Friday 3 November 2017

Sex-shaming


1. Introduction

During my college years, I had one professor who said the words that have guided me throughout life: “all is linked to all”.

Short, precise, concise but filled with… all.

Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein has triggered, and rightfully so and about time, a focus without precedent of sexual harassment by powerful men.

Other well-known people have been exposed both as assaulters and as enablers through their silence of harassment occurrences they knew to exist.

As expected, we fully support such focus and unreservedly condemn any and all perpetrators of such disgusting behaviour.

The issue ‘overflowed’ into Britain by the hands of The Times in its article by Henry Zeffman, Patrick Maguire, Grant Tucker, Alexi Mostrous and Billy Kenber, published on Saturday Oct 28 2017 “Sexual Harassment: Minister and three MPs accused of sex texts, misconduct and affairs.

In it:

“Four MPs, including a minister, have been engulfed in sexual misconduct allegations swirling around Westminster.

The MPs, all male, are accused of harassing or propositioning young women inappropriately — in some cases over a number of years.”


In it:

“It comes after four MPs, including a minister, had been caught up in allegations of sexual misconduct at Westminster.

The MPs, two Labour and two Conservative, have been accused of harassing or propositioning young women inappropriately according to The Times.”

And to be noted the first use of the words “sex pest” which we would see very much repeated and which is something we wish to address later in the post.

On Wednesday we received a comment which we decided not to publish, and even censor:

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "New name and (NOT) an anniversary":

http://evolvepolitics.com/torysleaze36-names-36-mps-tory-sex-pest-list-leaked-onto-social-media/

Soon there will be nothing left to blackmail them with!

(Twitter link censored)

Wonder what (censored) secret is?

Makes you wonder how much longer before Mc swinger story has less impact than it might have done before this…

Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 1 Nov 2017, 20:21:00

The first censoring was for reasons that the Twitter link provided opened up a picture of the list with the names visible.

The second censoring was because a person was named.


2. Sex pest list revealed

We are fully aware that the list can be searched and seen on social media but we refuse to collaborate with sex-shaming people, even if they have engaged in criminal activity as some are accused in the list to have.

We prefer to trust in the legitimate authorities to pursue those who are accountable, without exceptions.

The reader may call us naïve and maybe we are, but as we are very wary of how uncontrollable vigilantism can easily become, we prefer to limit ourselves to being the ‘couch-journalists’ we assume to be and let such sensitive matters be dealt with qualified professionals.

And there are names on the list that shouldn’t be there, as we will address later.

Please note that we do not condemn the reporting of names of offenders by the media. There are journalistic ethics that and law compliance that we trust are met before such a thing is done.

The article linked by Anonymous was from the site evolvepolitics.com, by J.D McGregor, published Oct 31 2017 “#TorySleaze36 – The names of the 36 MPs on the ‘Tory Sex Pest List’ have leaked onto social media”:

“An un-redacted version of the ‘Tory Sex Pest List’ has been leaked onto social media, and the allegations are so serious they have the potential to bring down the government.

The shocking list names 7 Cabinet Ministers, 14 other government Ministers, as well as 8 former Ministers.

The most serious allegations contained in the list concern two Conservative MPs who have both asked women to sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) – a prominent method of ensuring victims are silenced about alleged sexual abuse. One of the MPs named is a prominent Cabinet member.”

Of the names listed we will make an exception and reveal one, without saying of what he is accused of in the list, and that is Boris Johnson.

We’re doing it because we think that at this point in time he’s a relevant person in the Maddie case as we explained in our previous post “A new name and (NOT) an anniversary”.

We would like to highlight that the list contains 40 names and not only 36 and that not all named politicians are male.

So, if the objective of the exposure of this list was to expose male sexual harassment, then it’s clearly off-target, or better said has other objectives.


3. The accusations

We have seen two lists. As shown above and both censored by both those who published and us. Our censorship is in blue in both the black & white and colour lists.

List A
List B

It’s very interesting to see that they are not replicas of each other.

We will call the first (black & white) as List A and the other list (colour) as List B and will number the politicians named. We will also highlight in blue what are the differences between the accusations in both:

#1 List A: Ashley Madison - handsy at parties
#1 List B: Ashley Madison. Refers to 2015 claim that he was member of adultery website. He denied this

#2 List A: Impregnated former researcher, made her have an abortion + had relations with other female researchers (censored)
#2 List B: Impregnated former researcher, made her have an abortion and had relations with other female researchers. No comment yesterday

#3 List A: Inappropriate with women, including interviews and paid a woman to be quiet
#3 List B: Inappropriate with women, including interviews and paid a woman to be quiet

#4 List A: Sexual relations with (censored) and inappropriate with women
#4 List B: Accused of 'inappropriate' relations with women. Previously resigned over sexting

#5 List A: Sexual relations with (censored)
#5 List B: Accused of sexual relations with member of his private office

#6 List A: NDA between him and (censored)
#6 List B: Legal agreement between him and female researcher

#7 List A: Inappropriate behaviour with women, asked (censored) to buy sex toys. Faces inquiry
#7 List B: Inappropriate behaviour with women, asked PA to buy sex toys. Faces inquiry

#8 List A: Inappropriate behaviour with female and male staff (censored)
#8 List B: Inappropriate behaviour with female and male staff

#9 List A: Odd sexual penchants and sexual with fellow MP (censored) a drunk
#9 List B: Accused of odd sexual penchants

#10 List A: Handsy with women
#10 List B: Handsy with women. No detail about who made claim

#11 List A: Sexual relations with (censored) and others
#11 List B: Sexual relations with researcher and others

#12 List A: Inappropriate with male researchers + (censored)
#12 List B: Inappropriate behaviour with male researchers

#13 List A: Inappropriate with female researchers
#13 List B: Accused of inappropriate behaviour with female researchers

#14 List A: Inappropriate with male researchers - long history
#14 List B: Accused of inappropriate behaviour with male researchers

#15 List A: Nicknamed Guy 'Copperfeel' - handsy with females
#15 List B: Nicknamed 'Copperfeel' - handsy with females

#16 List A: Impregnated (censored)
#16 List B: Accused of impregnating office manager. Couple live together, have son.

#17 List A: Dates his (censored)
#17 List B: Dates his researcher (our censoring). Already public, consensual

#18 List A: Perpetually intoxicated and very inappropriate with women
#18 List B: Perpetually intoxicated and very inappropriate with women

#19 List A: Inappropriate with female researchers + handy in taxis
#19 List B: Inappropriate with female researchers and handy in taxis

#20 List A: Inappropriate with male researchers and heavy drinker + touched (censored)
#20 List B: Inappropriate with male researchers and heavy drinker

#21 List A: Inappropriate with male journalist in a taxi.
#21 List B: Accused of being inappropriate with male journalist in taxi. 'I can't recall anything' he said yesterday

#22 List A: Takes his (censored) to the cinema and to private rooms at Carlton
#22 List B: Takes his personal trainer to the cinema and to private rooms at the Carlton

#23 List A: Inappropriate with female researchers and (censored)
#23 List B: Inappropriate with female researchers. Previously reported to of had six-month affair

#24 List A: Inappropriate with female researchers + uses prostitutes for odd sexual acts
#24 List B: Inappropriate with female researchers - uses prostitutes for odd sexual acts

#25 List A: Fornicated with male researchers while backbench MP + sexual relations with (censored)
#25 List B: Fornicated with male researchers while backbench MP

#26 List A: Inappropriate with male researchers
#26 List B: Inappropriate with male researchers

#27 List A: Inappropriate behaviour with female private office staff
#27 List B: Inappropriate behaviour with female private office staff

#28 List A: (censored)
#28 List B: Accused of inappropriate relationship

#29 List A: Inappropriate with female researchers and journalists + asked to take three females aides on holiday
#29 List B: Inappropriate with female researchers and journalists and asked to take three females aides on holiday

#30 List A: Inappropriate with male MPs after and pre-divorce
#30 List B: Inappropriate with male MPs after and pre-divorce

#31 List A: Inappropriate with females (redacted)
#31 List B: Inappropriate with females

#32 List A: Asked female researcher to do odd things (censored)
#32 List B: Asked female researcher to do odd things. He has denied this

#33 List A: Affair with (censored) who was married (censored)
#33 List B: Affair with female researcher who was married to local paper journalist. He confessed to this last year.

#34 List A: Video exists of three males urinating on him
#34 List B: Video exists of three males urinating on him

#35 List A: Injunction of inappropriate behaviour with a woman
#35 List B: Injunction of inappropriate behaviour with a woman

#36 List A: Affair
#36 List B: Affair. He blamed allegations of affair earlier this year as a 'vicious smear' campaign. No evidence of affair.

#37 List A: Inappropriate with female researchers (historic)
#37 List B: Inappropriate with female researchers

#38 List A: Known to have used male prostitutes
#38 List B: Known to have used male prostitutes. He quit as ministerial aide over this in 2014

#39 List A: Workplace relationship with (censored)
#39 List B: Workplace relationship with (our censoring). PPS to the Chancellor. Widely reported

#40 List A: Likes to have intercourse with men who are wearing women's perfume
#40 List B: Like to have intercourse with men who are wearing women's perfume

Note that we have uncensored what List A censored about politician #1. We have since seen an un-redacted copy of the list.

Evidently whoever censored List A confused Ashley Madison with the name of a person, when it is a famously known dating site used by many married people seeking to have affairs.

As can be seen, both lists albeit with differences have very similar accusations.

This makes us think that the list is real, and accusations have been made there.

However, these differences show that this was not a list leaked electronically nor even in hard paper format.

We sincerely hope that the pros disguised as antis (some of them with prestige among us) will not, at least this time, use the ridiculous argument that it’s Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software that is responsible for the differences between these lists, like they did to justify the blatant discrepancies between the various booking sheets and the miraculous appearance of typed characters in the Crèche sheets.

We think the lists made public are the result of journalists being shown a copy in hard-copy format but which was not handed over them.

Then they were free to take all notes from it and they did just that.

Then they went back to their desks and made up their own Excel spreadsheets. Some were more economical than other with words or decided to use different wording.

This list is not the result of journo sleuth but from a leak from inside the corridors of power. This is very important as we’ll show later.


4. Unacceptable misogyny

In terms of content we highlight some terminology used.

One shows clearly that the leaking of the list was not meant to expose sexual harassment by powerful people.

For example, we find the term “impregnated” rather dehumanising, not very respectful to women and pregnancy.

Not that it’s not scientifically incorrect but it makes pregnancy sound like a scene from Aliens.

It reduces the female reproductive system to a mere receptacle.

We consider its use crude, not to say misogynistic and not appropriate for a document supposed to be exposing the inequalities of gender, and the assault of one over the other, in the corridors of power.

But absolutely misogynistic is the use of the term “fornicated” which is used for politician #25.

It happens that #25 is a woman. She is said to have fornicated while politicians #4, #5 and #11, who happen to be men, are said to have had “sexual relationships”. Why?

It clearly shows that the list has no intent to expose harassment by powerful people but its only purpose is very clear and objective: sex-shaming.


5. Green light

As we said in our post “Summer Games” about Colin Sutton’s saintly appearance on May 3 in the Maddie case, politically sensitive issues need a green light somewhere up the stream:

“As we have said in another forum, more precisely on Facebook and then speaking about Sutton’s apparent good intentions, we are fascinated by the fact that how people knowing how politically sensitive the Maddie case is, believe that anything that is published in the MSM about the case is genuine and/or innocent.

We are certain that it is filtered, analysed and approved by the higher echelons in the corridors of power.

A story to see the light of day has to serve a purpose, accomplish an objective, that simple.

Anyone speaking against the McCanns in the official MSM should be immediately heard with the same suspicion as is anyone who speaks in their favour.

One thing is to want to speak, another completely different is to be heard. To be heard, officially, about Maddie one has to first pass a green light somewhere.”

It is not enough to know, one has to have the capability to propagate what one knows. And if one doesn’t have it, one can get it by getting permission to propagate it by those who do have the capability to authorise that to happen.

And it can’t get more politically sensitive than this kind of list.

Well, it can. And that is a detail of utmost importance.

This list is really, really politically sensitive, no question about that but if we would rank in political sensitivity, we can think immediately of one other list which would be much more sensitive than this one and that we are certain that exists – and which we will address later in the post – and that be one linking politicians to paedophilia.

But setting that paedo list aside for a moment, and taking into account the names on sex-pest list, or at least some of the names its release would represent lawsuits of enormous consequences if there hadn’t been a green light allowing it to be leaked.

Why we think this green light happened, and again we will address that later.


6. Sex-shaming

We evidently don’t think this list was released because of the Maddie case.

We are even certain that the Maddie case was not even in the back of the mind of the people involved in deciding to release it, in releasing it and propagating the list.

But we do think that it will have consequences in the Maddie case, as we will hopefully explain.

But one thing that stands out from it that is of relevance to the Maddie case and that we wish to focus on: the sex-shaming.

Because of this list, the Secretary of Defense has resigned in what the MSM is calling the “sleaze scandal”. Sleaze being the key word here. A term that followed the sex pest title.

We wish to address specifically and DIRECTLY all those who state with absolute certainty that if swinging was happening in Luz it wouldn’t be reason to be covered-up because it isn’t illegal and so no one would need to hide it.

We would like to ask those people (and how surprised we would be if we got an answer) what is illegal about the following accusations, made explicitly in the “sex-pest” list:

#1 – Ashley Madison / Ashley Madison. Refers to 2015 claim that he was member of adultery website. He denied this

#2 - and had relations with other female researchers.

#4 - Sexual relations with (censored)

#5 - Sexual relations with (censored) / Accused of sexual relations with member of his private office

#9 - Odd sexual penchants and sexual with fellow MP (censored) a drunk / Accused of odd sexual penchants

#11 - Sexual relations with (censored) and others / Sexual relations with researcher and others

#16 - Impregnated (censored) / Accused of impregnating office manager. Couple live together, have son.

#17 - Dates his (censored) / Dates his researcher (censored). Already public, consensual

#22 - Takes his (censored) to the cinema and to private rooms at Carlton / Takes his personal trainer to the cinema and to private rooms at the Carlton

#23 - Previously reported to of had six-month affair

#24 - uses prostitutes for odd sexual acts

#25 - Fornicated with male researchers while backbench MP + sexual relations with (censored) / Fornicated with male researchers while backbench MP

#33 - Affair with (censored) who was married (censored) / Affair with female researcher who was married to local paper journalist. He confessed to this last year.

#34 - Video exists of three males urinating on him

#36 - Affair / Affair. He blamed allegations of affair earlier this year as a 'vicious smear' campaign. No evidence of affair.

#38 - Known to have used male prostitutes / Known to have used male prostitutes. He quit as ministerial aide over this in 2014

#39 - Workplace relationship with (our censoring) / Workplace relationship with (censored) PPS to the Chancellor. Widely reported

#40 - Likes to have intercourse with men who are wearing women's perfume

One may agree or disagree with the sexual choices of each one of the individuals above.

We may even find some of them completely disgusting, such as the urology fetish, but none of the above listed is illegal.

As we have said, we are fully in favour of political-shaming. But let’s write that again: POLITICAL-shaming. Not sex-shaming.

If that political shaming involves some sort of sexual activity then we’re all for it to see it exposed.

Let’s use an example. If a politician campaigns fiercely against prostitutes and wants to criminalise prostitution and then is caught with a prostitute then he should be exposed.

Not because of the sexual act per se, nor would it be a question of legality as only pimping and forcing someone to prostitute is illegal in the UK.

The shaming would not be sexual but political as the exposed would be the politician’s hypocrisy.

Another example would be if a politician would be against abortion, then it would be known that his partner would be getting one with his knowledge. Exposing that would be exposing the politician’s hypocrisy.

Political-shaming is exactly that, hypocrisy revealed.

But if the above politicians were not for criminalising prostitution, in the first example, or not against abortion, in the second, then neither of the above instances should be on the news. It would be their private life and that should be respected.

And in the case of the abortion example, the politician in question if he didn’t know of the pregnancy (and so wouldn’t know of the abortion) or if he found himself in the situation of having no power in the decision, such as him not wanting it but his partner disagreeing with him then there would be no hypocrisy on his part and so the sanctity of his private life should be respected.

If two people who work in the same place engage in sexual relationships in the workplace and their work is paid by the taxpayer as MPs are, then that sexual relationship should be exposed because of where it is being consummated and not because it is a consensual sexual relationship between co-workers.

What they decide to do consensually outside their workplace is no one’s business but their own. In this case, to expose their relationship is simply wrong.

One may enjoy using prostitutes, have an affair, enjoy being urinated on and even have the fetish of women’s perfume on men with whom they are intimate with or whatever other odd sexual penchant but that’s their business and no one else’s.

Yet, the British media has them on a “sex pest” list. In a sleaze scandal.

Can anyone say in what way are the following 2 in any way reprehensible, legally, morally, socially or whatever other values one wishes to use?

#16 - Impregnated (censored) / Accused of impregnating office manager. Couple live together, have son.

#17 - Dates his (censored) / Dates his researcher (censored). Already public, consensual

What is there disgusting about this that is worth being mentioned in a sleaze scandal?

They seem to portray perfectly happy people. But thanks to list they are now part of the “sex pest” fest.

Now imagine being accused of swinging, that legal activity that we all agree is legal.

So, from now on, to anyone who again utters the ridiculousness of saying that swingers would be perfectly fine with being outed, we have only 3 words for them: sex-pest list.


7. The specialised intel

But let’s get back to the high level of the game, the political level.

This list shows us 2 very important things: the giving o the green light and the specialised intel.

The first we have already touched upon and promised to speak more of in the post.

What we want to highlight now is that it shows that intelligence was collected and collated about members of parliament.

Or to put it plainly, dirt on MPs was collected and put on a list.

And about why this is done, we fully agree with Ben Gelblum in his London Economic article published Oct 31 2107 “Leaked list of Conservative Party sex pest sleaze published, shaming THIRTY SIX current Tory MPs”. In it he says:

“Katie Perrior, the PM’s former head of communications, appeared on BBC One’s Breakfast, insisting details were “kept away from the prime minister” but “information is held by the whips, because they use it to make sure that MPs know that other people within the party know exactly what they’ve been up to, and that behaviour either is not acceptable, or it will be used against them – you will vote in a certain way or we will tell your wife exactly what you’ve been up to.”

Or in other words, unless anyone else can see it differently, blackmail.

But the point we want to make is that this sort of information doesn’t just get together by itself, line up and walk into an Excel spreadsheet.

There has to be a structure. An organisation. People paid by the taxpayer to collect dirt for politicians on other politicians. Dirt that can be used to ‘influence’ their decisions and public attitudes and opinions on many number of issues.

Convenient decisions and public attitudes and opinions.

For example, just to use one and as this blog is about that, the Maddie case.

But as we have said, we would think that a similar list but on paedophilia would be much more sensitive politically and damning for those on it.

Now, we know that Jim Gamble worked on Operation Ore. Operation Ore was about paedophilia.

If, and we’re purely speculating here, Jim Gamble had a similar list as the sex-pest one but relating politicians to paedophilia, one can imagine the power the man would have to influence some very influential people and also imagine how willingly these influential people would be to cooperate with anything they were asked to do, say or decide.

A list linking politicians to paedophilia, would be much more politically sensitive than this one.

But, as we said, we are just speculating. And we’ll let the reader link up that speculation with the Maddie case, if they believe it may apply.


8. The “sex-pest” ‘Murat’

As we have said, for this list to have been released, there had to be authorisation for it to be released.

We can only speculate.

Looking at the importance of some of the names mentioned we have to assume it came from the highest powers indeed.

From someone who needed to loosen up, not to say to really let go of the stranglehold the person felt exerted by others in influencing his or her decisions.

And we could speculate that those people exerting this influence were the ones and the same we have called here the “Brexit elite”.

With the exposure of this list, that person would show very clearly that there was no more room for games, that things could get really serious (let’s imagine that this is not the only sex pest list or that there are many more details that could be added to it) and would be telling those people, by showing s/he can to order their dogs to back off.

Once message sent and understood, it was needed to contain it. Not let it propagate any further than absolutely needed.

Remember the little boy who in July allegedly disappeared in Luz, something we said happened just to stifle the news coming out about Ben Needham that were going out of control?

Here, the little boy was Michael Fallon.

He, in our opinion, was used like Robert Murat was in the Maddie case: someone was needed to attract attention and a scapegoat was chosen for the sacrifice.

Resigned because he put his hands on a woman’s knee.

In this case, again we repeat that we are speculating, Michael Fallon has stopped the issue going to other inconvenient places and will be the only name the public will remember from the sex pest sleaze scandal.

But others – and not only those on the list – have been warned and know they have been warned.

Depending on the size of the skeletons in their closets, they can either continue sharpening up their knives or discreetly put them away and pretend they never had them in their hands in the first place.

And to those saying that this has weakened Theresa May’s position, so it must be against her, we would ask them to stop and think for a moment, if it’s in the interest of the Conservative Party to have new elections at the moment.

We would say, that it is in the interest of that party for that not to happen.

Oh, and we can also reveal that Theresa May’s name does not appear on the list, while other names do.

Worse than being accused of covering-up for a deed, is being accused of having done the deed itself. The deeds on the list, or others that may have been held back.

At least, that’s what we think.


9. Conclusion

The sex-pest list is way above the Maddie case. Its leaking had nothing to do with it.

However, as we said, we do think that it may have consequences.

Firstly, because we think the position of the “Brexit elite” has been significantly weakened. Their power significantly reduced.

Then, because we feel that it softens the blow if truth is to be outed as after this, the public won’t be half as shocked to find out that sexual peccadilloes, swinging to be specific, is behind the entire cover-up.

We make ours the Anonymous words:

“Makes you wonder how much longer before Mc swinger story has less impact than it might have done before this…”

41 comments:

  1. So rather that this government being weakened this list is doing the opposite and is being used to warn and blackmail the tory MP's who have much more to hide than the people on this list.

    So my understanding is this for two reasons the first to make the politicians behave and vote accordingly and perhaps secondly to threaten the BH politicians that if they try any games in regards to the McCann case they can expect exposure.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What if this was a trial run, a testing of waters, of coming out with the truth about Maddie by weakening the opposition on one hand and prepare the public on the other?

    ReplyDelete
  3. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5044829/amp/Andrea-Leadsom-revealed-Fallon-s-secret-accuser.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 3 Nov 2017, 13:36:00,

      Thank you for the link.

      What would be interesting would be to also know who the other 39 leakers are as Michael Fallon is only but 1 of 40 accused.

      Also, it's quite strange to see Fallon resigning over inappropriate behaviour when in the list his accusation nothing refers about that.

      In fact, Fallon is one of those we have listed as not doing anything illegal!

      Interesting also to see the Daily Mail maintaining the focus on him. Maybe a coincidence?

      Delete
  4. Not one resignation when allegations are thrown around about kids and Heath,Tanner,Smith etc yet sexual impropriety against adults is met with two one from each party,go figure.
    I mentioned before about who was HS when files into child abuse were lost,May!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon 14.24.00,The House of Common's and Lords is being shown up for what it is all about,an"Old Boy's network"? Where you can carry on with whatever you perceived to undertake in that role,claim expenses,salaries for staff or employ spouses,close family or friends?
      If you have shown to be a good clean pair of hands,rise up the"Greasy Pole"in the House of Lords,make claims as above on £300.00 per day,plus sit in Directorships galore collecting massive remunerations during your time in the Pre-Retirement,whilst the "Plebicites"continue to be divested of their incomes,through their life span,showing the immense"Inequalities"within the UK?
      These parasites do not give a **it for whom they trample on,as long as they have such a good varied life style?
      Just take a look at the Billions of pounds of costs to the Tax payer,collapsed Court Trails, unsolved Murder of Daniel Morgan,Various big Bank Heists,Police forces responsibility,(Turned up at the scene,recording No Criminal activity? Phone Tapping Scandal,Leveson Inquiry and what did that resolve,absolutely sweet F/A
      IICSA Inquiry Five to Ten Years when the guilty parties will be due to expire their life anyway,after being "Covered Up"for the past fifty to Sixty years?
      Lord Dennings Profumo Scandal Original report opened in 2064,well done dodgy Dave,saved the Mother In-Laws(Lady Astor) name being bandied about?
      It has been reported,that,Harriet,H,dodgy Dave and Bojo are all relatives or descendants to Royalty,via various Bloodlines?
      Harriet was involved with a group in the 1970's that became embroiled in the PIE group Civil liberties,this group PIE,propositioned MP's to lower the age of Sex to Ten to Twelve year olds,now seriously,this fine bunch of understanding person's were contemplating these actions,it must set alarm bells ringing,with what is being uncovered,what was covered up by these MP's Lords of the Establishment?

      Delete
    2. My post 3 Nov 16.58.00
      as now revealed,"The Paradise Papers"or Parasite Papers a far better name,Lord Ashcroft scuttling away to the safe Heaven of a "Toilet block",with Richard Bilton on his coat tails,hllarious?

      Delete
  5. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41854582

    Andrea Leadsom did not call for Fallon's sacking says No 10

    It’s like a British pantomime - Oh yes she did! Oh no she didn’t!

    ReplyDelete
  6. From the Mail on Line this morning,some one questioning grange,coincidence perchance.


    [quote]Given that Mrs Murat (whose son Robert was arrested as a suspect two weeks after Madeleine’s disappearance, but cleared of any involvement) raised the alarm about the woman on the morning after the alleged abduction, it must be asked why it has taken ten years for attention to focus on this suspect? Equally pertinent, perhaps, is the question: why is the British taxpayer being asked to finance Operation Grange further when all other leads have come to dispiriting dead-ends[quote]

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5048349/The-TWO-vital-Maddie-questions.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It also asks why the McCanns were not interviewed.....tho the woman in purple is old hat!

      Delete
    2. 09.36
      Wasn't that the exact same thing -asking why McCanns never focus of OG- that Colin Sutton did to convince us that he was on our side?

      Delete
    3. Yes - as soon as we see Sutton's name featuring we know this is from the 'other side'. At least one of the messages the article aims to put across is 'This is a really objective article as you can see -it questions why the Mc Canns and friends were not interviewed so it must be objective and impartial. Mind you - am really satisfied and accept that they weren't interviewed for good reason so never mind. '

      Just going to read the purple post again!

      Delete
    4. Hi Anon,12.27.00,I wonder if A/C, Mark Rowley's sphincter has had any movement or will he and his colleagues still try to be"Fine upstanding Personnel"on the Police questioning of Tapas 7/9 Parents issue?
      Especially as Kate,Gerry will be" Dreadfully Appalled"to have their Original statements closely looked into?
      Don't leave the Top off the"Correction Fluid Mark"as this has been known to alter the"Pattern of thought",Cognitive Dissonance?

      Delete
    5. My post 22.01.00,It seems as though the Scotland Yards finest may have solved the Madeleine McCann disappearance,it was the Widows,Dead Husband who was a "Paedophile"that Dunnit?
      According to the press,so No need for you Mark Rowley,to re-interview any of the Tapas 7/9 or Gerry,Kate?
      Dead Men tell No Tales,a bit like the Ben Needham case,South Yorkshire Police"It was the digger Driver that Dunnit,geddit?
      Where would we be without"Scotland Yards finest",according to the report,Source says,"There is No Evidence against them"(Widow,Dead Husband)so why are they trying So Hard to Trace someone,they have No Evidence against??

      Delete
    6. Unpublished Anonymous at 5 Nov 2017, 16:35:00,

      We are not publishing your comment because it attributes powers to Clarence Mitchell who we have repeatedly stated here that we consider to have been a mere clown from the outset and a pathetic one at that.

      Delete
  7. Further to my post linking to the MOL article,with the slew of news regarding even more scandals involving tory mp's now would be a good time to bury OG,if it doesn't happen we'll know its not going to and will go on to the bitter end,for some at least!

    ReplyDelete
  8. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5048349/The-TWO-vital-Maddie-questions.html

    ReplyDelete
  9. We will be providing our opinion later about today's Daily Mail's article, although - and this makes us very happy indeed - some of our readers have already said much of what we have to say.

    Meanwhile, we suggest the reading of our post "Woman-in-purple", if for nothing else, to judge the credibility of Jenny Murat's version of her woman in purple.
    http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2017/05/woman-in-purple.html

    ReplyDelete
  10. As Textusa said in the Woman in Purple post on 12th May - the woman in purple frightens 'The other side'. She presents a problem. It can't possibly be JT if 'In the past few months, the Grange team — now down to four detectives from a peak of 31 — has been criss-crossing Europe trying to locate the woman.'(according to Daily Mail article)'Unless the woman in purple is tracked down in the next few months, the moment of closure for Operation Grange is approaching.'

    Oh Dear... looking forward to hearing Textusa's views and interpretation of this article. To me it is sounding quite desperate from the other side... almost as if they are begging for titbits from an OG source as to where they are with the Purple woman.. the timing of the article - shows the other side ares still hard at work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 4 Nov 2017, 14:18:00,

      Sorry to disappoint you, and other readers, but looking at the issue with the attention it deserved, we have opted to write a post about it rather than a comment.

      Hope you understand, and serving as an appetizer we can can tell you that we think that this Daily Mail article was a very interesting and very informative move.

      Delete
  11. Jonathan Pie agrees with you Textusa on the sex pest list:
    https://youtu.be/OsXC1_ZoVdg

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 4 Nov 2017, 19:30:00,

      :))))

      Warning to readers, strong language used!

      Delete
  12. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/nov/04/damian-green-denies-pornography-was-found-on-his-commons-computer

    How low will they go to stay in europe.......

    ReplyDelete
  13. MADDIE HUNT TWIST Police investigating Madeleine McCann disappearance travel to Bulgaria in search of paedophile’s widow
    Detectives want to speak to a woman dressed in purple who was working with her husband near the Algarve holiday apartment where the three-year-old vanished in 2007
    EXCLUSIVE
    By Nick Pisa
    4th November 2017, 9:25 pm
    Updated: 5th November 2017, 3:25 am
    29

    DETECTIVES hunting for Madeleine McCann have travelled to Bulgaria to pursue a new lead, we can reveal.

    They are seeking a woman dressed in purple who may hold the key to the girl’s disappearance.


    Police hunting for Madeleine McCann have travelled to Bulgaria to pursue a new lead
    Her husband, now dead, is a convicted paedophile.

    The couple were working as domestic helpers near the Algarve holiday apartment where Madeleine vanished in 2007 aged three.

    Locals reported them to police but nothing was followed up until Scotland Yard officers re-examined statements.

    Witnesses said the woman was seen close to the Ocean Club complex in Praia da Luz where the McCanns were staying.


    Police are hunting a woman in purple who worked locally, whose husband was a convicted paedophile
    Parents Kate and Gerry, of Rothley, Leics, were dining nearby when Madeleine vanished in Praia da LuzREUTERS
    5
    Parents Kate and Gerry, of Rothley, Leics, were dining nearby when Madeleine vanished in Praia da Luz
    She and her husband vanished after Madeleine went missing.

    Cops have been unable to locate the wife despite extensive searches.


    A source said: “There is no evidence they were involved but it would be good to eliminate them from the investigation.”

    Parents Kate and Gerry, both 49, of Rothley, Leics, were dining nearby when Madeleine was taken but her younger twin siblings were left.


    Maddie's younger twin siblings were left when the three-year-old disappeared from their holiday rental apartmentREX FEATURES
    5
    Maddie's younger twin siblings were left when the three-year-old disappeared from their holiday rental apartment

    ReplyDelete
  14. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4843610/madeleine-mccann-woman-in-purple-bulgaria/

    Link for above.....The bold Nick Pisa!!

    Bampots

    ReplyDelete
  15. Brilliant piece,"her husband now dead is a convicted paedophile",on the one hand he his in the past tense(dead) next in the present tense "is a convicted paedophile",not was.Is it really that hard to write a story.
    In the meantime knowing the husband is dead means that there is/was a paper trail,death certificate etc,yet they can't find the wife,you couldn't make it up,except they have.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Q. Relative to whether I know Jane Tanner;
    Now I know her name, description of the clothes and photos which I have seen in the press. At that time I knew of her as a member of the group but did not know her name. I do not remember having seen her when I spoke with Gerry, but I believe I saw her when I first ventured out. She was stopped on the street in front of one of the group's apartments when I passed her down towards the exit to my apartment. I do not know if it was her apartment or not. I remember that she was wearing the colour purple.

    http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS-ROGATORY.htm

    Bampots

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is exactly what I wanted to write today but this morning I fell asleep as it took me the night to do my navigation on TEXTUSA's blog.

      Anyway in TEXTUSA : "Sniffer dogs found scent of death", 08/2010 :
      "JEREMY WILKINS had already seen JANE TANNER earlier in the evening of May 3rd, standing outside an apartment, she was wearing a PURPLE dress."
      But several weeks later "JW received calls from Gerry, he wanted permission to use his name in Portfolio of evidence being compiles by the McCanns. They were very persistent and made several attempts to contact him both at work and at home...Wilkins had no objection to being included but concerned about the method being used....
      JW no longer recalls seeing Tanner earlier, in her purple dress.....". In : TEXTUSA : HOAX 2 THE FEAR. 08/2010.

      As to Neil TWEEDY's article for the Daily Mail :
      "Is this "woman in purple" who is keeping alive O. GRANGE ...? No, Neil, it is not Calamity Jane.
      Not her alone. It is all the people like you who continue to speak about "disappearance", "abduction","parents dined with friends nearby", mysterie", etc...

      + "Every parent will sympathise with their conviction ..."
      If you say so !
      + "..it is more than probable the woman in purple is unlikly to be the key to solving this mystery".
      If you say so !
      + "The demand from many quaters...McCanns, public, politicians for the investigation to continue...is entirely understable".
      Which parents ? Which public ? Which politicians ?

      Textusa, you said in a previous post you went to PdL and will adress us a post about your trip. I Wonder if you felt there that, according to "The Portugal News" : the one consistent sentiment among the Portuguese, who are very family-focused, is to ask why MMC and siblings were left alone" ?





      Delete
    2. "Despite a monumental effort, the case of MMC, one of the most haunting mysteries of modern times, is likely to remain just that". !!!!! JUST THAT ?
      No, Neil Tweedy. Not true, "Ask the dogs" !
      And now I can hear in my heart a little girl sighing :" Am I "JUST THAT", a case ? And Goncalo Amaral responding her together with TEXTUSA : " Madeleine, you now well what you represent to us, you are not a case, nor an abducted child, your are Madeleine. We will never let you down. We are your voice."
      From across the pond.





      Delete
    3. Why on earth anon 12.51 asking if you will address the ‘left alone’ issue???? It should be obvious that Textusa and team do NOT have anything to do with ‘left alone’!

      Delete
    4. The rest of my comment disappeared into the ether. It said :
      Sr Amaral did his job very well.
      Textusa, too.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous 5 Nov 2017, 13:20:00,

      In my visit to Praia da Luz this year, I didn’t speak to a single Portuguese person. Not even in Paraíso Restaurant where I had lunch. The waitress who served the table I sat at, was foreign.

      The receptionist at Tapas was British and I didn’t make any more contact with any other staff there.

      At the Millenium, I cannot recollect if the person who served me at the bar at the end of the stairs exiting the pool was Portuguese or not as the brief interaction was between this person, who I don’t even remember if it was a man or woman, and my friend and was purely and expectedly commercial and I wasn’t minimally interested in observing what nationalities the bar employees were.

      I did think that a family that was at Tapas was Portuguese but evidently not from Luz, as they were tourists. As a side-note, doesn’t anyone find very strange the strange absence of Portuguese people in the Ocean Club booking sheets?

      Let me inform you that the purpose of this visit was to meet a friend and in terms of case, to confirm some things and erase any doubts about others.

      The visit to Luz, to get to know and understand the village, I did that together with team in 2015, as we showed in our post “Praia da Luz”.
      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2015/10/praia-da-luz.html

      Now, as we had then, I confirmed the sensation there is no such thing as a “Portuguese community” of Praia da Luz.

      At least not one that may mingle with the tourists as Luz is a town of outsiders in the summer. A town of beach and pools. It has very little else to offer besides that and we’re not putting it down because many people seek such a destination.

      We would even say that it’s the opposite kind of town the other side wants us to believe it to be: perfect for families with young children that want to spend time with them (at the beach and pools) and not the kind that offered such a diversity of entertainment for parents that it was best for them to have their kids ‘deposited’ in ‘child-warehouses’ they want the public to believe Praia Luz was in 2007.

      We think that the Portuguese who do reside permanently in Luz are less well-off people.

      All minimally decent and decent housing either belong to foreigners (mainly British immigrants) or possibly to Portuguese who are not from Luz but own a holiday house there.

      We would say that the Portuguese residents of Luz, are modest people who cannot afford a house in nearby Lagos and either work in Lagos or for small businesses in Luz – which aren’t that many – or for larger businesses (such as the Ocean Club) owned by foreigners to the town, Portuguese but mostly of other nationalities.

      We would say that those people, the Portuguese residents, know what happened to Maddie, or better said know the circumstances surrounding what happened to Maddie and are aware of what secret is being kept, in the exact same way do the British immigrants who reside in Luz.

      The first keep silent out of fear and the second out of a mixture of personal interest (swingers being middle-upper and upper-class people always bring prestige and class to where they hang around) and an outdated but very real imperialistic arrogance that makes them think that as things happened between British people, involving British people and in a Little Britain, it’s not for the Portuguese to know or poke their native noses in, how dare they?

      So, answering your question: no, I didn’t ask nor did I see the need to ask any person from the Portuguese community in Luz about Maddie.

      And although Maddie’s presence is permanently felt anywhere in that village, it’s hardly a topic of conversation as everyone there knows it’s embarrassing to talk about her, so evident is the cover-up and so shameless it is.

      By the way, we published your comment only because we wanted to highlight all we have said above and your comment gave us the opportunity to do so.

      We inform you and other readers that any other comment implying, even if indirectly or in the middle of flattery, that negligence may have been real, will not be published in this blog.

      Delete
  17. Has the ECHR come to a decision? There is usually a reason when the British MSM bombard us with drivel like this.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I think that we can be fairly confident that the ECHR decision (when it comes) will be that the McCann appeal will be denied.

    "....the grounds for appeal to the European Court of Human Rights are “highly dubious”, said a source, particularly as Supreme Court judges referred to tenets set out by the ECHR in their 75-page deliberation."

    http://portugalresident.com/mccann%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cfrivolity%E2%80%9D-complaint-rejected-gon%C3%A7alo-amaral%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%98libel-win%E2%80%99-confirmed-for-3rd-time

    ReplyDelete
  19. It never stops does it?

    https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/657850/Maddie-McCann-psychic-claims-tot-still-alive-after-being-snatched-child-trafficker

    Bampots

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bampots,

      Never underestimate the power of the ridiculous.

      For example, in slapstick comedy, often many get pies in their faces.

      Dubiously funny unquestionably not surprising. But some of the cream always drops onto the clothes the "pied" is wearing.

      Long after the pie is cleaned off their faces, their clothes continue to carry the stains. Sometimes for a very long time.

      So long that people forget they came from something utterly ridiculous and only see the stain, which is real and not ridiculous at all.

      Delete
  20. Unpublished Anonymous st 6 Nov 2017, 21:05:00

    Could you please clarify what you mean by "your Rata post" so we can see if we can publish your comment?

    Thank you

    ReplyDelete
  21. http://textusa.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/rats.html#more

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 6 Nov 2017, 21:55:00,

      Thank you.

      This is the comment we received and about which we asked for clarification and got it:

      "Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Sex-shaming":

      I was reading your Rata post lately Textusa and it looks like the murats are amoung the rats if the Daily mail article is anything to go by. BTW the online article has a few videos of McCanns interviews. How cringeworthy is the 1 from 2012 when she talks about the other 2 children continuing on with their search. They really never thought it would come to the truth being exposed

      Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 6 Nov 2017, 21:05:00"

      Delete
  22. Hi textusa,not wishing to cause any distress to Mrs Sargeant's family over the loss of her Husband,Mr.Carl Sargeant.
    It has been reported to the MSM,that Mr Sargeant,was sacked from his position on the grounds of"Unwanted attention,inappropriate touching or Groping",before any inquiry had found any evidence of misconduct?
    The tragic loss of a human life has happened.
    That due to the serious nature of unreported allegations involving the Members of the House of Commons for many years and has exacerbated the reports in todays News Paper headlines,is where we are today.
    How many allegations have the public not heard of?
    If these MP's had learnt how to conduct themselves properly in the First place,perhaps the public would never have had the right to look into these allegations,but when you Police yourself?
    The public are told of Fights,drunkeness between various MPs and now of how they had junior members being assisted out of these Subsidised Bars,to sleep off the effects of Alcohol?
    Surely these Bars must need be closed down if they are effecting how they conduct themselves beyond the seeing eyes of the public?
    If people are found to be guilty of any misconduct they suffer the consequences,but sometimes the"Braying Hounds method"can be used to snap out proper investigations?
    RIP Mr Carl Sargeant,condolences to the family.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 8 Nov 2017, 16:07:00,

      All we can say is that Carl Sargeant was not part of the sex-pest list.

      We will refrain from commenting on this issue and just join you in saying RIP Mr Carl Sargeant,condolences to the family.

      Delete

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.

Textusa