Friday, 19 February 2016

The importance of King Richard

(image from here)
We don’t know if the recent news, or to be more precise the article on February 15 in the Sun “I’m convinced my Maddie is still in the Algarve, says Kate McCann as she launches Child Rescue campaign” about Kate thinking Maddie is alive in the vicinity of Praia da Luz is anything related to the decision from the Appeal court on the McCann v Amaral judicial process undergoing its terms in Lisbon.

We do find it strange that an event to promote an alert system, that the system was completely and absolutely overshadowed by a speculative remark made by Kate McCann.

It seems that to the media it’s much more important for the public to know that Kate McCann thinks that her daughter was from May to September 2007 apparently very near her than to educate us all on how that alert system works and what we should do in case a child goes missing.

A system, without any of the news article of February 15 telling us it consisted of an app for a smartphone, which according to Kate if it had existed in 2007 would have mobilised and galvanised people:

“If enough people had been mobilised and galvanised early then who knows what the outcome would have been”.

Unless we start importing people from other planets we cannot see how many more people Kate expected to be galvanised and mobilised in May 2007.

Then, there were no smartphones, people got their information updates from two main sources: television and radio. One just has to read the statements in the files and see how many people claim to have learned that Maddie had disappeared from TV.

Two people come to mind, Stephen Carpenter and Yvonne Martin. And both were immediately galvanised and mobilised. Both left their residences at once.

One walked half of Praia de Luz together with 2 of the T9 men, during which they were able to find what we believe to have been the last specimen of a non-English speaking hotel receptionist in the Algarve - by sheer coincidence in the Ocean Club reception - and ends up finding a translator for the McCanns, sorry the PJ, just when he had the intention to return to his apartment where he has left his family but which he ends up not doing and we still have to know when does he that day.

The other, a senior social worker, drove from the other side of Lagos to have a very peculiar blockage of her memory when she had to remember the face of a supposed paedophile while having same memory with the precision to remember distinctly from that day 2 children she allegedly sees for the first time.

And from May 4, both TV and radio, together with the newspapers blared out only one thing: let’s galvanise and mobilise and find MADDIE, the British girl with a coloboma.

Having then the radios and TV putting out this single message would be today’s equivalent of having every single smartphone on the planet with one and only one app, the “Find Maddie” one!

Impossible to beat, impossible to ask for more participation from the public or the authorities. The entire planet was galvanised and mobilised.

Only that explains the alleged thousands of alleged sightings! So how can Kate speak of lack of mobilisation and galvanisation?

But as we said, and for us that is what matters, we don’t know if this piece of so-called news is or isn’t related to the decision from the court which has everyone from Maddie’s world in deep and anxious suspense.

Truth is, as we have said before, the Portuguese judicial system is absolutely anachronistic to the point that to make any sort predictions about its timings is as reasonable as predicting snow during summer in the Sahara.

Back in September last year, we were told by a friend that as the Appeal court is undermanned there would be only a decision around April.

Meanwhile we have heard on the grapevine, so absolutely unconfirmed, that it may be in March. We’re still in February. And please do reread the above before holding us accountable for any of the times mentioned.

However it must be said that experience has shown us that the McCann side seems always to be one up on the rest of us when it comes to knowing Portuguese court decisions.

It wouldn’t in our opinion be absurd to say that this sudden urge from Kate to tell us that Maddie may be in Luz could be  related with something team McCann know about the court decision that we, including Mr Amaral, don’t.

If this is the case, then it would seem to be a quite a desperate move on Kate’s part and good news for us. It would seem she’s desperately seeking sympathy by showing that after all these years she still believes in a live Maddie not far from Luz.

In other words, she would be anticipating an unfavourable decision from Lisbon. Trying to convince the executioner to be merciful, so to say.

But one has to say that it doesn’t seem to be a very brilliant move on her part. To say without any new fact that anyone is aware of, that Maddie is alive near Praia da Luz is basically saying that both the PJ and the Scotland Yard of are quite incompetent. Not to insult the hundreds, not to say thousands who searched every inch of that micro-region in 2007.

On the other hand it could also be said that all this was about the McCanns justifying the expenses related to hiring a new team of private investigators as Operation Grange will most likely close at the end of April (someone in the UK is crossing fingers really hard wishing Lisbon will say something before then!).

But then why point things towards the area of Praia da Luz? Hasn’t the PJ, Dave Edgar and Scotland Yard turned every possible stone there down to a mysterious sock?

And why justify the expense? They have already done that. They have already said they have earmarked £750,000 to go on investigating in case Operation Grange closes down.

Another option would be for them to be pressing the Met to keep Operation Grange open. Again, not a smart move to call them incompetent and then “ask” for them to go back to where they have already been and were not welcomed at all.

All three above options have one thing in common: they’re absurdly ridiculous by the simple fact that Kate even raises the possibility of her being alive and near Praia da Luz.

The most successful “abductor” of all time was a neighbour? And he eluded the entire world for 9 years?

No, the ridiculousness is such a statement is far too ridiculous to be innocent. Kate McCann is, in our opinion making a fool of herself with the intention of being ridiculous.

We think none of the three options above apply. We think all is summed up in in these words from the article in the Sun from Kate: “I want an end, an answer. Whatever that it is.”

That is the message the other side wants to put across, in our opinion.

Kate McCann is asking for this nightmare to end. She’s at the end of the line. She wants the game to stop.

If there’s an axe to fall on her neck, then let it fall but stop the anxiety of not knowing when. If there’s no axe, then send the executioner away. One or the other. Clarify things.

This seems to be confirmed on the next day’s news in the Sun two days after, on February 17, “Kate McCann: 'The twins know all about her disappearance and they want Maddie back'” with the following snippets:

Starting with the title “the twins know all about her disappearance” and continuing inside with “KATE McCann and husband Gerry have told their twins "everything" about Maddie's disappearance”, “the couple have strived to keep their other children in the loop”, “Kate explained: The twins are doing really well”, “they are up to date, they know everything, they know if we are meeting police” and “there is nothing kept from them”.

Or, in other words, the twins are ready for whatever outcome. Please let closure come, says Kate in our opinion.

These could be heartfelt words if not for the ridiculousness presented.

We think those who ordered her to be this ridiculous had in our opinion two goals:

- The first is to get this message across to the target listeners in a very crystal, crystal clear manner;

- The second is to make the couple as contemptible as possible. The more loathsome the couple appear to be, the less attention will be given those outside the T9 even if named. The couple are the loathsome ones and focus should be concentrated exclusively on them and their 7 friends.

Like us, the other side is in our opinion not looking only at the court decision but beyond it.

They want a decision from King Richard I, the Lionheart.

To understand why we bring King Richard into the picture we have to take the reader back into the tale of Robin Hood and a major detail everyone misses when hearing it.

We will skip the part of questioning whether Robin Hood even existed as well as the part of also questioning whether he ever met King Richard.

We will just stick to the “facts” of the tale that is currently in vogue which is the one where Robin ends up with Marian, hailed and no longer an outlaw by the hand of King Richard.

Everyone is enthralled by the courage of Hood and his Merry Men. Of how he robbed the rich and gave to the poor wanting nothing for himself.

The tale also has a love story, that of Marian and Robin, plus the comic reliefs of Little John knocking Robin into the creek, the quirks from Friar Tuck and Marian’s maid.

And who can forget the brilliant performance of the recently sadly lost Alan Rickman in the role of the Sheriff of Nottingham? What a loss to the world that death was. Our homage to an outstanding actor.

But we would like to centre our attention on the extremely happy ending.

King Richard comes and puts in their rightful place King John, the Sheriff of Nottingham and Guy of Osborne. Blesses the love of Robin and Marian. Hails the hero and pardons all his crimes.

We all are enthralled with so much happiness and righteousness that we totally miss that the entire tale would have never been known if it wasn’t for King Richard.

(image from here)
Or if it was ever known it would be because of a thief who met a similar end as Che Guevara in Bolivia: one spectacular but fruitless death.

And Che’s death was only known because of who he had been in Cuba, and not because of his feats in Bolivia where he was killed.

None of Che’s companions who died with him in Bolivia gained any immortality. Fact is, if it wasn’t for Cuba, Che’s death would not be known to anyone outside Bolivia and we very much doubt by anyone from there.

Like Cuba validates Che, it’s King Richard who validates Robin Hood.

Without King Richard, Robin Hood would be just one completely unknown thief among so many others.

Where does this fit in the Maddie case?

In Maddie’s case, truth is Robin Hood.

We, all who strive for the truth, are his Merry Men.

The reality is that without a King Richard to validate the truth, the usurper, King John, will continue to ignore it completely and persecute those who defend it.

In Robin Hood’s tale, the kingdom was then ruled by a corrupt and evil ruler, John, who if given the chance, would have completely smothered Robin Hood, wiped him from any history book and replace him with a “hero” of his choice, much more convenient, for the sake of the public folklore.

In Maddie’s story we have in effect an evil and corrupt establishment who if given the chance, will completely smother the truth, wiping it from any history book and replace it with a version of its choice, much more convenient, for the sake of public closure.

Without our King Richard deciding in Robin’s, or to be more specific Truth’s favour we are indeed fighting a lost battle.

We look upon him waiting his decision.

Will he move to immortalise Robin Hood or is he unable to overcome John and so allow the lie to perpetuate?

We can only win the battle by making sure that our King Richard is convinced it’s best to bless Robin Hood, or in our case, the truth.

Note, we did not say we were Robin Hood.

We said we were his Merry Men. Only 3 among so many others in Maddie’s Sherwood Forest.

In this case, truth is Robin Hood. Nothing and no one else.

Merry Men care not about their own egos. Yes, the tales let us hear of names like Little John, Will and Friar Tuck. But none are heroes in individual feats against their foes, all are part of a collective heroism.

In that moment which King Richard legitimises Robin Hood, no individual Merry Man is counted individually, although each one was essential to put the hero in that position.

It’s about time people set individual egos aside. One reason we don’t lend our names to the blog is exactly we don’t want our egos interfering with our work here. Besides our egos are pretty well replenished:

It seems then our work has been validated since June 8 2013, with presently 183 posts in a blog and too many comments to count all over the internet, both published and unpublished. What better compliment could one ask for?

People must understand once and for all that fact finding time is over. It has been over since July 2008.

The establishment has all the facts, all the proof, all it needs to legitimise the truth. The truth is not legitimised for political reasons, not because further investigation is needed. The one that exists in the PJ Files is sufficient.

We here in the blog appear to be putting out new facts but we aren’t.

We are simply exposing old facts. Facts the establishment would prefer you not to see but still old facts. Facts from 2007/2008. Facts from the PJ Files.

Our detractors call us armchair detectives. We are not such thing. What we are, and very proud to be, is armchair journalists.

We do the job paid journalist can’t or won’t do in the Maddie case.

We analyse existing fact and expose it like journalists do. We don’t go out questioning people or look at vestiges. We do not seek to sit in the prosecutors chair in a court room. We inform. We read what has been written and we expose what is there to be read.

We do what journalists do, only we do it for free and from armchairs. We do love our armchairs.

What we have shown is all facts that are in the files. So if we have seen these facts, we’re certain the establishment also has been able to do the same.

Our foes are not stupid people, we keep repeating that. They should not be underestimated.

And they should not be underestimated especially when it comes to the manipulation of people.

If you want to fool someone look no further than someone who refuses to be fooled, for he is the easiest person to fool.

Place the right carrot in front of a donkey and the animal will follow the exact path you want it to follow. Convince him he’s choosing the “right” carrot and you have the advantage that he will walk your path thinking he’s the one choosing where he walks.

The choice of which carrot to follow will be his, he only fails to see that the variety of carrots put before him to choose from was not a decision of his making.

And there are times one doesn’t need to place a variety for choice. The type of carrot a particular donkey needs is so evident that is all needed is to keep feeding him with them.

When one chooses to ignore facts one knows are there, one is not being a Merry Man.

Then one not only one is not helping Robin Hood as one but is hindering him.

One is just acting like Will Scarlett – in Kevin Costner’s film version of the tale – who betrays Robin just because his ego is hurt for feeling his brother is getting better treatment than he is.

And when one is only worried about ego and not the truth, then all the opposing side has to do is to put on the end of a stick the right “ego-satisfying” carrot and very easily they have gained an unwitting but very helpful ally.

But as we have said, ultimately nothing depends on Robin Hood or the Merry Men. It all depends on King Richard for validation. It’s his call and his call only.

All we can, and must be, is like ticks on a human and become a really bothersome nuisance.

However, if he has reason to live with the irritating itch then he will live with it. That’s why we must bite, bite and bite and then bite again. Many ticks biting will drive anyone crazy and striving to stop the itch.

Like a tick when compared to a human we are also minuscule but like it we certainly can exert convincing pressure.

The reaction from the public to the latest stunt from Kate shows that this is a sensitive subject.

It may lay dormant but it will never go away.

Or as the February 17 article in the Sun says “Kate told how her family have been "completely amazed" by the fact Maddie, whose 13th birthday is in May, is still so much in the minds of the public despite being missing for so long.”

Yes, she is in the mind of the public. That is a fact. So much so that even the Sky News website is accepting comments against the couple.

And Kate does seem to be begging for closure. And by “boasting” a live Maddie near Praia the Luz she doesn’t seem to be pushing the archival option. More towards a merciful executioner one. 

To conclude, our collective very, very annoying tick bites may be what will convince our King Richard that best thing he can do is to hail Hood rather than try to smother him.

Make him understand that our “bite marks” will forever be visible on the internet for all to see that no matter how much he may say that Robin Hood, or the truth, doesn’t exist, it will persistently be here for all who have eyes to see, so best for him to assume the hero once and for all, stand next to him and raise his arm to the cheering crowd.

(image from here)
Then we will all be able to meet and celebrate at Nottingham castle where we will raise Robin, or Truth, in our arms, parade it on our shoulders and let the children throw rotten tomatoes at the likes of John, the Sheriff and Guy.


  1. Brilliant analysis. I wonder who pulls the strings of successive prime ministers. Cameron could be King Richard but all seem to be under order to suffer the tick bites. Is it Royal Family or someone related to them being protected?

    1. Anonymous 19 Feb 2016, 09:44:00,

      We believe, and have said so, that very important people, REALLY very important people were present there.

      We think that it was because the reputation of these people were at stake that the cover-up was precipitated. More out of a quick response to that immediate crisis than out of need. Time has proven that if everyone had remained quiet, the world would not remember Maddie today.

      That said, we don't know who the Unmentionable Ones were.

      Nor do we venture to guess. And we urge readers to do likewise.

      We have no reason to believe any Royal Family was present, so until we have some sort of evidence otherwise, we would prefer that the Royal Family be kept out of this sad, sad affair.

    2. and Very Important does not necessarily mean very well known..

      even if revealed the 'names' may not mean much .. maybe it is their positions within our society that are key. The Maddie McCann 'names', I feel, may very well one day be exposed.

  2. What a varied bunch of detractors you have at the moment. In a blog not far from here a variety bedfellows wax the string of their crossbows in unison, Maid Cristobell,Brother Blacksmith and the Baron de Notextusa. They forget the range of Loxleys longbow methinks! Ladies you look startling in Lincoln green.

  3. Guess who must have informed SY about the attacks on Brit girls:

    "He added there were as many

    as nine child sex attacks in the area round Praia da Luz from 2005 to 2007 and the victims included British kids.

    Some happened as close as 20 miles from Praia da Luz, and six of them were on girls between the ages of three and 10.

    He is now investigating leads on six child sex offenders, 78 other rapists and sex attackers and 22 vagrants."

    Dave Edgar in 13/09/2009

    Operation Grange only started in 2011.

  4. This post puts everything into context - thank-you. This is one of the few places that sums up the little detail into the wider picture. Its easy to get bogged down in the minutiae and lose sight of the panoramic view!

  5. Do not publish Anon at 20 Feb 2016, 09:22:00

    We can't stop CMOMM forum making unpleasant remarks about us or our readers.

    We disagree about Smith sighting and early death but that doesn't warrant such attacks and we never do that to CMOMM.

    We welcome polite disagreement. We request our errors be pointed out. We either explain our reasoning and maintain our opinion, or if we’re wrong, correct ourselves.

    In the end, if we can’t reach an agreement then we agree to disagree. All done in a civilised manner.

    Blogs choose who they believe or not in terms of witnesses in the PJ files – or some outside them for specific reasons like Philip Edmonds.

    We have even assumed as fact that a phrase was said that we have not read it anywhere. We read on Sky News this: “Martin Smith, from Drogheda in Co Louth, was on holiday in Praia Da Luz with his family when they bumped into the man just before 10pm on May 3 last year. The Smith family's suspicions were aroused because the man made no response when they asked if the barefoot child was asleep. "He just put his head down and averted his eyes, which is very unusual in a tourist town at such a quiet time of the year," said Mr Smith.”

    From the above we assumed that the Smiths asked Smithman “Is she asleep?”.

    Is that what was said exactly? We don’t know.

    We just assumed it was the most likely words to have been said to fit with the “they asked if the barefoot child was asleep” in the quote from Sky News.

    We can all be accused of choosing to believe those who accord with our theories. We try to provide support for our thinking, and so do others. We can only present our thoughts and let readers judge.

    We think the more ghastly the scenario presented by theorists – pre-planned death and paedophile connections being examples – the greater the need to demonstrate the probability.

    But that’s us, that's the way we think. We accept others will think differently from us.

    We’re beyond the age of sulking or stomping feet just because others disagree with us or called us names.

    If CMOMM find us so distasteful, then all they have to do is not make any references to us.

    We don't refer to CMOMM posters as acolytes.

    Having accompanied closely at the time what happened we can say that the statement about the reader “who was banned from CMOMM for falsely claiming as facts things that were plainly not facts” is false.

    The reader was indeed banned and we would like to see what facts were claimed by her that weren’t facts.

    1. As I am the reader in question, I would just like to clarify that I was indeed banned from the CMoMM forum, but it certainly wasn't for "falsely claiming as facts things that were plainly not facts".

      I was banned from the CMoMM forum because of my contribution to this thread:

      At the end of that thread my input was cut off, without notice, and without me given a reason for it.

      In short, I was banned from the forum.

      I believe the reason why I was banned speaks for itself :)


    2. ''...................We have even assumed as fact that a phrase was said that we have not read it anywhere. We read on Sky News this: “Martin Smith, from Drogheda in Co Louth, was on holiday in Praia Da Luz with his family when they bumped into the man just before 10pm on May 3 last year. The Smith family's suspicions were aroused because the man made no response when they asked if the barefoot child was asleep. "He just put his head down and averted his eyes, which is very unusual in a tourist town at such a quiet time of the year," said Mr Smith.”

      From the above we assumed that the Smiths asked Smithman “Is she asleep?”......................''

      Considering the Smiths stated that the man didn't look like a tourist, maybe he didn't speak English . He wouldn't have had a clue what a bunch of holidaymakers ( maybe very merry, who knows? ) were saying and probably thought it best to ignore them.

  6. Nothing romances the heart of an English reader's heart and soul more than the classic tales from 'Ye olde Englishe' folk lore. A very interesting analogy from Textusa.
    Textusa has taken a battering recently from her most severe detractors in Not Textusa and Cristobel.
    One must ask why Cristobel has made such a welcoming bed for Not Textusa to lie on in such a permanent state ? Not Textusa seems happily ensconced in there doing what Not Textusa does best, being ignorant and rude, muddying the waters, refusing to provide links, denigrating all who support Textusa, rubbishing the Swinging theory and for trying to start verbal wars! All so predictably yawn inducing.
    Good show from Textusa, as always, sticking steadfastly to beliefs and to the facts based on reading the Portuguese Judiciary Files.
    Consequently, the latest blog is a very illuminating read. Similar to Textusa, my reply begs more questions than answers.
    The clear, concise analysis of Kate's 'heartfelt' words as those in control seek to pull the strings, hopefully towards the final, bitter conclusion.
    Is anyone else, like me, concerned about this alert system that Kate is promoting? Another method for collecting a million or more names, addresses, telephone numbers etc What is the purpose?
    This alone makes me shudder when I think of Metodo 3 and the recent corruption revelations regarding them!
    Once again, the Media is happily playing its part in promoting Kate's 'anguished thoughts'
    Textusa is correct in pointing out that the workings of the said alert system is never mentioned or explained, it's almost as if it's an irrelevance.
    Maybe I could find out if I Google it, but at this current moment, I've no idea how the system works, the media never says, yet Kate wants myself and a million others to give our names to this. I wonder what they would do with this information ?
    Kate talks of no one being 'mobilised or galvanised' in the search for her daughter. Did she include herself and her husband in this? Their mobilisation and galvanisation appeared to be centred on the fighting fund, who can ever forget how 'uplifted' Gerry was when the fund was underway?
    All of what Kate has spoken of in her interviews this week has been clearly staged. Clarence has been very industrious no doubt in alerting the media and once again, those in control have supplied the script and pulled the strings. We have been told how Kate hurts. The parents' innocence in all of this has been emphasised over and over.
    In reality, as Textusa points out, the interviews were given to elicit sympathy from an increasingly less gullible public and at the same time to invoke utter revulsion for a couple who know that they will be the fall guys when this dirty, sorry saga comes to an end.
    Why have we been subject to such a Kate onslaught this week? Is it finalé time?
    It's well known that the McCanns are invariably ALWAYS first to know, first to pre empt. Their machine runs into overdrive,could that be another reason for the publicity drive this, week?
    I can't help but feel a sniff of conclusion in the air. Kate is obviously at the end of her tether. Enough is enough. Is her conscience finally weighing her down?
    Textusa does well to focus on Kate's words as a desperate cry for peace of mind, whatever the outcome. Everything else is rooted in corruption and lies.
    Who is or who are the 'unmentionables?' Will we ever find out? The public cry out for justice, indeed demand it. The advent of social media has ensured that this case will never die, it cannot be pushed under the carpet, it cannot be archived, it cannot be hidden, so imbued as it is in British psyche. It will forever be the tick bite to end all tick bites.
    This is a political case and sadly, as such will never find closure until the Establishment says so and a satisfactory outcome is found for the Establishment.


  7. cont

    The odious couple will be thrown to the wolves. That in itself may be comforting, but the patience of the people is running out. If the Establishment has all the facts, all the proof it needs to come clean, then delay is simply cruel.
    Thank you to Textusa for explaining ever more clearly the machinations behind the pantomime.
    By the way, Robin Hood is a left winger's dream! Rob from the filthy rich to give to the poor.
    Where is such a character today?

    1. Anonymous 20 Feb 2016, 10:49:00/10:50:00

      Thank you for such a wonderful comment! We just ask you to keep politics out next time, please.

      Truth is apolitical, and we strive for the blog to be the same.

      But this little reprimand, which we felt we had to give, does not take away the satisfaction we got from reading you.

  8. Point accepted and noted for the future !☺


    "Kate McCann: 'I physically can't rest without knowing where Maddie is'"
    3rd article in the Sun such a short amount of time cannot be coincidence.

    1. Anonymous 20 Feb 2016, 19:03:00,

      From the title: "can't rest without knowing where Maddie is" and inside "she can never feel 'at peace' without knowing what happened to her daughter" and "You just can’t rest without knowing" are very clarifying words indeed.

      First article, I want closure.

      Second article, twins are ready.

      Third article, want to know what happened to Maddie, or, what happened to Maddie is to be known.

      Overarching all, Maddie is in Luz (implied) or near Luz (said explicitly). Meaning in our opinion, what is to be known about Maddie is in Luz or near Luz.

      With this third article, which we shall call "knowledge of what happened to Maddie", connected with her pointing all her fingers to Luz, in our opinion, she is informing Luz and near Luz that total transparency is the way ahead.

    2. K is distancing herself from G? She has a different response to G.
      Why no comment from him?

    3. I do not wish to sound cruel or heartless,but would it not have helped to have co-operated with the Portugal PJ and answered the questions put to the parents and Tapas special friends,without having special assistance from Justine McGuiness,Clarence Mitchell to coherse them?

  10. The tide has really turned!

      Please check the #mccann hash tag on Twitter for the reaction to the article!!

    2. Hopkins 621K followers on twitter!

    3. Textusa, what is your take on this? Anxious to know!

    4. Anonymous 21 Feb 2016, 22:43:00,

      The Editor had to give that article the OK - it's not about Hopkin's views only.

      Could it be that the Editor has looked out the window of his office, looked into King Richard's eyes and saw approval to approve?

      As I said on FB tonight, "Not surprised but pleased, very pleased".

    5. Bringing the text of the article over to the blog as we think it's important:

      KATIE HOPKINS: We'll never know what really happened to Maddie but her parents should accept their share of the blame and let her go

      By Katie Hopkins for MailOnline

      Published: 16:56 GMT, 21 February 2016 | Updated: 00:57 GMT, 22 February 2016

      I have never been allowed to say this before.

      I’ve been given all sorts of reasons — people who are normally brutally honest with me fobbing me off, arguing I am not bringing anything new to the debate

      It’s been a white-out, like the silence of snow.

      But seeing the faces of Gerry and Kate McCann yet again this week, promoting the Child Rescue Alert Campaign to track down missing kids, I think it's finally time to speak out.

      Kate McCann says she lives in a never-ending limbo.

      But I believe the truth is that Madeleine McCann is never coming home.

      She is long gone. It is time to stop looking and stop imagining there is some happy ending to this sorry tale. Enough.

      There is no amount of money the will right the wrongs of the past, no libel action that will cancel out the damage the McCanns inflicted on themselves.

      Kate and Gerry McCann didn't deserve £11million of our cash to look for Maddie or try to resolve their consciences or salvage reputations. Others have greater need.

      If you really must blame someone, then Kate and Gerry are right there in front of you. And yet, protected by some invisible force-shield I don’t understand.

      Show me a family from a council estate who left their child alone to go out eating and drinking who have been lauded with such support and the protection of the state.

      Last year, a father of a two year old was arrested and prosecuted after leaving his daughter in a car for two minutes whilst he ran in to a chemist to buy Calpol.

      Even our British broadcaster was in on the act. A Crimewatch Special in 2013 featuring new photo-fits of Maddie’s abductor failed to acknowledge that the McCanns had been sitting on these pictures for nearly five years.

      Pictures compiled by their own investigation team whose report they later hid from view when it pointed the finger of blame in a direction Gerry didn't enjoy.

      They left their child in an unlocked ground-floor apartment next to two busy roads. Too self-assured to hire a babysitter and too self-centred to care.

      The McCanns put their own children in harm’s way. Those kids were in danger. Because of their parents. And as a mum I can’t look at Gerry McCann — a man his wife says can ‘switch off’ from grief — without the hairs on my arms standing on end.

      Kate was no better. There were 48 police questions Kate McCann refused to answer after Maddie was gone. Surely if you wanted to find your child you would give anything, tell police everything you knew, offer anything you had?

      We are not the police. We cannot pretend to know what really went on.

      What happened that night will remain a mystery and someone will take the truth to their grave

      But we can understand as parents how we would feel if it happened to us.

      Any mother who has lost her child even for a heartbeat understands how horrifying it is.

      The prickle under the armpit, the sudden silence in a noisy shopping centre, the blind panic. Running through treacle while time stands still.

      Waiting for a little face to show itself, telling her off when she reappears because you love her so much you can’t bear for her to be lost even for a second. And in that second you imagined the very worst.

      When your first baby is born you join a special group of people – a group whose lives have been transformed.

      That first morning in hospital you understand the enormity of your new responsibility to keep another little part of you alive. You have accepted The Fear.


    6. (cont)

      Suddenly the life you knew before is transformed, filled with all the bad things that could happen to your baby. Jabs which go wrong. Death in a cot for no reason. Spots on the chest which don’t go away under glass.

      You live every second with The Fear that your baby will be taken from you, or die before you and upset the natural order of life turning everything you trusted into a lie.

      I still live in dread of my children’s lives being shortened, that someone might take them from me, strip away the thing I would happily hand over my own life to sustain.

      I tell them to shout fire if someone grabs them. And I will never need them to get in a strangers car, no matter what they say.

      Others give their children phones, hoping these will keep them safe, imagining them to be protection from predators roaming our streets looking for baby prey.

      Mine sleep with the soft toy bunnies they have had since the day they were born. Not so cuddly now, mostly rags at best.

      But rags which I will keep if I live to watch my children grow old. They are keepsakes of another time, when my kids were chubby and twitchy in their cots, when they needed me more fundamentally.

      For warmth and food, cuddles for tears and encouragement to be brave.

      And when they leave me for families of their own, for every day I wished I didn’t have to do the school run, there will be a thousand more when I am grateful that I did, knowing I kept them safe.

      But now the faces I associate with neglect are being used to promote the Child Rescue Alert campaign.

      And I am sorry, but I am not buying it.

      Because nothing in this story reads well to the mum in me. Or the dad if that's you.

      Leaving your babies alone, too far away to see. Knowing your daughter is gone and still able to play tennis. Taking her little bed-time toy, Cuddle Cat, with the last smell of their daughter, and putting it in the wash just five days after she vanished into the night.

      I speak to people who have lost parents and cannot bear to wipe messages from their answer machine because it’s something to hold on to. They keep them just to feel close.

      Some even call their mothers’ phone, just to hear it ring and imagine she might there to say ‘sleep tight’ one last time.

      I would put Cuddle Cat under my pillow every night to be close to the baby I lost. Not wash its memories away.

      The night before she became a memory, Maddie asked her mother, ‘Why did you not come when Sean and I cried last night?

      I’d ask her the same question now. How did you leave the daughter you longed to have?

      Maddie wasn’t lost because someone took her. She was lost because she was left to be found.

    7. By the way, at the moment:

      1.9K comments, 25K shares

  11. The anti mc comments have reached over 11K! This is a first as usually comments are closed as soon as they become negative. The mc team are struggling to come anywhere near the number of comments in their favour, they are really swimming against the tide of public opinion. It's a pity that Katie is pushing the negligence though. Is that what she really believes or just what she's allowed to say for now?

    1. Anonymous 22 Feb 2016, 11:30:00,

      What matters for now is that the bow of the ship has changed direction because the tide has indeed changed.

      Towards where the ship will go from here is something we will see. Let's just make sure that this turn around is done as smoothly as possible.

      The majority of public believes in negligence. That is a fact. To go against that would be to feed too much information for now and the effect produced, which was indeed good, would have not been the same.

    2. It looks as though the fragrant Rebekah Brooks will have to send some more LOL messages to dodgy Dave to inspire cooperation(persaude)Theresa May to extend Operation Grange funding past April 2016, with no result of Mr Goncalo Amaral's trail?
      As it would not look too good if there were different results from different Police Forces on the same case would it?

    3. I particularly enjoyed this byte:

      "There is no amount of money that will right the wrongs of the past, no libel action that will cancel out the damage the McCanns inflicted on themselves.

      Kate and Gerry McCann didn't deserve £11 million of our cash to look for Maddie or try to resolve their consciences or salvage reputations. Others have greater need.

      If you really must blame someone, then Kate and Gerry are right there in front of you. And yet, protected by some invisible force-shield I don’t understand."
      (Katie Hopkins)


  12. "Crianças podem ficar sozinhas em casa a partir de que idade?

    Primeiro, o óbvio: uma criança com cinco anos não pode ser deixada sozinha em casa!

    Depois, a pergunta com que muitos pais se vão confrontando à medida que os seus filhos crescem: a partir de quando é que começa a ser seguro para um menor permanecer em casa sem a presença de adultos?

    A pediatra Maria do Céu Machado não tem dúvidas: antes dos 12 anos, não se deve deixar uma criança sozinha em casa. “Mesmo aos 12 anos, tem de ser um miúdo com maturidade”, enfatiza a ex-Alta Comissária da Saúde que lembra que até há países, como a Holanda, onde este tipo de situação “é razão para retirar as crianças aos pais”.

    Oxalá que os juízes do tribunal de apelação leiam isto!


    Katie Hopkins sparks Twitter frenzy with attack on Madeleine McCann's parents

    Tom Marshall

    A controversial article by Katie Hopkins in which she criticises the parents of Madeleine McCann has sparked a frenzied reaction online.

    The outspoken columnist said it was “time to speak out” after Kate and Gerry McCann fronted a campaign to raise awareness of the Child Rescue Alerts scheme, which sends out text messages and emails if a child goes missing.

    Ms Hopkins, a mother of three, wrote in her Daily Mail column that the couple were “too self-assured to hire a babysitter and too self-centred to care” before the three-year-old disappeared in Portugal in 2007.

    She also said Kate and Gerry McCann "didn't deserve £11million of our cash to look for Maddie."

    “If you really must blame someone, then Kate and Gerry are right there in front of you,” she wrote.

    “Show me a family from a council estate who left their child alone to go out eating and drinking who have been lauded with such support and the protection of the state.”

    She added: “The McCanns put their own children in harm’s way. Those kids were in danger. Because of their parents ...

    "Now the faces I associate with neglect are being used to promote the Child Rescue Alert campaign ...

    "Maddie wasn’t lost because someone took her. She was lost because she was left to be found."

    The article has provoked a massive reaction online and sharply divided opinion among readers. Many backed Ms Hopkins on social media while others criticised her for “victim blaming” the McCanns and “rubbing salt” into their wounds.

    One Twitter user said: "Agree with absolutely everything @KTHopkins has said about Maddie's disappearance, she's only saying what the rest of you think anyway."

    Anna (@HalfBloodAnna) tweeted: “Katie Hopkins victim blaming the McCanns suggests people have no self control, the blame lies with whoever wrongly took what wasn't theirs.”

    Another user said: “There’s lots about this story that many people have felt uncomfortable with – but no one has dared say it before, well done.”

    “Yes they made a terrible mistake,” wrote another commenter.

    “Thousands do the same thing every day and get away with it. Cruel for Hopkins to rub salt in it surely. How did she become our moral guide?”

    MissBee (‏@MissBee73 ) tweeted: “Someone posted an article by Katie Hopkins about the McCanns which led me to an internet frenzy on stuff about them. I feel disturbed now."


    1. Opening gambit: “I have never been allowed to say this before”, starts the piece by Katie Hopkins, controversial British television personality and newspaper columnist, who has previously spoken out about obesity in much the same style as her latest piece – without filter and completely open to hatred, or perhaps even more shockingly, agreement.

  15. "not for publication" at 24 Feb 2016, 18:24:00

    We have noticed that before. It's one of those posts that keeps being delayed.

    We don't think there's any document given by the Ocean Club that it is not tampered with or simply just invented, including the ones you point out.

    But that is not surprising. After all if a tale is not real, the documents that support it cannot be real either.

  16. Unpublished Anon at 25 Feb 2016, 19:00:00,

    Thank you for your comment. We are not publishing it because it's our policy to avoid any inter-blog conflict as much is possible.

    Yes, we noticed and noted the deletion of comments. We have been given a copy of what we're supposing are all of them from latest posts. If not all, most of them anyway.

  17. I am interested in the Katie Hopkins article for two reasons:
    1) Choice of Katie Hopkins as the mouthpiece for anti-McCann: In UK Katie Hopkins is a divisive figure. She is loved by many for 'saying it as it is' (usually fairly knee-jerk bigoted reactions). Her newspaper column is notorious and she is loathed by many for her (often outrageous) views. Therefore, I don't think it's an accident that Hopkins has been chosen to air anti-McCann views. It may be to sell papers, to get people talking on twitter or to voice the opinions of the public/ newspaper editors that others are too afraid to voice. It seems to me Hopkins has been chosen to be the fall guy to voice a controversial opinion. Conversely, it may even be that Katie as the voice of antis is thought to garner support for the McCanns, as most people love to react against Katie's views and will therefore find this anti view outrageous well. As I say,interesting choice. It's not coincidental, in my opinion.
    2) The article does not sound like Katie. Katie usually takes pride in being a selfish mother (she went back to work immediately after the birth of her babies). She revels in despising working-class parents (whereas in this article she appears to empathise with their plight) and their children (see the This Morning interview about children's names). She never cares about spending money on the needy (not even desperate refugees - see her article on refugees coming from Calais.) It does not sound like her style of writing or content. (I'm a writer, I spend my whole time analysing writing style). I wonder if it is ghost written for the reasons suggested in 1. Perhaps written by an editor or another (mother) journalist who feels strongly anti-mcCann but wouldn't have received the tidal wave of attention Katie does.

    Anyway, thought I'd give you my two pennyworth.


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.