Friday, 27 October 2017

New name and (NOT) an anniversary

1. Introduction

Last week we were going to speak about something but then decided not to.

After all, only 3 days would have passed regarding what we wanted to highlight and we thought it best to let another week pass to see if it was really happening or not.

And, a week later we have confirmed that it had indeed happened.

We are obviously speaking of the almost total and absolute silence surrounding the 1st anniversary of Ben Needham’s official death, announced on October 17 2016 by the South Yorkshire Police then with a very significant echoing both on the MSM as in the social media.

If not for a single low-key article in the Sun by Holly Christodoulou and Natasha Rigler, published 16th October 16 2017, 10:35 (updated that day 12:15) “'THIS IS NOT HOW IT ENDS' Ben Needham’s mum reveals terrible anguish over whereabouts of her missing son as she speaks of her desperation to bring him home”, the silence in the MSM would have been absolute.

In terms of the social media, the Help Find Ben Needham published the following:

On Oct 14:

On Oct 16:

In one of the Oct 16 posts, the replica of the sandals and the toy car is shown:

Help Find Ben Needham

16 October at 10:16

There are lots of memories that October holds...

Items relating to to Ben being found and identified as belonging to Ben, hanging on to every word from the live news reports from Kos hoping for the news we were all longing to hear, the amazing Hellenic Rescue team's hard work, the search for Ben coming to an end, and news we really didnt want to hear that little Ben was dead.

But Bens body still needs to be found and returned to his family...

Although this case is no longer active it is NOT closed.

Please contact
with any information.
#BringBenHome ­čĺÖ #HelpFindBen”

And as can be seen, what is also shown is the Dino Barkas digger, very clearly implying that the family believe he is the one who killed Ben.

Not a single query to the South Yorkshire Police to clarify what they think has happened. Not one request to the public to help the police solve the mystery of Ben’s death in any way.

All the family wants to know, and has wanted to know since a year ago, is where the body may be. Not who killed him, nor where, nor when.

What can be considered as a total void on the subject in the MSM, we think much worse happened in the social media.

No blog or forum mentioned it that we are aware of and with the exception of the above, on Facebook we saw only an entry by our friend Lorraine Holden on her page on October 24 at 18:00, sharing our perplexity:

“And still that poor man's name hasn't been cleared. I was recently having coffee with my mum and her friends they said that truck driver killed Ben Needham typical media fed people who believe and look nowhere else for information”.

A year ago, the same social media was filled with damning messages to the McCanns, showing them how a really distraught mother reacted to the knowledge of her son being dead. And the reaction of the grandmother who seemed to take the news much more emotionally than her daughter, as the images showed Kerry supporting her and not the other way around.

A year ago, a nation cried profusely together with a mother and a grandmother holding white flowers. After all, one of its most famous sons, a little boy allegedly abducted in the island of Kos in Greece, had just been officially declared dead.

A year ago, when we wrote our post “The road of no return and apologies” and suggested that we thought there was foul play in whatever game the South Yorkshire Police was playing, we were mercilessly then clobbered by some who just wouldn’t hear it or have it because, it seemed, that we had shown an unacceptable disrespect for a family that in their opinion deserved to have their plight revered saintly under the penalty of excommunication just because they were, according to them, the exact opposite of the McCanns.

Only a year has passed and Ben Needham is totally and completely off the radar. Why?

The appeal to help find his remains does not seem to have the same impact as the appeal to help find a living child and interest in the case appears to be waning very significantly.

2. The non-anniversary

It seems that for Britain after a year it was more than enough to accept what it was told by the South Yorkshire Police then (our caps):

“However, based on the information that I have now, as a result of an extensive and thorough investigation, it is without doubt that the current line of enquiry is the most probable cause for Ben’s disappearance.

My team and I know that machinery, including a large digger, was used to clear an area of land on 24 July 1991, behind the farmhouse that was being renovated by the Needham’s. It is my professional belief that Ben Needham DIED AS A RESULT OF AN ACCIDENT NEAR TO THE FARMHOUSE in Iraklis where he was last seen playing.

The events leading up to and following that incident have been explored by my team of experts to great lengths. The fact that we HAVE NOT HAD A DIRECT RESULT during this visit to Kos does not preclude the facts that we know to be true.

An item found on Saturday, which I have shown personally to some of Ben’s family, was found in one of the targeted areas at the second site, very close to a dated item from 1991.

It is our initial understanding that this item was in Ben’s possession around the time he went missing.

The recovery of this item, and its location, further adds to my belief that material was removed from the farmhouse on or shortly after the day that Ben disappeared.”

The official version was just a vague one about whatever may have happened and even more vague about who could have caused the alleged accident that allegedly killed Ben.

The press put out a name, we all know that, but we are still waiting for the South Yorkshire Police to come out and confirm it was him or if they don’t think it was him, then tell us who they think it was.

But, apparently, the official version completely filled UK’s appetite about it wanted to know about the issue.

Either that, or one has to conclude that Britain is either scared to speak about it or it simply doesn’t care about Ben any more.

Britain, about this little boy, has become a British manor from Imperial times.

When one of the family of the manor did something wrong, those in the servant quarters or who worked in the fields didn’t need to know any of the details about it.

The secret was secured within the Lord of the manor, the Lady of the house and the family.

The masters saw no need for the servants to know and the servants thought that it was none of their business and it would be something only their superiors should know and handle.

Those 2 worlds were never meant to overlap. One would hold the knowledge and the other be resigned to ignorance. Or have it imposed on them.

Britain is a typical British manor from the Imperial times just like in the cinema, only in 2017.

Everyone in the entire manor knows something has happened but no one speaks about it.

Note that in that same October 17 official note, it says the following (again our caps):

“AN ITEM found on Saturday, which I have shown personally to some of Ben’s family, was found in one of the targeted areas at the second site, very close to a dated item from 1991.

It is our initial understanding that THIS ITEM was in Ben’s possession around the time he went missing.

The recovery of THIS ITEM, and its location, further adds to my belief that material was removed from the farmhouse on or shortly after the day that Ben disappeared.”

Clearly ONE item only referred to and we know that DI Cousins was speaking about the toy car allegedly found in the second search site about half a mile from the farmhouse.

But in July we got to know that there was a sandal (we don’t know if the entire sandal or just a part of it) that the authorities deemed crucial to the discovery as to what really happened to Ben Needham.

Most important, this confirms that for the authorities the official version is not their final one as they are, it seems, still trying to find out what really happened. We will wait patiently for the results.

But, if on October 17 2016 the South Yorkshire Police had 2 objects of interest (toy car and sandal), why refer OFFICIALLY to only one of them?

If the sandal vestige was found in the 2012 digging, then why did it take it so long for it to be considered officially an item of interest?

A sandal, a bloody one at that, miraculously appears out of nowhere in July 2017, 9 months after the announcement of Ben’s death and everyone just keeps quiet and is complicit.

A year has passed and the fact is that all is quiet on the UK front of the Ben war. Eerily quiet, compromisingly so.

3. Boris Johnson

In the comments of our last post “Invoking ridiculousness”, Anonymous 23 Oct 2017, 14:42:00 brought to our attention, and who we thank for having done so, an article titled “Madeleine McCann saga reflects our society” written by a certain Boris Johnson, then an MP, published on Sept 13 2007, a few days after the McCanns had been named arguidos and literally pulled out of Portugal.

We published the article in its entirety in the comments of that post.

The entire article is completely ‘Biltonesque’.

In the sense that it follows the logic used by Richard Bilton for his BBC documentary to mark Maddie’s disappearance’s 10th anniversary: whatever one may think of the McCanns, and it may be bad, supposedly once one looks seriously and analytically at what is there to condemn them, there’s really only one conclusion that one can arrive to and that is that if one thinks the McCanns are guilty of anything more than neglect than one should feel absolutely guilty.

Both products making a significant effort to appear balanced but being anything but.

Both products start with the premise that it’s ok to think that the McCanns are bad. Not only natural but even expected.

Boris Johnson says his sympathies have been manipulated and “first I had a pretty clear idea of what happened to poor little Maddie McCann” and “in a creepy way, it is almost as if we desire to establish the guilt of the parents” but then also adds “all these horrible rumours started to emanate from the Portuguese police”.

In other words, making us believe that he, Boris Johnson, sincerely thought the McCanns were involved but then…

Bilton says he was offered 30 silver coins from people near to the McCanns, which means he made us believe that he started his supposed investigative journalism thinking the McCanns were involved but on looking in detail at the evidence, concludes “the theory was falling apart. Goncalo Amaral was removed from the case”.

In other words, making us believe that he, Richard Bilton, sincerely thought the McCanns were involved but then…

Boris Johnson in 2007 said: “I don't know what happened, but I find it very hard to see how they could have concealed a body for nearly a month before putting it in the boot and then taking it off for burial in some roadworks, and then - if these leaks from the Portuguese police really represent the latest theory - exhuming the body and taking it somewhere else, while they have had camera lenses the size of howitzers trained on them the whole time.”

And Richard Bilton at 00:22:16 of the documentary: “Is it plausible that Kate and Gerry McCann? in the full glare of the world's media? Hid their daughter's body, pretended to be looking for her and then, a month later, moved the body? There were cameras with the McCanns on the very day the police suspected they moved their daughter's body.”

See the differences? We don’t.

Both using the ridiculous excuse of a married man justifying not having an affair by using photographs of him taken by his lover, “…look honey, how can I could have been cheating on you when Suzy was there with me the entire time as these photos show? Don’t be ridiculous…”

Note how Johnson, like Bilton, does his best to undermine the credibility of the PJ with his “if these leaks from the Portuguese police really represent the latest theory”.

In fact, he practically starts his article with this undermining, in the third paragraph (which is basically the first as the 2 before it are just one-liners):

“Then all these horrible rumours started to emanate from the Portuguese police, and my emotions lurched off in the opposite direction; and then there would be a pretty compelling counter-rumour, and a learned essay from some expert in forensic science explaining that DNA tests were not all they were cracked up to be, until I have reached the position at 5.30 on Wednesday afternoon - the latest I dare to sit down to write this piece - when I frankly haven't got a clue what to think.

I look in vain for guidance to the tabloid press, with its legions of reporters in Praia da Luz and long expertise in knowing which way to fan the hysteria of their readers. Which is it?”

Note how for Boris Johnson rumours emanate from the Portuguese police while the British tabloid press is looked upon by him to provide reliable guidance.

Much to Mr Johnson’s unhappiness, such guidance wasn’t there in the tabloids. He does complain that he didn’t find it but the fact is that he looked there for it.

And for him apparently what the native police would be saying was just a very unreliable source of information.

One must ask who was spreading those supposedly unreliable rumours that Mr Johnson attributes to the Portuguese police? It was the credible, or so considered by him, British tabloids.

To Mr Johnson, an MP, a British politician, the British tabloids were clearly much more credible than the Portuguese police.

One must then assume that for Mr Johnson it is quite clear from where the manipulation came from when he says “I can’t stand it any more. I can’t stand the dizzying manipulation of my sympathies”, and it wasn’t from the tabloids.

Another fascinating thing about the above from MP Johnson is him stating “and a learned essay from some expert in forensic science explaining that DNA tests were not all they were cracked up to be”.

We would really like to know which “learned essay from some expert in forensic science” was Mr Johnson referring to otherwise one is allowed to think that his research has as much credibility as Gerry McCann’s on the cadaver dogs.

Gerry McCann said the dogs are unreliable and Mr Johnson says that “DNA tests were not all they were cracked up to be”. A serious statement to make by an MP, taking into account that they have been used on many sentences passed on by the British courts. Is Modern law ignorant?

And how did Mr Johnson know what DNA tests were being conducted in the Maddie case to trust that particular essay about forensic science would apply to the Maddie case?

He does seem familiar with the details of the case otherwise why make such a statement?

The forensic evidence at that point in time was being dealt only by the PJ and a British lab.

How on earth would an MP have access to such information?

If he had access to such sensitive police information, why did he? He was just an MP.

Was the information being sent by the PJ – which one must not forget were leading the investigation – being handed out in the British parliament for all to read?

By the way, it is quite odd for Mr Johnson to say that he tried “to work out if they could have done it, given what we know about the alleged timetable”.

What alleged timetable was known in September 2007?

Then, all the public knew was that the couple supposedly dined with their friends in the Tapas bar every night, allegedly left their children in the apartments and did what they claimed to be routine checks on them. And that on one of these nights, in between these checks, someone entered apartment 5A and took Maddie.

What is not feasible about such a straightforward timetable that left Mr Johnson wondering if they could have done it?

Yes, since August the forensic dogs had appeared on the scene and blood mentioned but the known “alleged timetable” had not been in anyway altered nor any of its details revealed. So what is Mr Johnson talking about?

Boris Johnson sums it all up in his article with:

“Are the McCann parents a brace of cold-hearted child killers who have managed to concoct a gigantic fraud involving the police forces of western Europe, the Papacy and hundreds of yellow ribbon-wearing British MPs?

Or are they loving and normal parents who have fallen victim to a terrible crime, and who now see their agony compounded by a half-baked stitch-up operation conducted by Portugal's equivalent of Inspector Clouseau?”

Reading the article, it seems to us that between the 2 hypotheses, to Boris Johnson it’s quite clear that the McCanns are “loving and normal parents who have fallen victim to a terrible crime”.

4. A new name to add

We have said here that we consider that the Maddie case has become a game between the government, and the other side, which we have called ‘the other side’ and have only detailed previously as the “Daily Mail people” or as the “Brexit elite”.

And as whenever we use the “Brexit elite” as the other side, we are careful to reinforce the fact that it’s independent from the ongoing political process per se, as we firmly believe that many who voted to Leave are fierce defenders of the truth about what happened to Maddie.

For us, this Brexit elite are those in or with direct influence in the various corridors of power. Those we believe are concerned that the interests of those they know were in Luz swinging in that fateful period are not jeopardised.

As we said in the comments of our last post when we replied to our reader David, it’s up to each one to decide for themselves on whether Boris Johnson is connected or not, directly or not, to that Brexit elite:

Textusa 23 Oct 2017, 21:49:00


Agree that it was the language used by the UK media but certainly it was not one, for obvious diplomatic reasons, used then by the politicians and Boris Johnson was then an MP.

The fact that he so clearly took then a side allows one to make the assumption that he had a side to take and wanted to be seen taking it.

In terms of time, it's interesting because it's between the time when the McCanns were named arguidos and flown out of Portugal but were still being "hunted" by the British tabloids.

The period we call we-don't-know-what-to-do-but-as-soon-as-we-know-we-will-do-something, which ended with the decision to create a wall of fear around the McCanns, materialised by the nomination of the clown, Clarence Mitchell.

About the importance of the paragraph it depends on each reader's opinion about Boris Johnson.

If one thinks he's in any way connected with what we have here been calling the 'Brexit-elite', then his words are important, especially taking into account he seems to be spearheaded to replace Theresa May in case she decides, for whatever reason, to abandon N┬║10.

If you think that he's not, then the words are irrelevant.

We have our opinion about that which we prefer to keep to ourselves.

We just thought we HAD to highlight them, so readers could make up their mind about them.

We also think readers should decide for themselves that taking into account that Boris Johnson does currently belong to the government, on whether he plays for it – in terms of wanting the outing of the truth – or if he plays for the other side – in terms of wanting the hoax to perpetuate.

This is quite important in terms of evaluating what the fate of the Maddie case will be, in case Boris Johnson replaces Theresa May as Prime-Minister.

If we can judge from his 2007 words, it seems quite clear:

“Whatever happens, there will now be people dissatisfied with the outcome. If no charges are brought, or if the McCanns are eventually exculpated, there will always be people who will tap the side of their nose, just as there will always be people willing to defend the couple's innocence to their last breath.”

But, not wanting to influence anyone’s mind, what seems to be clear to one person may not be so for another, so will ask the readers to interpret for themselves what the words above mean.

We have said that the game is summed up in the name of one person: Theresa May.

We suggest that another should be added and that would be Boris Johnson.

And if he, just as an MP, deeply researched the subject, as he says “I found myself reading acres of print, and looking at big diagrams of the Mark Warner holiday complex, and trying to work out if they could have done it, given what we know about the alleged timetable”, then one can only imagine how detailed his knowledge of the case must be now that he’s currently the foreign secretary.

And before we are accused of accusing Boris Johnson to be leading the ‘other side’ we are NOT saying such a thing.

What we are saying is that if, and we stress that if very much, Boris Johnson moves into N┬║10 he will become a very relevant player in the Maddie game.

But then we are not saying anything new. All Prime-Ministers since Maddie disappeared have been very relevant players in the case, with maybe the exception of Tony Blair but that was because when it happened he was already on his way out and it had already been determined he would be replaced by Gordon Brown in July.

So even though Tony Blair was then Prime-Minister, he would say he was only one simply ‘on paper’ and think that this political issue was immediately handled by Gordon Brown.

5. Conclusion

When one googles “10 biggest UK exports” one gets this result:

1. Machinery including computers: US$60.3 billion (14.7% of total exports)

2 Vehicles : $51.7 billion (12.6%)

3. Pharmaceuticals: $32.6 billion (8%)

4. Gems, precious metals: $27.5 billion (6.7%)

5. Electrical machinery, equipment: $27.1 billion (6.6%)

6. Mineral fuels including oil: $26.2 billion (6.4%)

7. Aircraft, spacecraft: $20.7 billion (5.1%)

8. Optical, technical, medical apparatus: $17.2 billion (4.2%)

9. Plastics, plastic articles: $11.2 billion (2.7%)

10. Organic chemicals: $10.8 billion (2.6%)

We would concur as the list seems to take into account only the financial aspects of each in comparison to others below the list.

We would think that due to the relevance and international projection of the issues, somewhere on that list should be “British children allegedly abducted in Southern Europe”.

And if one were to add up all the media coverage, both on paper and on TV that both Maddie McCann and Ben Needham have sold since 2007 we believe that it wouldn’t be very far from making the top 10 list above.

Post Scriptum:

We hope to start posts soon about the visit of one of the members of the team, in the case myself, to Luz this year.


  1. Re the Needham case,its only when pointed out, just how the silence is deafening,thank you.
    Re the McCann case,I'd add another name,Rudd she's the HC,her department granted the funding even allocating extra against the previous two or three request's.

  2. I have to confess I found that development and the lack of further clarification bewildering. Total silence. Couldn't the two items found be considered evidence of abduction, rather than death? Two pieces of evidence more than in Madeleine McCann's case, to be sure.

  3. Do you really think Boris would go against the popular opinion on the Mcs? He's a populist, he'll do whatever he needs to get votes. Many have underestimated him in the past...

    1. My post at 9:37 should be Rudd HS (home secretary) not HC.

      Boris likes to ride with the hounds and run with the fox,depends on which way the wind blows at the time.

    2. Does the article say that BJ would not go against the McCanns? It says that he might not go for the truth, which is very very different.

    3. Anonymous 27 Oct 2017, 17:02:00,

      Going against the McCanns and not going for the truth is what the establishment has tried to do since 2011 and has seen it is impossible to do.

      We think, and have said so, that it was first tried in the summer of 2007, as soon as Maddie's body was disposed of. Reason why the establishment then allowed the dogs to go to Portugal and even allow the McCanns be named arguidos.

      Only then was it realised that it was an impossible task and so the McCanns were pulled out of Portugal.

      Time passed, governments changed, information (specifically about the reasons why the McCanns couldn't fall alone) got lost and the establishment tried again to go after the McCanns and only the McCanns.

      And have failed since.

      We suggest you read our post "Maddie's Pandora's Box".

    4. Hi Textusa,another great post and the"silence"from MSM Ben Needham,anniversary by South Yorkshire Police,no further mention of Dino's guilt or guilt by association to the area?
      In regard to"Buffoon"as he likes to portray himself?
      He, Boris Johnson is the current "Foreign Secretary"seen for what he is,shamoosing it with one Donald Trump esq,Brexit clan,whilst nearly One million people are being ethnically removed from their home land,the woman being systematically Raped by Soldiers,males/Females/Children being Murdered?
      What has the Foreign secretary done along with the United Nations of Europe sweet F/A,they dare not enforce"Genocide Acts"for fear of what,becoming involved with trying to stop Further Genocides of innocent people,but only if you wear a suit and tie from the old boy's network?
      Sorry for the rant off subject,but these parasites who have been in Positions of so called "Power" have shown once again they have let"Innocent People"to have been Ethnically cleansed from their Homes,they should all resign from their positions,but they won't,there just "greedy sloaths" being fed from a Trough of ill advised people or do they know the truth but turn the proverbial blind eye,eh Boris,clear out those dead bodies,Libya could be the next Dubai"You wouldn't think this was a UK Foreign Secretary"speaks would you,such contempt of life from an Eton Toad,adulterer,it must be in the gene code with cousin Dave Cameron, UN Resolution 273,eh Dave,Arab Spring up rising?
      To think these people are in charge of UK affairs?

    5. Anonymous 27 Oct 2017, 13:26:00,

      Every single politician shares 3 priorities, be they the most idealistic (not to say serious) to the most populist, to the most corrupt: platform, funding and votes.

      In that exact order of importance.

      The first, is the easiest but it’s a variable that immediately seems to become a constant but is something that every politician is very much aware of and is his first priority.

      Let us try to explain:

      A platform is what we tell anyone who criticises politicians to go and do and find one. Or, to be precise, tell them to put their money where their mouth is and become a politician themselves.

      And the first obstacle they encounter, is finding a platform. The place from which their voice can be heard. Or to be more precise, decide which party they wish to join that most identifies with one’s ideals, which one will use to influence and shape politics as the politician one desires to become.

      As the governing system is designed in the modern democratic countries, without a platform, or a party, it’s useless for one to scream, holler, stomp or do whatever else to change anything in society. Without a party, one at best, can become a relevant opinionmaker but the distance from being that to law making is the same as it is for any other citizen.

      Plus, the most relevant opinionmakers are usually linked to a party, even if not members, so will take into account whatever ‘their’ platform defends before defending their own ideas under the penalty of if going against the expected grain lose their role entirely.

      This, to say, that right off the bat a beginner politician must compromise some of his values as no party is in absolute synch with the values of an individual. It’s the individual who adapts to the party and not the other way around.

      Still within the platform, he must find the faction that will give his – already slightly conditioned – political values visibility. Within each political party there’s always internal fighting even in those that appear to be united. Everyone realises that everyone is temporary and everyone readies themselves for their or their faction’s time. By doing this, the politician way down in the political food chain, further compromises his original values to adapt them to the faction which best represents them but as is natural, not all of them.

      Now follows the funding. One just doesn’t walk up to someone with money or influence (note the 2 currencies always present) and ask for some. It’s a game of climbing up the ladder made up of making the right decisions at the right time but most of all of adaptation of those providing the funding. Without this funding the politician has no visibility and without it, it has no projection and not being projected one is unable to influence politics and be critised by those citizens who are like he was when he began his political journey.

      Evidently, the bigger the office one seeks, the more funding, both in money and influence – the latter both in-party, or faction and outside it – one needs.

      Only at this point can the politician make his views seen to the public. Only now does the popular vote count. At the end of a quite difficult journey.


    6. (Cont)

      And the votes is the only phase of the process which is quite easy for the politicians as voters are divided into 3 categories: the die-hard for, the die-hard against and the influenceable.

      Acting on the first 2 groups is useless as their votes are assured. In the UK, for example, a Labour militant will never, ever vote Tory and vice-versa. On any issue, a die-hard militant will first look at what his party defends and then will find the arguments to defend it while at the same time find arguments to attack anything the opposing party subscribes.

      So, all he has to act on is the third group, the influenceable. For that there are schools that teach how to brainwash crowds.

      It’s easy but it also represents the final compromises a politician must make. He has to please the crowds and set aside personal values to get himself elected.

      And, as we have seen, it’s been a long journey up to here so his resistance to adaptation has long waned.

      From this point onwards, the citizen becomes the politician he so much criticised when he was a citizen criticizing politicians.

      Not because he’s an hypocrite but because that’s just the way things are. Note, not criticizing, just describing the process.

      If one wants to be heard, one has to be seen and has to get to be seen.

      All this to say that it is a quite naïve look of politics to think that what concerns most a politician are the popular votes.

      A politician knows where his priorities lie: platform and funding. Only when these are assured can he proceed to make the political changes he may think society needs.

      Not talking about Boris Johnson in particular but about politicians in general. Applies to him, applies to May, applies to any politician.

      Boris Johnson, if he attempts premiership will be indeed worried with the popular votes, as it’s ultimately what gives a politician legitimacy, but will be much more worried about pleasing his platform and his funding (in power and influence).

      One just has to stop and think for a minute if the people who are to provide these for him are concerned, or not, that the truth about Maddie is to be revealed.

    7. Boris has no morals we can identify with. Any opinion he takes on board will be for his own agenda.
      I’ve sat and watched Boris for years. 7 years ago I predicted he would be PM. I was laughed at by left and right. I’m still not laughing. This royal half-breed is a very clever poison with power we can+t qualify who acts the fool. He isn’t.
      We have a programme on UK TV ‘who do you think you are?’
      Watch the Boris one, it gives perspective
      No one gets the better of the presenter, except Boris. He turned from a lovable buffoon into sharp politician with answers within less than a second.

    8. Anonymous 28 Oct 2017, 11:30:00,

      The biggest problem Boris Johnson now faces, in our opinion, is that no one now considers him to be a "lovable buffoon" any longer.

    9. I used to think him a lovable buffoon about 5 years ago. Then I observed him over the recent years and realise he is neither. I would say he is ruthlessly in pursuit of his own well-being. I would not wish to see him as a PM. In fact I would like him to disappear from the political stage - he symbolises everything I detest about this country.

    10. Five categories of voters.... die-hard for ("our party"), die-hard for other parties, and floatingvoters/don't knows I agree. We also have the "always voted X all my life and always will", who may in fact not share many of the views and policies of that party currently - where X is their party, the activists have a real and important job to get them registered and get them out to cast a vote. Because actually they may not get round to either, and relying on the "always voted X" and not getting it out can be major loss-factor. Where X is another party, of course,the activists would love to be able to leave them in front of the TV! The categories can be flexible - witness all those coming back to "Our Pa''y" with Corbyn here.

  4. He's running with the Hounds today.

    "'Help us!' Boris Johnson appeals to Britain's oldest ally Portugal to come to the UK's aid and break the Brexit deadlock as he vows to protect EU citizens rights in charm offensive"

  5. I think the Government and other UK hierarchy have adapted an attitude lately ( even May herself with the EU) that threatens the country with BJ if they don't play ball with May. He is sent out to make outlandish speeches ( the EU can go whistle) which makes people think dear lord even May has to be better than that. He is being used by the Tory party to prop up a weak PM simply because they fear another election which will see JC in No 10. My opinion is that there is no fear that he will be the next PM if they had wanted him there he would have been elected when Cammeron left. They done with the country what they done with the PJ in August 2007. In August 2007 they considered giving the the PJ the McCanns even provided the evidence that we use to bash the McCanns with today but realised that it wasn't in their best interests to follow through with trials. After Cameron resigned they considered giving the country Boris and used him to whip up hysteria against the EU but ultimately they knew it wasn't in their best interest to have a Baffoon lead their into Brexit.

  6. We owe an apology to our readers.

    We made a false claim that the Find Ben Needham FB page had not published anything about Ben's anniversary.

    It did:

    On Oct 14:

    On Oct 16:

    We mistook a pinned post for their latest publication. We were wrong and we apologise.

    We have corrected our post accordingly.

    This does not alter in any way what we intended to say and have said.

  7. Boris Johnson, never heard about TEXTUSA and her readers ?

    I have HOPE for Madeleine, for Sean and Amelie, for Tapas7/9/11's children, for Sr Amaral's daughters, for all innocent colleteral victims.

    As I can't write/speak fluency in english, before expressing me here, (the citizens' platform where I found you, Textusa ) I'm used to search in your blog the sentences I remembered you said.
    And I am taking the liberty of quoting you.
    If I use certain of your words it is in the spirit of making mines more comprehensible. But in no way because I have no opinion.
    (My opinion comes from facts and they are in the PJ files and their analyse here in your blog)..

    - "THE OC's GUESTS group : This group was able, through pure nepotism, to get hundreds of people to actively participate in the cover-up. Their nepotism is real and is powerful.
    ...... we are not only speaking about those who were physically present in PdL but also all those in the UK who upon request helped set up the hoax.
    GROUP C : made up of very powerful and very influencial people in UK.
    So powerful and so influential that they were able to make not only the UK act according to their desire but make Portugal also do the same........
    The McCanns ....although they were guests, they've had so many puppeteers that they now belong to no group, Guests, Government or Tabloid, but will receive orders from all." In TEXTUSA : "BH's LITTLE BIG HORN ?" (2013 JUNE 14).
    Textusa, about the McCanns, is it still relevant today ?

    "....the powerful and influencial ...aren't an easy target.... so the only way to get to them is through the most vulnerable of them, GROUP A or "BH PdL Faction".... where the proof of the collective lie is.
    ......the scandal is too big for that kind of catch" (= small fish).
    ...Not all big fish may be caught but no way can the net bring only sardines. But sardines may prove to be very useful to catch bigger fish...".
    IN TEXTUSA: BH's little big horn in response to Anon 19. 16 Jun 2013, 21:27:00
    "Much has been speculated as to what Kate McCann came to do in PdL in the beginning of the month, on the 6th Anniversary of Maddie's death. Our opinion of that is quite simple.
    She came to report to the "BH PdL Faction" who wanted to hear first hand on what is going on and most likely also wanted to relay to the "other side" their interests".

    ? Like Boris Jonhson today ?????

    From the beginning I have always felt and understood those people don't speak to me but amongst themselfs via the MSM, the Mcanns, PR, PM, MP etc...

    SATURDAY, 12 March 2011 in TEXTUSA : "JUST A WORD of ADVICE" :
    "Today,... (12 March 2011 !!!!), especially after the McCannleaks, no one can allege ignorance on the subject".......
    "Rest assured that on the day that the McCanns face Justice, which they will, here you will find a place where all names of those who have contributed in the attempt for this criminal farce to perpetute will be shown."
    Textusa, It was your "Dear Celebrity, we were all fooled in that month of May 2007" I like this aticle very much.

    Dear Teresa May, and dear Boris Johnson, I wish you will be able to make the best alliance possible with these values : Honor, Truth, Justice.
    As I have many regular contacts with them, do you want me to say them a word about you ? So that they can help you ?
    Truth is not cruel nor Justice, don't be afraid.
    Politicians, bon courage ! Good luck !
    UK's honour is at stake and as you know :
    "L'honneur national est comme un fusil charg├ę". (Alain)
    HEY ! Wait a minute, please ! I close my comput......

  8. Textusa, I am 16:42 Anonymous. My "literature"(lol)was too long for one post thus I had to take out (=pull out ? remove ? withdraw ?) some of my words wich I adress you now in a nutshell :
    MERCI, team TEXTUSA, from the bottom of my heart, THANK YOU.

  9. I'm highly suspicious about the official timeline in the Ben Needham case. We only have their word for it when Ben officially disappeared.

  10. These 2 cases and the personalities involved in them are just amazing. Needhams just seem to be playing the same game as the McCanns did. The dogs had been and gone from PDL. The McCanns had been turfed out of their rented villa while the PJ searched it. Their car had been confiscated and yet Gerry McCann was writing cheery blogs and giving interviews about the police not considering them suspects and we're looking for a live child. The Needhams have had their abduction story blown out of the water, the police have said he died close to where he was last seen playing in an accident that we all know couldn't possibly have happened without their knowledge and yet we get suggestions of a big bad digger driver and thank you to the police who worked tirelessly to gave her answers ( not). BTW 19:34 I think the timeline is as close as they said it was simple because there were witnesses who saw the child at the farmhouse that day and if they had have taken time to concoct a story I don't think they would have brought the attention back to the farmhouse. It would have been easier to say he disappeared at a busy resort

  11. Hi Textusa, you have such a gift at putting all the information together, I've read other peoples theories about the case but your theory does make the most sense to me.

    IMO I believe an accident occurred, if the Mccanns were forced to go along this path to protect someone who is very important and this very important persons reputation was at stake plus other swingers reputation was at stake then I can only imagine it must be awful to have been forced to live a lie to protect this very important person. I believe the Mccanns are fighting the fight of their lives at the moment and I hope they are able to get their truth out whatever their truth is.


  13. Boris comes over as a buffoon, but he isn't. He's very intelligent and very well educated. And his writing can actually be very funny, in an understated, educated and very British way - maybe it doesn't translate across the Pond too well?

    He probably is one of the people who adopted the clown front to escape from schoolyard bullying directed against a brainy type. I was appalled at the idea of him being London mayor, but he didn't do half as awful as job as I'd feared.
    He was in journalism (not the MSM/tabloid/"red top" variety) before getting elected, and to my reading, that article you cite is more about the media treatment and media-assisted public reaction to the Maddie case than Maddie herself. To my mind, the key para is the one starting "I'm interested in that hostility....."
    I don't know how you make out the article is biased pro-McCann. He says several times over that he doesn't know what happened. OK, he adds (almost as an aside) that he doesn't know how they could do the corpse-moving that left the cadaverine in the car boot with all the media watching them; it's a valid question a novice to the case may have, no?
    As for him looking to the tabloid press for answers: nope, really, he doesn't expect to get much sense from them! Honest. That's the dry British humour! Boris would not expect much from the tabloids, nor would the readers of the Telegraph (a "quality" paper for an intelligent, albeit mainly Tory, readership). That's why they get the Telegraph, after all. No, he hasn't gone hunting for wisdom in the tabloids and expected to find it; he's commenting on it not being available. As both he and his readers would be "taking as read" - so the droll turn of phrase.
    I don't know what expert articles on DNA tests he was refering to - it has indeed been an issue (amongst the DNA-knowledgeable) that DNA test evidence has been cracked up to be more than it is. If the points found in a given DNA test could have 14 million possible scores, then one might expect on average that one in every 14 million people's DNA would match it. On average. It may be a 14 million to 1 chance that the person next door to me matches it but he might - and there is (or was) a 14 million to 1 chance that he wins the (UK) lottery, and someone does win that. Too often, juries have been blinded with science and led to believe a matching DNA is proof absolute which it isn't.
    As for the nose-fingering: well that's true. While the McCann parents walk free, there will be people claiming they are guilty and should be convicted. And there will be people claiming they are innocent badly-injured parents being horribly trolled. I don't see Boris's bias. The danger is that the case has had so much publicity it will be deemed impossible for them to have a fair trial. Their lawyers will doubtless claim so.
    As for Boris, I'm thinking that Foreign Secretary is his level of incompetence and he's going to blow it and disappear off the main stage. either that, or he's still young and sharp enough to learn from it and it'll be the making of him. We'll see.... either way, and like many of his colleague, he has many many things that matter tohim far more than what actually happened to Maddie.

    1. "it has indeed been an issue (amongst the DNA-knowledgeable) that DNA test evidence has been cracked up to be more than it is"

      dear lord to make a statement about something that is regarded as the most important breakthrough in modern policing.

      "then one might expect on average that one in every 14 million people's DNA would match it"..... and what are the odds of that 14million to 1 person who matches the child's DNA being in the hired car hired by her father weeks after she mysteriously disappeared.

      "Or are they loving and normal parents who have fallen victim to a terrible crime, and who now see their agony compounded by a half-baked stitch-up operation conducted by Portugal's equivalent of Inspector Clouseau?” ...... it nearly has the same ring as the insult you just give to Portuguese people with your "maybe it doesn't translate across the Pond too well?". I'm not from across the pond but I find both statements highly insulting.

      I'll just ignore you "Too often, juries have been blinded with science and led to believe a matching DNA is proof absolute which it isn't" ....after all doesn't this country have the best defence lawyers that would allow this. Think OJ and see how his lawyers blinded that jury when the DNA was in effect absolute proof.

      I don't know about Boris lack of intelligence but you come across as a smart cookie

    2. Only British arrogance can raise the issue of a fair trial with the McCanns about the Maddie case.

      It shows clearly how the UK lives is a bubble when it comes to this case, as it simply side-lines Portugal.

      The crime happened in Portugal (the only crime as far as we know committed by the McCanns in Britain is the fraudulent fund), which, the last we heard, is sovereign and so has its own justice system.

      The McCanns cannot claim they wouldn’t get fair trial as any case against them is to be heard in Portugal, not in the U.K.

      In the UK, only for fund fraud AFTER a successful prosecution in Portugal for whatever the charge/s might be.

      Although it’s possible for the UK to prosecute certain limited but serious offenses committed outside UK, it would mean Portugal would let go of its sovereignty and we can’t see Portugal agreeing to this.

    3. Textusa,
      Reading Anonymous1 Nov 2017, 03:39:00 it does look like the other side is betting all on BJ, doesn't it?

    4. Comments about DNA are generic, not related to McCann case. Concerns about overselling them in court have been in the media. Boris may well have seen them.
      insult to the Portuguese? - hardly; poster is on the same side of the Pond as Portugal!

    5. Textusa, your are of course right that (most) cases against the McCanns would come in Portugal under Portuguese law. But that makes the issue of adverse publicity worse rather than better, as isn't Portuguese public opinion and media coverage more generally anti-McCann than it is in the UK? IANAL, but surely the Portuguese law has rules about adverse publicity on the (perceived) impartiality of court cases?

    6. No, it doesn't.

      You really are putting extra hours in defending Boris Johnson, aren't you?

    7. And do stop being speciously misleading with your "that (most) cases against the McCanns would come in Portugal under Portuguese law".

      It's not most, it's all. Only when the Portuguese justice system is finished with the McCanns, and IF they were found guilty of wrongdoing, then and only then can there be any legal action against them in the UK.

      Anything before (not most before) only with the agreement of Portugal.

    8. Anon 00:31 maybe you should provide a link to these concerns about overselling in court by the press just to prove your right and I'm not from Portugal I' m Irish which is why I can spot an eejit speaking bollocks

    9. @00:48:00, your suggestion that the McCanns wouldn't get a fair trial in Portugal is just disgusting.

    10. @00:48:00
      "that makes the issue of adverse publicity worse rather than better, as isn't Portuguese public opinion and media coverage more generally anti-McCann than it is in the UK?"
      Public opinion against the McCanns can't be worse anywhere than in the UK. I used to read Joana Morais' blog and didn't see any support for GA or any anti-Mc stance from the Portuguese media

    11. Hi textusa,Anon10.52.00,perhaps that is the only card the McCann's will have to play"Fair Trail"?
      But as was pointed out at the Supreme Court of Justice in Portugal,the McCann's,via Justine MaGuiness,Clarence Mitchell courted publicity from 4 May 2007,Sky News Corporation,MSM,against the Official Procedures Portugal Follow in a missing person case,eg,they broke protocol,so what comes on later down the line they cannot reverse their involvement?
      Here in the UK,if you wish to see"British Justice System"take a look at the Unsolved Murder of Daniel Morgan,10th March 1987?
      Look at the Machinations of"Smudged Finger Prints"connected to a warped Media Mogal who has been in the pockets of at least Four previous Prime Ministers and maybe the best part of One billion Pounds spent of suspended Court Trails?
      Now you could be thinking,is it just a coincidence that after Thirty years of trying to prosecute the Criminals involved in this unsolved Murder,the original defendants are now seeking compensation from the Metropolitan Police Service for the action the Police took against them?
      Yet No Person has been found guilty in a Court of Law in the UK for Daniel Morgan's Murder?
      Which beggars the question of compensation payable for appearing before a court of Law that collapses,when they could still be guilty of the Murder,or is double Jeopardy to usurp Justice?
      I fear any court appearances will be based around this procedure,go to trail,case collapses,another Trail,Not enough evidence to conclude for a safe conviction,case put on the very Top shelf,100 yr ruling,protection of the Establishment on Security grounds?
      Any Takers?

  14. There are many things that matter to me far more than what actually happened to Maddie. I still believe that people who cover up a girl's death (thus denying her the dignity of a proper funeral) and then set up a fraudulent fund should face consequences. Justice and truth matter a great deal to most people and that is why we are here. I never knew Maddie and as a person she didn't really matter to me, but if her death was covered up and lied about, then that is something different. For Boris to say what he did about Amaral is not a sign of intelligence - far from it.

    1. TEXTUSA : 2017 FEB : "THE COMPLAINT".
      "Some may say that Teresa May has much more important things to decide, with all ongoing Brexit issues, than about the Maddie case.
      We disagree. Again, not because we write about it and have dedicated parts of lives to it and would like to have its importance recognised.
      It is important because it is really important.
      Saying it matters little to the British Prime-Minister is like saying that winning the Euro 2016 mattered little to Portugal".
      ....."Maddie is very relevant to the image the UK intends to project about itself worlwide.
      We would say that it comes secong to BREXIT when the world thinks of Britain.
      Then, like BREXIT, and evidently not nearly as relevant, Maddie is historic.
      CRIMINAL HISTORY his being made.
      All d├ęcisions made now and the names of those who made it will be registered forever.
      And it's factual that people through times search more to know about Jack the Ripper, the Moors murders or other famous crimes than about relevant historic milestones like the creation of the United Nations, NATO or the European Union or even, nationally, the Miner's strike or the Falklands War. .....

    2. ..... (suite) Operation Grange was launched by a Prime-Minister. We think that alone makes it relevant for the UK.
      .....launched when TERESA MAY was in the Home Office, so she has a personal interest in it. We would think this decision ranks high in Teresa May priorities. For some reason Whitehall was involved directly in this case last summer..... . (In same article).
      From me across the pond, to you.

    3. For Boris to say what he did about Amaral.....??? Boris is paraphrasing what the tabloid press of the time were saying, not putting that forward as his own opinion. The intelligence of the tabloid media I'm sure we can all form our own opinions about.
      BTW, I have no more liking for Boris than for the McCann parents, have never voted for him and was appalled at the idea of him becoming mayor. I've never voted for any other Tory candidate either

  15. The point I want to make is that either Boris is highly intelligent(which I believe he is) and if so then his remarks about Amaral were clearly intended to sway public perception and 'take a side'.
    If he is indeed a 'buffoon' then to make those derogatory comments about Amaral was in keeping with being a buffoon - someone who was prepared to make silly, absurdly un-diplomatic comments on a portuguese detective who was doing his job.
    So Boris is either highly intelligent or a buffoon.If highly intelligent then clearly had a 'goal' in making those comments..

    1. Hitextusa,Anon 12.26.00,that is the absolute point though isn't it"Buffoon or Intelligence" "Was doing his Job"?
      As far as I am aware,Boris Johnson wasn't a representative of Kate or Gerry McCann,so it was not part of his Job?
      if it was part of his Job,then why didn't Mr Johnson take up one of the other"Missing Children's cases"?
      No he just so happened to stumble(Buffoon like into Madeleine McCann's disappearance in 2007,whilst he was writing for the Daily Telegraph,yeah Ok?
      I wonder if it is possible for some person to have,MP John Redwoods comments on Madeleine McCann,that where so suddenly,Whooshed away clear from prying eyes,Both Conservative MP's,but Buffoon's takes precedent?
      Probability,so what is the probability,that both Kate,Gerry McCann and the Twins pick out a Renault Scenic,hire car that possibly contained DNA from their eldest Daughter,Madeleine,that was found in the boot of the Car,Car Fob Keys,Twenty Five days,after, since,Madeleine was reported missing by her parents,just a fleeting coincidence?
      As stated above in an article,14 Million to 1,the Father,Mother pick out this hire car,that may contain relevant DNCA/LCI,that the UK Police Force suddenly wish to dispose of,on Health Grounds?
      FSS report,the One and only time a UK Police Force was to destroy DNA/LCI in a still missing person case?
      Conspiracy Theory,I don't think So,Collusion,coincidence,cunningness,concealment Yes,with an emphatic yes!
      That,this same vehicle happened to have been left in One Mr Geragherty's possession,similar to the Church Keys he handed to the parents,eh same person?
      Intelligence=Goncalo Amaral?
      It was Mr Johnson's job to besmirch a Police Detective name or rank chosen to Investigate the disappearance of Madeleine McCann,similar to a"Pink Panther" character,but he did?
      Buffoon has not done anything as "Foreign Secretary"to assist the One Million people having genocide committed on the Rohingya people has he,member of the United Nations standing idle,oblivious to Genocide,captured on film,yes an intelligent Buffoon alright?

  16. Yes....Boris is no "buffoon"...just another product of the public school system...... A bunteresque Molesworth if you will! The question is.... whom was he out to protect? The McCanns? Or something/one else?


  17. Why on earth would he wish to protect the Mc Canns? What good would it do him - no - there must have been a bigger motivation than that.

    First Boris's article in Sep 2007, then 3 months later BOD's article and then 3 months later the The Daily Star said it was making a "wholehearted apology" to the couple for "stories suggesting the couple were responsible for, or may be responsible for, the death of their daughter Madeleine and covering it up".

    It recognised "that such a suggestion is absolutely untrue and that Kate and Gerry are completely innocent of any involvement in their daughter's disappearance".
    How on earth did it come to that conclusion.. and what happens if they are found to be involved... does it get the money back?

  18. 17.57...i thought i was insinuating it was something/one else. I agree with the 'bigger motivation'.


  19. Unpublished Anonymous at 1 Nov 2017, 20:21:00

    Thank you for your comment.

    We're not publishing it because as it's pertinent we think it deserves we write a post about it.

  20. So Theresa May makes Esther McVey deputy chief whip we can assume Esther pleases Theresa.....who also happens to be bessie friend of Kate....whats to be made of that little snippet....????


    1. Bampots,

      Please don't overestimate what we read about the McCanns and their friendships.

      If were to believe all we read, we would believe that Clement Freud and Kate McCanns were the best friends in this world only after a couple of meetings.

      McVey, like Mitchell to use as example, was just a tool and used as one.

      Would then agree that "Esther pleases Theresa" but would very much doubt that she "also happens to be bessie friend of Kate"

    2. Don't forget who was HS when some files (not an insignificant amount) pertaining to child abuse was lost back in 2014.Who is in charge now her defence secretary has just resigned because of sexual misconduct May! whether its kids or adults trouble follows May,one thing is certain imo the McCann case will not be seen as the defining moment in her political career.

    3. Hi Bampots,18.03.00. Esther McVey resigned from the"Find Madeleine Fund"when,Esther quickly realised that the fund was being used against it's main principles?

    4. And you think 18:27 she didn't know that when she took up her directorship. She was there when they were paying their mortgage out of it.

    5. Hi Anon 21.41.00,Harold2 from CMoMM has added,that Esther McVey has connections to powerful people from within the UK,on massive"Investments portfolios"so it wasn't just about her friends Kate,Gerry paying their Mortgage from the Fund,it must have been something else within the Fund,the effects the Probity of the fund?

  21. A former GMTV presenter and a friend of Kate since their school days, she is the public face of the Madeleine Fund. Currently running a PR firm, she stood unsuccessfully as the Conservative parliamentary candidate for the Wirral in 2005, losing by just 1,000 votes.


    1. Bampots

      Very much a propagandist article from the Telegraph from Sept 2007 when a U-turn was being decided to, then on, defend fiercely the McCanns.

      Are we supposed to believe that Mitchel "quit his job as a civil servant because he felt "so strongly" that the couple were innocent and he wanted to help them"?

      It also highlights Carlos Pinto de Abreu as oone of the key figures of team McCann and we know he left very quickly the case.

      We very much doubt they were school friends. They may (please note may) have gone to the same school. Their alleged friendship is simply being highlighted as it was convenient to be.

      But we may accept they may have been school friends. Fact is she resigned from the fund in early days when there were questions about what the fund would be spent on.

      We have never seen anything by her in support of McCanns since then, although we may have missed it.

  22. Hi Textusa, have found this article online which seems to quote verbatim from Esther McVey

  23. Contents
    1. Chair, British Transport Police Authority
    2. Special Advisor, Floreat Group
    3. Senior Consultant, Hume Brophy
    4. Visiting Lecturer, University of Liverpool
    5. Fellowship, University of Hull
    Rt Hon Esther McVey left her role as Minister of State for Employment in May 2015.

    Esthers handful of jobs while waiting for another safe ward to appear.

    The "special advisor" to the Floreat Group looks particularly juicy as they look after the money of "VIP" billionaires and it would appear royalty. She knows the right people eh?



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.