not a decision for their taking. The best they can do is put some sort of pressure on the Deciders but that’s about all as pleading won’t get them very far.

The second is a sentiment of revolt.

They were not asked but told to misrepresent their profession. They have since distorted all possible honour codes that their profession may have for the sake of abiding by other peoples’ will, and let me remind you that this will is of criminal nature and they know it.

The effect of this on their conscience triggers two kinds of response: a public one which is to further commit themselves to the “cause”, showing resolution that is to appear as a conviction simply impossible to deter, and a private one, which is anger, towards themselves, towards those who forced them into it and towards all those who by questioning threaten to unveil their dark secret.”

They have all to lose and nowhere to turn for help.”

“Sad fate, I must say. Tell me, who are the Enablers?”

“We’ll leave that for tomorrow.”


  1. Bom dia.

    Não li ainda o post. Mas tenho uma questão a colocar:

    o facto de determinada profissão liberal ter acesso completo à agência de noticias oficial e, onde estas acabam insidiosamente " McMoldadas".

    E, vê-se como elas são ainda elaboradas. Por ex. misturar assunto de 2013 com assuntos de 2009 e, provocar confusão a quem pretende traduzir para outra língua materna , perpetuando a difamação e a perseguição. Posso referir , por ex. , o caso da mulher que viu a sua pena criminal acrescida em 7 meses.

    Mas, ao longo destes anos fui assistindo a mais casos. Da minha parte, lamento não ter feito o registo de tudo e guardado num arquivo.

    Não são apenas os tablóids ou os tablóids disfarçados de jornais mais sérios. As agências noticiosas servem para continuar a confusão e a submissão aos McsCompanhia.

  2. Text, thank you for another gourmet piece! I just wish i was as optimistic as you.

  3. Anon #2,

    I don’t think we’re being optimistic.

    The “6-cleaner” episode has to be read correctly and from it we have to draw conclusions.

    There wasn’t any pressure put on Cameron with that episode because, as we say in the post, one simply can’t point a finger at Cameron for the Maddie Affair.

    What was done was to put pressure on others, so that they, in turn, would put pressure the British Prime-Minister.

    Were they successful? You be the judge of that. All you have to do is to check what was indeed decided about the implementation of Leveson’s proposals as per Hacked Off desires.

    One characteristic of democracy is that politicians have rather short power-span cycles. They’re really powerful for short periods of time.

    I’ll give you a current example, which one is more powerful today: David Cameron or Gordon Brown?

    Do compare your answer with the one you would give to the same exact question had it been asked in April 2009.

    That means that although Cameron is now the Decider he has until his power-cycle ends to decide. It’s a rather short time in “history-years” independently of how many human-years he still has in office.

    Who remembers Nixon without remembering Watergate? In the same way, one day whenever Brown will be recalled so will Maddie’s name pop up.

    But human-years are very important in the present. It’s not indifferent if the SY Review takes two, three or four years to reach a satisfactory solution, if it ever will reach one. This shortens Cameron’s time to decide.

    That is if his decision is to expose Factual Truth and he may decide not to do that.

    If he decides to continue with the farce then I’m sure he’s aware that he’ll become part of the crew of “HMS Shame” and will forever sail under its colours and sink when the cowardly vessel is to sink. He’s much too big a name to be ignored by history.

    So, as I said, I don’t think we’re being optimistic. We’re just saying that either way he’s to decide, now is the time to do it.

    We can't be too optimistic but we can hope!

  4. Comment received:

    "Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Easter Break":

    You do know if Fred murders you and gets caught, he only has to produce one of your posts and he'll get off, don't you?

    Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at Apr 5, 2013, 9:49:00 PM"

    To our readers, this is the sort of comment we now anticipate.

    It shows the mindset of our opponents, who make threats like this on a regular basis.

    We do not regard domestic violence to be an appropriate subject for humour.

  5. I also hope for the best. Let's see what the future brings

  6. cannot understand if Cameron is in a win win situation to make him come out on top spill the beans sooner rather than later, he would be backed up by the press ,if only to get back at gerry and kate.murdock can control what comes out of the press leaving tapas 9 to be fed to the uk and swallowed the way how are you getting away with stating on your blog that Maddie died in 3a how come you have not been carter rooked

  7. I think (hope) that the review was effectively completed some time ago. I also think (hope) that David Cameron is sitting on the results until he can make the most political capital from them.

    The next general election is 2015. What better way to destroy your opponents than by saying, "The last time you were in power, you covered up the death of a little girl."

  8. Anon #7,

    Thank you for your comment.

    As we've tried to say in the post, time is of the essence, a phrase used to emphasize that the actions described need to be completed in a reasonable amount of time.

    Two years to discover a cover-up is not a reasonable amount of time, much less 3 or 4 years as you're implying that Cameron could use as an ace up his sleeve. It would turn against him instead of or him.

    SY Review wasn't completed because it was a task never undertaken.

    What SY was asked to do, in our opinion, was not to review any files but to bring the McCanns, but only the McCanns, to justice which it failed to do as we've tried to explain our reasons to think that way in previous posts.

    On this post what we've tried to explain is that Cameron is at a crucial crossroads. He has to decide to go on with the farce or expose it fully. We're not seeing what other choices he has.

    What we're emphasizing is that now is the time to decide, whichever way it is to be.

  9. Thanks to bloggers it is all becoming transparent. Free expression is really useful to society and secrecy of justice serves mainly to make sure that society is deprived of truth.

  10. Textusa,

    To use that sort of language the person mentioned in #4 must be carrying a heavy burden.

  11. Politicians want their name in history for good reasons so I think it would be unwise of Cameron to decide to continue the farce. He didn't get to be Prime-Minister by being unwise.

  12. #6
    About Carter-Ruck:

  13. The outcome of the Review that TM need is either the same as that of the Portuguese investigation - so that the file can remain closed or that it ceases through exhaustion of resources - money. Since either of these outcomes will depend on the public accepting either one a decision can only come when we have reached exhaustion with waiting or spending. I don't believe that Cameron gives a hoot - he too is waiting for us to be exhausted.

  14. When Cameron gave the go ahead for the review, Murdoch and Brooks were still in power but since the review so much has been revealed about how the media has manipulated and been manipulated that Cameron has lost his allies in Brooks and Murdoch, at present he is in a very weak position he has lost much of his media power and credability. The Sun once said they have the power to break or make people and now they are all distancing themselves from the Maddie saga. Maddie is no longer front pages and hardly mentioned in the media, comments are not allowed from the public for online news articles, which shows just how we all feel about the mccanns. Journalists and editors are aware of the duplicity of the mccann machine and Kate and Gerry should accept that nothing lasts forever, especially lies, once the mccanns were sought after they made money for newspapers and interviewers but now people have become bored and fed up with the greedy money grubbing mccanns. They ask why so much tax payers money is being spent on one child when the parents have hindered and refused to help the investigation, even their friends refused to cooperate in a reconstruction, which would suggest they are all involved in whatever happened to the poor child. Kate and Gerry have milked the system and taken people for fools, their fund pays for their lawyers and expensive litigation cases. There is no searching for Maddie by her parents and there never was.
    The Mccanns set up a fund a few days after she 'disappeared' fed fake stories to the media concerning their apartment shutters being jemmied, which was all lies, they set up an internet website selling rubbish, humilated the Pope and the Catholic Church with their religious publicity scams and employed Clarence Mitchell and Carter Ruck to ensure they always received a good press or they would sue for thousands. Easy money - end of.

  15. I've just heard the news that Margaret Thatcher has passed away. I personally didn't subscribe many of her views but she never once faltered in the respect I had for her. I very much doubt if there was to be a Maddie scandal with her in Nº10. Or that she would hesitate to make the right decision about the case now. History is not kind to those who falter and tends overlook flaws to those who're righteous. Rest in peace, Iron Lady.

  16. Anon#15

    Well said. Totally agree with you.
    Rest in peace, Iron Lady.


  17. I think the Black Hats haven't faced their biggest foes yet: Hollywood.
    When they are to make a movie about this and they will one day, they won't be able to reconstruct the dinners and without them the hoax will be totally transparent!

  18. Anon #17

    Very valid point. Hollywood does like to proper research and they love nothing better than to expose a cover-up. Thank you for your comment.

  19. I would like to pay my respects to a decisive states-person that most influenced western civilization in the 20th Century, Margaret Thatcher.

    Unfortunately people like this woman are becoming scarcer by the day and the consequences of that fact can be seen and felt.

    "I am extraordinarily patient, provided I get my own way in the end."

  20. A propósito de filme Hollywood há um episódio do Criminal Intent

    Detectives investigate when a couple’s 2-year-old daughter mysteriously disappears from her room during a robbery at the hotel, where her parents dined.

    They learn that a family member is financially supporting the couple, while also dying of a heart condition. Glass fragments and a stolen key-card become substantial evidence which leads them to the robber, although there is no child with him. Further investigation leads Goren and Eames to receive a ransom call.

    However, they learn that someone relatively close to the family was taking advantage of the crime, attempting to win money over in the process. The detectives find out the parents have been giving a false description.

    There never was a child at the hotel. As they uncover a shocking conspiracy, Goren and Eames learn that the unstable mother has been delusional about the months-ago accidental death of her daughter, prompting her husband (Luke Kirby) to exploit her condition in order to continue receiving financial support from his rich but childless aunt.

    Partially inspired by the Madeleine McCann and Caylee Anthony cases.

  21. As said and reinforced many times the blog has no loyalty to anyone or anything besides the truth. An unpublished comment made us realize that the comment above could be interpreted as a subscription of Thatcher's policies.

    Margaret Thatcher divided political opinion.

    As a team, we have different opinions about politics and religion but are united in seeking the truth. We debate our differences amiably, respectfully, but privately.

    The blog aims to be welcoming to all who who seek the truth, regardless of their political and religious allegiances.

  22. Cameron cannot sweep this review under the carpet, he took it on because he believed it would be a vote puller and the media admitted they put pressure on him for a review and he did it to appease the Sun who threatened to put the Home Secretarys picture on their front pages everyday until the review went ahead but now in these times of austerity and cut backs people ask why is so much money being wasted on a review when the evidence points to Madeleine dying in the apartment. Cameron must decide if he is going to expose the spin and manipulation of the mccanns that created thuis mess he is now involved in or continue and stay silent hoping it will all go away. I fear he will chose the latter he has proved himself to be a coward he is the worst prime minister this country has ever had...evil thrives when good men stay silent and do nothing!

  23. #17, we alredy had a small example of that whith the McCann made "Mockumentary" (Panorama-"Madeleine was here", I think it was called, if I'm not mistaken). An american actress(Lisa Canning) was hired to play the role of Kate McCann, but guess what...the scenes Lisa C. was supposed to play were never included in the show! Why? Lisa would play Kate doing her 10pm check on the children, hence discovering Madeleine gone, the frantick search around the apartment, looking in the cupboards,the door slamming because of the draft from the open window, etc., what Kate described she did upon seeing that Maddie was not in her bed, but the scenes were never to be seen, all ended up cut from the film and into the trash can, I suppose! It all had to do with the impossibility of filming some convincing scenes, when they tried to follow the "McCann script", the line of events as described by them it was quite evident it made no sense whatsoever, it was impossible to film it in a way that people would believe it had happened so!(mind you, this was the reason I read in Duarte Levy's blog, and not all that comes from that source is reliable, but there had to be a resaon for those scenes being left out of the documentary, and I believe it was just for that, it made no sense at all, no matter how they tried to film it).
    Instead we had to see Kate reproducing the scenes in her house in Rothley, Lisa Canning went back to the States, with her fee paid, I hope, and I bet with a strick confidential agreement signed to never ever talk about the matter!

    Any movie made on the subject would only happen under Gerry's control (like the "Mockumentary"), and I don't see that happening with an Hollywood director or studio...

  24. I'm from the time of reading Textusa in 3A and I remember when she first mentioned the possible involvement of the Brit Gov she was literally trashed!
    This just goes to prove that patience and hard work will always be decisive to out truth.

  25. @ 23 you are right whenever I have seen reconstructions they look so false, their version of events is unbelievable presumably thats why they would not take part in the reconstruction. I always assumed the police had the power to make individuals take part in the reconstructions and by refusing it makes them all look guilty of the cover up. Also when the police detected cadaver in the mccann vehicle the mccanns would not accept it and instead stated they were doing their own checks. If this is how criminal cases are handled where people can over-rule the police or evidence against them in favour of their own investigations then it will take forever to solve this case.

  26. News from the battlefront:

  27. Se o D M não menciona , qual a razão para esta estacão , a ITV pro mc mencionar?

    9 Abril 2013

  28. Thanks Textusa yet another article that provides food for thought - fantastic website a million thanks read it everyday.

  29. Madeleine faria 10 anos em Maio próximo, se estivesse viva. Um marco importante na vida de qualquer criança, sobretudo porque as crianças vivem sonhando com esse mundo mágico que é o das pessoas grandes e acham que dão o primeiro passo para entrar nele no dia em que a sua idade passa a ter 2 digitos. Os 10, embora a uma escala diferente, são quase tão importantes como os 18. Qualquer pai e mãe sabe isso. É inato.
    Para os Mccann, ou melhor, para a tese que pretenderam vender ao mundo, a sua filha está viva, de boa saúde, já que nada de mal lhe aconteceu, e aos cuidados de alguém que a terá mandado a escola para aprender a ler e assim poder aceder a versão da história a que a mãe chamou " Madeleine" e publicitou como "an account of the truth". Esta Madeleine fará 10 anos em Maio, e há 6 anos quando fez 4 teve uma festa de anos real, ainda que estivesse ausente, publicitada em todos os Media do mundo. Corriam os ventos da vitimização que tanto ajudaram a convencer contribuintes que subsidiaram um Fundo dito de buscas " por ela". Nåo sei o que buscaram porque os resultados foram piores que nulos, mas sei que é sepulcral o silêncio de Rothley agora que a sua Madeleine fará 10 anos- nem um detalhe no Daily Mail ou no The Sun sobre uma data tão marcante na vida da criança? Festejaram os 4 mas não festejarão os 10? Afinal o que mudou nestes 6 anos, além dos gémeos já estarem mais velhos, mais conscientes dos factos e mais inquisitivos perante as opções mórbidas e grotescas dos seus pais? Talvez um dia um psicólogo com autoridade na matéria dedique algum tempo a estudar o comportamento destes pais.
    Entretanto há um Pierrot na terra de Camões que decidiu apresentar mais um dos seus números, para mim relevante e dificilmente separável do momento turbulento que os Mccann podem estar prestes a atravessar em águas lusas- o bastonário diz que há juizes que falsificam atas dos tribunais para porem lá o que lá não estava. Como sempre diz que tem provas para apresentar em sede própria mas quando lhe perguntam por um caso concreto, NADA. Ummmh, porque será que cheira tanto a esturro? O querido Pierrot a prestar mais um servicinho, mandando " bocas", tentando intimidar algum conjunto de juizes que estará em funções brevemente. Adivinhando algum final menos bom... E antecipando a jogada para depois poder descredibilizar o veredicto dizendo " foi mais um em que mudaram o que lá se passou, como já denunciei há uns tempos"? É raposa para isso, mas espero que o mocho seja bem mais esperto para lhe servir as papas.

  30. Boa tarde.

    Alguma coisa deverá estar para acontecer.

    1º -

    Os factos reportam-se a 30 de Janeiro do corrente ano.
    Os tabloids como o D.M e a ITV , acompanhados pelo independent vêm com a foto de um raptor , supostamente inglês, em território espanhol..... e, o qual até fica parado para que lhe possam tirar a foto.

    No final do artigo, colocam um * ( independent.) a esclarecer que não há ligações com a M.

    2º : esta tem piada

    O comboio-fantasma - João Quadros - Jornal de Negócios

    O TGV faz lembrar o casal McCann. De tempos a tempos, um assunto que parece enterrado, volta para nos assombrar. O TGV é um comboio do qual não conseguimos fugir mas que não conseguimos apanhar.

  31. O D.M mais a Maddie, a Espanha..... novamente e uma mãe acusada de causar a morte do filho . Reabertura do caso do ...... adolescente falecido
    ( data do artigo é do dia 10 deste ano ) I did not kill my son with drugs

    Read more:
    E, como legenda , por baixo da foto de Maddie :

    Ms Reid's Madrid-based lawyer Christian Mesia claimed that the high profile case of missing Madeleine McCann led prosecutors to charge Ms Reid with homicide in connection with the death of her son Aiden

  32. Em relação à data do coment. 29 , eu traduzi mal: Janeiro do ANO PASSADo, aliás como é habitual nas McNãoNotícias.

  33. A Scottish couple accused of causing the death of their toddler ......

    I did not kill my .... with drugs: Mother and father face 14 years in jail over death of their.....

    Read more:

  34. E, assim com a publicidade feita aos tablóids, aqui e em redes sociais, dá a sensação que eles - tablóids- vêm aqui ler os posts.

    Ou, estarão a sugerir suaves avisos ao casal? Mensagens sub liminares?

    Mas, não deve passar disto, não!

  35. rectificação ao c. n.º 33

    É esta Equipa que antevê os acontecimentos pois sempre conseguiu estar vários passos à frente precisamente pela liberdade do pensamento (ainda grátis) acompanhada pela capacidade de analisar e raciocinar.


  37. The facts but why is Sky reporting this old news?


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.