Stop the press, hold the front page, I am about to share with you a simple, perfect recipe for a vegetable curry that will satisfy your need for an unhealthy takeaway! The vegetables can be varied according to what you have in the fridge, but potatoes are essential.
1 Onion
1 Clove garlic
1 tsp curry powder
1 tsp cumin
1 tsp coriander
1 tsp turmeric
1tsp garam masala
Olive oil for frying
Stock cube (chicken or veg)
400ml boiling water
2 medium potatoes
2 sweet potatoes
Small cauliflower
75g red split lentils
Equipment
Jug to make stock
Large frying pan with lid (or large saucepan)
Sharp knife
Vegetable chopping board
Sieve
First, prepare all vegetables, finely chop the onion and crush the garlic. Peel and chop potatoes into chunks of about 3 centimetres, a bit bigger for the sweet potatoes as they cook more quickly. Then break up cauliflower into small florets of similar size. Chopping is the crucial stage, you do not want vegetables too small as they will break up during cooking.
Wash the lentils in a sieve under a running tap.
Make up stock with stock cube and boiling water.
Now we are ready to cook. Heat oil in pan and fry onion and garlic, start to add spices and vegetable chunks until all are coated and lightly fried, then add stock and lentils, stir gently, then simmer with lid on for 25/30 mins, adjust liquid as necessary, according to how thick you want the gravy to be. Taste and adjust seasoning as necessary. Resist the urge to stir unnecessarily, you want the vegetables to cook through but you want them to stay whole.
To bump up the vegetable count, I added chopped mushrooms at the frying stage, and sprinkled half a cup of frozen peas on the top a few moments before serving. I served it with home made chapatis (flour, oil, water and salt) and the general consensus was 'to die for'.
I thought I would share it here, as I am involved in an exciting local cooking project and testing recipes. Indian cookery is a new venture for me, so above may not be as authentic as it could be, but as it can be knocked up with what you have in the store cupboard and fridge, I simply had to pass it on!
For anyone starting out on Indian cookery the main spices you need will be cumin, coriander, turmeric, garam masala and curry powder - once you have those, the world is your curried lobster!
Ps. Make sure lentils are thoroughly cooked, they should turn to mush.
Sunday, 27 July 2014
Friday, 25 July 2014
DEAR CRISTOBELL - the alternate advice column
From: Iris Wotthefucksheupto
Dear Cristobell,
My husband has started to act most peculiar in the bedroom. During our err, intimate moments, he growls as if he were a lion. A sort of long drawn out grrr before he pounces on me. I am a sensitive woman and see this as display of machismo, so I try not laugh, although all my mates think it is hilarious. However, I do not wish to hurt his feelings but he has taken to sneaking up behind me and purring in my ear, at the most unexpected moments. There was a very unfortunate incident with the Sunday Roast. Can you advise:
Cristobell Reply:
You are indeed a sensitive woman Iris, apart from the mates bit. Whilst, I applaud your compassionate nature - laugh you must. Failure to do so could lead to all sorts, such as the Silverback chest hammering, or crotch grabbing accompanied by a grunt. It is not to be encouraged, you are a lady!
But I sense you are concerned he might eat you. Perhaps he is turning into a werewolf? Check the back of his hands - you are looking for extra hair, you should also take a close look at the top of his feet. Has he allowed his toenails to grow? Do his arms seem a little bit longer? Does he howl when there is a full moon? We already know he salivates at the sight of meat, or was it a vegetarian nut roast? A crucial question, a nut roast would rule out the whole need for a demon hunter and a silver bullet, always a big investment.
There are of course, alternate ways to handle the situation. You could join in the game, if he wants to be cat, you be a dog? Try barking at him ferociously and see if he jumps on the sideboard. I’m not into role playing myself, playfully tell a guy he looks cute with your lipstick on, and the next thing you know he’s dressed up in your basque and stockings.
Once you have ruled out the whole demon thing, there is no need for further action, and who knows, grrrring might be fun!
Dear Cristobell,
My husband has started to act most peculiar in the bedroom. During our err, intimate moments, he growls as if he were a lion. A sort of long drawn out grrr before he pounces on me. I am a sensitive woman and see this as display of machismo, so I try not laugh, although all my mates think it is hilarious. However, I do not wish to hurt his feelings but he has taken to sneaking up behind me and purring in my ear, at the most unexpected moments. There was a very unfortunate incident with the Sunday Roast. Can you advise:
Cristobell Reply:
You are indeed a sensitive woman Iris, apart from the mates bit. Whilst, I applaud your compassionate nature - laugh you must. Failure to do so could lead to all sorts, such as the Silverback chest hammering, or crotch grabbing accompanied by a grunt. It is not to be encouraged, you are a lady!
But I sense you are concerned he might eat you. Perhaps he is turning into a werewolf? Check the back of his hands - you are looking for extra hair, you should also take a close look at the top of his feet. Has he allowed his toenails to grow? Do his arms seem a little bit longer? Does he howl when there is a full moon? We already know he salivates at the sight of meat, or was it a vegetarian nut roast? A crucial question, a nut roast would rule out the whole need for a demon hunter and a silver bullet, always a big investment.
There are of course, alternate ways to handle the situation. You could join in the game, if he wants to be cat, you be a dog? Try barking at him ferociously and see if he jumps on the sideboard. I’m not into role playing myself, playfully tell a guy he looks cute with your lipstick on, and the next thing you know he’s dressed up in your basque and stockings.
Once you have ruled out the whole demon thing, there is no need for further action, and who knows, grrrring might be fun!
Friday, 18 July 2014
Have The Six Hundred been arrested for Cybercrime?
The majority of the public will see the 660 headline and the 50,000 paedophiles living and working among us, and will vote for any government brave enough to root them out. We will accept the figures without question and hug our children a little closer, clearly we are surrounded by perverts.
Lets take the word paedophilia out of the crime for a moment, and effectively, what we have seen is 660 people arrested for cyber crime, I refer t them as The Six Hundred, as they do indeed now face a Valley of Death. This is a case where innocent until proven guilty matters not a jot. We don't know the details, we don't need to know the details, they're yucky, paedophilia of whatever category is a capital offence right?
But before we fire up the bonfires, shouldn't we have some sort of adult debate? Following the case of missing Madeleine McCann has given me some insight into government and media tactics of using sensational headlines to make us 'look over here, not over there'.
From the scant details available, only 39 of those arrested were registered sex offenders. That means that 621 were not. I want to know why not? Are we to believe that these men have never, ever, been reported for abusing children in the real world? If it follows that viewing child pornography leads to abuse then there must be real victims. So why have the 621 men never been reported, and if they were, why was no action taken?
What constitutes an indecent picture of a child? If a mother posts a picture of her child in the bath, is she sharing underage images? Ditto, ditsy teens sending 'selfies' to their friends via text. Everyone appears to be too coy, to question what the images were of. We have heard about the grotesque and the horror, but not about the majority, and I am assuming these weren't the majority as it would effectively mean children are being slaughtered on every street in Britain as we speak.
Lets take the hysteria out of the debate, and examine the crimes. How is child pornography categorized? There must be varying degrees. Does it involve children in varying stages of undress, or does it involve children dressed up a la tiny pageant queen Jonbenet Ramsey? Kiddie pageants have a huge paedophile following. Paedophilia is like any other crime, it has different branches, different tastes, different crimes there has to be a distinction between the lonely outcast who's crime is seriously bad taste in porn, but has harmed no-one and the actions of prolific child abuser with access to thousands of kids.
Unfortunately, due to the 'delicacy' of the subject, the public won't ask questions. Paedophilia has become the new terrorism, the threat to our children that will lead even the most rational among us to shout encore when a politician suggests policing the internet. No-one will question, or God forbid, defend the 600 for fear of being accused themselves. We have a perfect 'Crucible' situation, paedophiles are this century's witches, the evil that lies at the heart of society. Effectively, they are being arrested for cyber crime, and from a freedom of speech and human rights perspective, that is a very dangerous path to go down.
In recent years, paedophile rings have been uncovered through the bravery of the victims and the whistleblowers, NOT the internet. In the case of Jimmy Savile, isn't it strange that the real reports made to the police about him were ignored for decades? If he had taken time away from the actual abusing to download images he would have been picked up within seconds!
'The smallest minority on the earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities' - Ayn Rand
Monday, 14 July 2014
PAEDOS IN THE PANTRY - In Support of Stephen Fry
I am a care leaver and a campaigner for victims of child abuse. I thought I had better establish my credentials before the accusations of paedophile supporter start flying into my mailbox. The truth is I agree wholeheartedly with Stephen Fry and I applaud him for his bravery in standing up and calling a spade a spade. He may not thank me for this, but he's the little boy with the guts to say 'the Emperor's got no clothes'.
Rooting out elderly men who groped their underage secretaries 40 years ago, does nothing whatsoever to assist the genuine victims of child abuse. Too many of the complaints are scant, trivial and unsubstantiated, yet lives are being ruined because we appear to be in the middle of a witch hunt against society's new enemy. The Paedophile.
Will we learn anything new from it? Not really, perhaps don't give the keys of a high security hospital to a narcissistic psychopath. But in most societies that's a given. Removing the lonely oddbod who looks up girls in knickers in his lonely bedsit, won't save any lives, the chances are, he's terrified of kids*. Making a psychological evaluation of those with power of vulnerable people (its not just kids) would be far more effective and would save thousands more lives.
During one Government purge against the new enemy, 140 kids were taken into care, and 39 men committed suicide (Operation Ore). That wasn't justice, that was barbarity. Kids in care by the way are the most likely to be abused, so how goes it for that 140? Most of those accused were acquitted, but their lives were ruined. Have we ever seen figures of how many children were actually saved?
For whatever reasons the authorities have created a storm about paedophiles in our midst that simply isn't true. I feel as though we are entering an era of 'reds under the beds', but now it seems to be paedos in the pantries.
It is completely false to claim that our children are in constant danger from strangers in parks and on the internet. The majority of children, probably 99%, are abused within their own homes and by people who know them. Stranger danger is so rare, most of us can count on one hand and name the poor mites who were snatched.
If this new band of paedophile hunters genuinely cared about child abuse, they would focus their resources on the abuse that is happening every day within thousands of homes up and down the land, not on inappropriate hanky panky from 40 years ago. If the frontline resources dealing with such tragic cases as Baby P, had anything like the funding given to this new moral crusade how many thousands of real children could be saved? Ones for whom we do have facts, figures and statistics.
This is not about finding those abusing children, it is about feathers in caps. Macho men trying to prove how much testosterone is running through their manly biceps as they smash in the heads of the sexual deviants and show the world what good, clean family values they have. And of course the audience applauds because everyone one wants to string up a paedophile don't they? As the loudhailer yells 'will those who don't, please form an orderly line for the ducking stool'.
I actually feel for the men who are the victims of this latest police purge. Mostly because they cannot speak out, and people cannot be seen to support them. Paedophilia is the most heinous crime any person can be accused of, ergo they are scuppered before they can even begin their defence. For many, the offences they are accused of are so trivial and banal, that the sane among us would dismiss them in an instant. Unfortunately, when a crusade is underway, sanity flies out the window.
My views on paedophiles has changed considerably over the years, mostly because I have taken the time and trouble to study the subject. Unfortunately, open discussion about the issue always begins and ends with hysteria. Those trying to point out the sheer fruitless, and maybe sinister, reasons behind investigating crimes that happened decades ago, will always be shot down and accused of supporting paedophilia. It always ends the discussion, which is probably intentional. Its one of those, 'you are either with us, or against us' issues that make otherwise normal people's boil, to the point where they become totally irrational.
Stephen Fry will no doubt come under heavy fire, but I say bravo to him, those who pointed out the madness of the USA's McCarthy trials were similarly vilified and history proved them dead right.
* I once had care of an elderly disabled man with learning difficulties who had a penchant for school girls in mini skirts, he would probably tick many of 'r u a paedo' boxes, he hung around parks, and he googled kids in knickers. But he was a gentle and harmless soul, and crucifying him would be reminiscent of the hanging of Quasimodo in the Hunchback of Notre Dame. What a cruel world this is, if this is what society wants.
Rooting out elderly men who groped their underage secretaries 40 years ago, does nothing whatsoever to assist the genuine victims of child abuse. Too many of the complaints are scant, trivial and unsubstantiated, yet lives are being ruined because we appear to be in the middle of a witch hunt against society's new enemy. The Paedophile.
Will we learn anything new from it? Not really, perhaps don't give the keys of a high security hospital to a narcissistic psychopath. But in most societies that's a given. Removing the lonely oddbod who looks up girls in knickers in his lonely bedsit, won't save any lives, the chances are, he's terrified of kids*. Making a psychological evaluation of those with power of vulnerable people (its not just kids) would be far more effective and would save thousands more lives.
During one Government purge against the new enemy, 140 kids were taken into care, and 39 men committed suicide (Operation Ore). That wasn't justice, that was barbarity. Kids in care by the way are the most likely to be abused, so how goes it for that 140? Most of those accused were acquitted, but their lives were ruined. Have we ever seen figures of how many children were actually saved?
For whatever reasons the authorities have created a storm about paedophiles in our midst that simply isn't true. I feel as though we are entering an era of 'reds under the beds', but now it seems to be paedos in the pantries.
It is completely false to claim that our children are in constant danger from strangers in parks and on the internet. The majority of children, probably 99%, are abused within their own homes and by people who know them. Stranger danger is so rare, most of us can count on one hand and name the poor mites who were snatched.
If this new band of paedophile hunters genuinely cared about child abuse, they would focus their resources on the abuse that is happening every day within thousands of homes up and down the land, not on inappropriate hanky panky from 40 years ago. If the frontline resources dealing with such tragic cases as Baby P, had anything like the funding given to this new moral crusade how many thousands of real children could be saved? Ones for whom we do have facts, figures and statistics.
This is not about finding those abusing children, it is about feathers in caps. Macho men trying to prove how much testosterone is running through their manly biceps as they smash in the heads of the sexual deviants and show the world what good, clean family values they have. And of course the audience applauds because everyone one wants to string up a paedophile don't they? As the loudhailer yells 'will those who don't, please form an orderly line for the ducking stool'.
I actually feel for the men who are the victims of this latest police purge. Mostly because they cannot speak out, and people cannot be seen to support them. Paedophilia is the most heinous crime any person can be accused of, ergo they are scuppered before they can even begin their defence. For many, the offences they are accused of are so trivial and banal, that the sane among us would dismiss them in an instant. Unfortunately, when a crusade is underway, sanity flies out the window.
My views on paedophiles has changed considerably over the years, mostly because I have taken the time and trouble to study the subject. Unfortunately, open discussion about the issue always begins and ends with hysteria. Those trying to point out the sheer fruitless, and maybe sinister, reasons behind investigating crimes that happened decades ago, will always be shot down and accused of supporting paedophilia. It always ends the discussion, which is probably intentional. Its one of those, 'you are either with us, or against us' issues that make otherwise normal people's boil, to the point where they become totally irrational.
Stephen Fry will no doubt come under heavy fire, but I say bravo to him, those who pointed out the madness of the USA's McCarthy trials were similarly vilified and history proved them dead right.
* I once had care of an elderly disabled man with learning difficulties who had a penchant for school girls in mini skirts, he would probably tick many of 'r u a paedo' boxes, he hung around parks, and he googled kids in knickers. But he was a gentle and harmless soul, and crucifying him would be reminiscent of the hanging of Quasimodo in the Hunchback of Notre Dame. What a cruel world this is, if this is what society wants.
Monday, 23 June 2014
Seven Years On and Still No Evidence of an Abductor
For 7 years now, the UK's great, good and influential have promoted Kate and Gerry McCann as the victims of an inferior nation's corrupt police force. They have shamelessly exploited the little englander prejudices of the nation's tabloid headline skimmers, to promote a mythical lost child and a couple who's happiness depends on the public's love for them.
Madeleine's abduction was manna from heaven for those who would have us believe child predators lurk on every corner and that there is an all pervading evil at the heart of the internet. Freedom of information is bad for us, but no-one's going to buy that, so they tell us our children are in danger and we all take up arms and hand over our DNA. Therein lies the conspiracy.
The abduction 'Lie' worked as well for the authorities as it did for the parents. Here was tangible proof that our youngest and most vulnerable are at constant risk from strangers. The government were shamelessly preying on our primal instincts to protect our young over ourselves (take note K&G). Kate and Gerry's flying the flag for Amber Alert (and eventual microchipping) went hand in hand with their 'search' for Madeleine. So too the McCanns' enthusiasm for restrictions on our 'free' press. They volunteered for the Leveson Enquiry, wrote the scripts for Hacked Off and put on their best hang dog expressions as 'victims' of what freedom of speech can do when you let it run wild.
But lets start at the beginning. Theshow case opened in a huge blaze of publicity, the like of which we have never seen before. Everyone wanted to help, and wanted to be seen helping. Nothing like a 'good cause' to boost one's popularity. Every canny politician, pope, newspaper baron and dodgy policeman wanted a big slice of the popular Missing Maddie pie. An attractive, cherubic tot, stolen from the safety of her bed hit a nerve with the public. We all put our kids to bed and expect them to be safe, the public's outrage at the scenario put forward by the McCanns blinded many to the reality of what actually happened.
The McCanns left 3 children under the age of 4 alone in their holiday apartment every night. The Tapas bar, was nothing like 'eating in your back garden', it was out of sight and sound and the danger to the children was further increased by the patio doors being left open. Their claim that they checked on their children every half hour is questionable, one witness claimed that one night she heard a child crying for over an hour.
Normal parents don't do that, and it shames those who claimed they did. It is child endangerment and it is cruel by any nationality's standards, including those of the British. The biggest danger to toddlers left on their own in an unfamiliar apartment is an accidental fall - it is a zillion times more likely than a random paedophile stumbling across an unlocked door.
Why did so many journalists dismiss the 'neglect' angle as an 'easy mistake' and 'something we all do'? In their efforts to spare the parents' feelings, the neglect element of this case was completely whitewashed and with it the opportunity to point out the dangers in leaving babies unattended. They opted to promote an irrational fear of child predators so that young families could never enjoy a relaxing holiday again.
During the course of the original PJ investigation, and at the suggestion of the British police, Scotland Yard's top blood and cadaver dogs were brought in. They alerted behind the sofa in the front room, in the wardrobe of the parents' bedroom, to items belonging to Kate, including 'Cuddlecat' and to the hire car. They only alerted to McCann related items - nowhere else. As they did not find a body, this is only deemed 'intelligence', but it takes a huge stretch of the imagination to accept Gerry's mantra of 'no evidence Madeleine has come any harm'.
Despite the evidence of the expert dogs, everything pointing towards a fake abduction and the Portuguese police naming Kate and Gerry as Arguidoes (suspects) in the disappearance of their daughter, the McCanns were feted in the UK as the conquering heroes of third world injustice. The word of the two arguidoes was believed over that of the Portuguese investigating police officers the Portuguese judiciary and the barks of the dogs. The McCanns were officially innocent in the eyes of the British establishment and the negative publicity towards the Portuguese police began in earnest.
But did the Portuguese police bungle the first investigation? Lets look at the facts. The first two policemen who arrived on the scene in PDL that night (charmingly re-named Tweedledum and Tweedledee by Kate in her book) described the parents strange behaviour in their statements, and it was later reported that they suspected a staged abduction.
The PJ conducted the biggest search in Portugal's history for a lost child, and they conducted a thorough investigation (confirmed by the release of the files) - no evidence has ever been found of an abduction. The only suspects at the end of the original investigation were Robert Murat and Kate and Gerry McCann.
Contrary to the Team McCann press releases, Kate and Gerry were never cleared, in fact the final report from the Portuguese Attorney General states 'they [the McCanns] lost the opportunity to prove their innocence'
The British press have portrayed the McCanns as the grief stricken parents of a missing child who have done everything in their power to find their daughter, whilst anyone who passes even a cursory glance over the facts of the case will see that Kate McCann stopped answering police questions on 7th September 2007. They will also see that the McCanns and and their holiday friends refused to return for a reconstruction. In this country such behaviour from a suspect would be described as not co-operating with the police, but in the topsy turvey world of McCann, the fault is seen with the Portuguese investigation rather than the suspects.
Seven years on and no police force has been able to come up with an abductor, and if those two police forces continue to ignore that which is directly in front of them, then it will continue for another seven years. Scotland Yard's search for an abductor has been and continues to be as fruitless as the searches by the fraudulent detectives hired by Mr and Mrs McCann. You cannot find someone who doesn't exist, how many times over do the police have to prove that to themselves, before they accept they are looking for the invisible man - a 'Bogey Man' made up by the McCanns to explain their daughter's disappearance.
They won't find him, because he doesn't exist. He is as fake as the bogey man parents used in the past to scare kids into staying in their rooms and going to sleep. Now, one of the world's proudest police forces are actively looking for him and the world looks on in wonder. Perhaps they will also find Peter Pan and the witch who stole Hansel and Gretal.
This case did not need millions of pounds invested in it, and it didn't need a 37 strong Scotland Yard task force to rubber stamp the Portuguese investigation, or whatever it is they are doing. In what universe are suspects allowed the option of a second opinion before co-operating with a police investigation?
The case was solved 7 years ago, indeed some might say, the case was solved that very first night. Perhaps they should have saved a few million quid and had a quick word with Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
No disrespect to the GNR officers intended. http://www.mccannfiles.com/id258.html
Madeleine's abduction was manna from heaven for those who would have us believe child predators lurk on every corner and that there is an all pervading evil at the heart of the internet. Freedom of information is bad for us, but no-one's going to buy that, so they tell us our children are in danger and we all take up arms and hand over our DNA. Therein lies the conspiracy.
The abduction 'Lie' worked as well for the authorities as it did for the parents. Here was tangible proof that our youngest and most vulnerable are at constant risk from strangers. The government were shamelessly preying on our primal instincts to protect our young over ourselves (take note K&G). Kate and Gerry's flying the flag for Amber Alert (and eventual microchipping) went hand in hand with their 'search' for Madeleine. So too the McCanns' enthusiasm for restrictions on our 'free' press. They volunteered for the Leveson Enquiry, wrote the scripts for Hacked Off and put on their best hang dog expressions as 'victims' of what freedom of speech can do when you let it run wild.
But lets start at the beginning. The
The McCanns left 3 children under the age of 4 alone in their holiday apartment every night. The Tapas bar, was nothing like 'eating in your back garden', it was out of sight and sound and the danger to the children was further increased by the patio doors being left open. Their claim that they checked on their children every half hour is questionable, one witness claimed that one night she heard a child crying for over an hour.
Normal parents don't do that, and it shames those who claimed they did. It is child endangerment and it is cruel by any nationality's standards, including those of the British. The biggest danger to toddlers left on their own in an unfamiliar apartment is an accidental fall - it is a zillion times more likely than a random paedophile stumbling across an unlocked door.
Why did so many journalists dismiss the 'neglect' angle as an 'easy mistake' and 'something we all do'? In their efforts to spare the parents' feelings, the neglect element of this case was completely whitewashed and with it the opportunity to point out the dangers in leaving babies unattended. They opted to promote an irrational fear of child predators so that young families could never enjoy a relaxing holiday again.
During the course of the original PJ investigation, and at the suggestion of the British police, Scotland Yard's top blood and cadaver dogs were brought in. They alerted behind the sofa in the front room, in the wardrobe of the parents' bedroom, to items belonging to Kate, including 'Cuddlecat' and to the hire car. They only alerted to McCann related items - nowhere else. As they did not find a body, this is only deemed 'intelligence', but it takes a huge stretch of the imagination to accept Gerry's mantra of 'no evidence Madeleine has come any harm'.
Despite the evidence of the expert dogs, everything pointing towards a fake abduction and the Portuguese police naming Kate and Gerry as Arguidoes (suspects) in the disappearance of their daughter, the McCanns were feted in the UK as the conquering heroes of third world injustice. The word of the two arguidoes was believed over that of the Portuguese investigating police officers the Portuguese judiciary and the barks of the dogs. The McCanns were officially innocent in the eyes of the British establishment and the negative publicity towards the Portuguese police began in earnest.
But did the Portuguese police bungle the first investigation? Lets look at the facts. The first two policemen who arrived on the scene in PDL that night (charmingly re-named Tweedledum and Tweedledee by Kate in her book) described the parents strange behaviour in their statements, and it was later reported that they suspected a staged abduction.
The PJ conducted the biggest search in Portugal's history for a lost child, and they conducted a thorough investigation (confirmed by the release of the files) - no evidence has ever been found of an abduction. The only suspects at the end of the original investigation were Robert Murat and Kate and Gerry McCann.
Contrary to the Team McCann press releases, Kate and Gerry were never cleared, in fact the final report from the Portuguese Attorney General states 'they [the McCanns] lost the opportunity to prove their innocence'
The British press have portrayed the McCanns as the grief stricken parents of a missing child who have done everything in their power to find their daughter, whilst anyone who passes even a cursory glance over the facts of the case will see that Kate McCann stopped answering police questions on 7th September 2007. They will also see that the McCanns and and their holiday friends refused to return for a reconstruction. In this country such behaviour from a suspect would be described as not co-operating with the police, but in the topsy turvey world of McCann, the fault is seen with the Portuguese investigation rather than the suspects.
Seven years on and no police force has been able to come up with an abductor, and if those two police forces continue to ignore that which is directly in front of them, then it will continue for another seven years. Scotland Yard's search for an abductor has been and continues to be as fruitless as the searches by the fraudulent detectives hired by Mr and Mrs McCann. You cannot find someone who doesn't exist, how many times over do the police have to prove that to themselves, before they accept they are looking for the invisible man - a 'Bogey Man' made up by the McCanns to explain their daughter's disappearance.
They won't find him, because he doesn't exist. He is as fake as the bogey man parents used in the past to scare kids into staying in their rooms and going to sleep. Now, one of the world's proudest police forces are actively looking for him and the world looks on in wonder. Perhaps they will also find Peter Pan and the witch who stole Hansel and Gretal.
This case did not need millions of pounds invested in it, and it didn't need a 37 strong Scotland Yard task force to rubber stamp the Portuguese investigation, or whatever it is they are doing. In what universe are suspects allowed the option of a second opinion before co-operating with a police investigation?
The case was solved 7 years ago, indeed some might say, the case was solved that very first night. Perhaps they should have saved a few million quid and had a quick word with Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
No disrespect to the GNR officers intended. http://www.mccannfiles.com/id258.html
Friday, 20 June 2014
LAST MAN STANDING - Have faith Goncalo!
Why did Goncalo Amaral drop his bombshell on Monday morning by firing his lawyer and postponing the trial? We can only speculate as to his reasons. Has he gone off his head as some have suggested? No, I don't think so, but he may, understandably, be in a dark place, this trial is the culmination of 7 years of injustice. If we imagine an athlete training for years on end for their 30 seconds in the Olympic arena, we can gauge some idea as to how Goncalo might be feeling. He has to get this right.
More troubling for me is his cynical interview the night before, where he seems to believe the case of Missing Madeleine will end with an unknown burglar held responsible and the McCanns given carte blanche to pursue him for the rest of their natural lives. Ok, I added the second part, but that would not be paranoia on Goncalo's part, we all know that a 'Get Out Of Jail Free Card' for Kate and Gerry will unleash yet more of their spite in his direction.
In my opinion, Goncalo is catastrophizing, it is something we all do, particularly when we are under humungous stress. It happens to the best of us, even to those who would normally weigh up situations using logic and rationale. We imagine the very worst that could happen then convince ourselves that it will. In a crisis our memory seeks out a similar situation from our past which often causes us to react in a childlike way, perfectly illustrated by Kate's 'its not fair'.
I fear that on the eve of trial, Goncalo was imagining every worst case scenario. And who could blame him? Many of us have shared the journey with him, and have been as astounded as he at the appalling misuse of power in this case. At many times he must have felt as if he were the Last Man Standing, He has sacrificed literally everything, in a way that no one else caught up in this case has and I doubt anyone can know how he really feels. This dreadful case has been a huge shadow over his life and that of his family this past 7 years.
At this moment in time, he is The Last Man Standing. That is, he is the only one who has said a big fat NO to Kate and Gerry. No, I won't go along with your lies, and No, I won't help you to build your private business enterprise on the back of your missing 3 year old child. No, I will not give you my family's home and all of my earnings for the rest of my life.
The sad thing is, Goncalo is the only one challenging them, everyone else capitulated at the first hurdle. If Scotland Yard and the PJ do end the case with a mystery burglar and a Certificate of Innocence for the McCanns and their friends, then that's it. Kaput. No one has challenged them, and the likelihood is, no one ever will. The libel arm of the McCann Campaign will be back in business, and newspaper editors and private citizens alike may as well keep their cheque books handy, with a few made out to the sinister Fund in readiness.
Goncalo's fears at the moment may overshadow the rational part of his brain. He is too deeply imbedded in the case to see the light through the trees. The case is not limited to the last day, it will be based on all the evidence that has gone before, and the McCanns had no case. However, it is easy for an 'outsider' to say that, and hard to take in when you face losing everything. If he reads here, I would say have faith Goncalo. You have truth on your side, and your case not only went well, it went amazingly well!
There may have been a mix up over whether or not Goncalo would speak on the final day. I hope that he does, the world deserves to hear the Truth of the Lie from Dr. Amaral himself, and they need to be reminded that the victim in all this was Madeleine.
The Truth of Lie (English Translation) http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.co.uk/
- brilliant 'easy' read, can be read in one session - actually, unputdownable! GA is a gifted writer
For indepth research and discussion http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/portal
Monday, 5 May 2014
NO, NO, NO LABOUR!
I thought I was all done with watersheds, but as I approach my 57th year, I suddenly find myself distanced from the Labour Party I have supported all my life.
This proposed tax (and that is what it is) on alcohol will not stop binge drinking but it will stop ordinary families from having a bottle of wine with their Sunday dinner or a couple of pints in the pub after work. Do Labour really think they can stop problem drinking by raising the price of alcohol? Should the complete sentence really say: stop problem drinking among those who can't really afford it?
Have any of the advisory committee who came up with this ill thought out idea ever met an alcoholic? or indeed a drug addict? Do they honestly think price will put them off? Do they know how much drugs are and how much cash addicts hand over on a regular basis? Have they ever heard an addict, in any situation, say, well its gone up £10 a gram, so I won't bother anymore?
In their own world, MPs relax after work with a pint of beer or a fine claret, tickedy boo for them, but not good for the plebs. Is the plan to raise the price of alcohol across the board, the Dom Perignons and the Chablis, as well as the white ciders and the strong lagers. Or can those with superior taste buds and bigger salaries be trusted to behave?
Similarly, the nation's obesity problems will not be resolved by stopping poor kids from having sweets - forcing them to watch their richer peers stocking up on mars bars and kitkats will really hammer the good health message home. Nothing makes you feel better than watching your mates buy stuff you can't afford, and any future urges to binge will of course be unrelated.
The majority of working class parents, and indeed drinkers, are not stupid, and they use alcohol and treats in much the same way as the professional classes. Contrary to popular belief, and the belief of condescending labour politicians, most working class mums do not stuff chips in their babies mouths as soon as they get them home from hospital.
This generation of parents are far more enlightened than their predecessors, we all have 24/7 information via our tv screens, monitors and phones and most girls and young women know the exact calorie count of a Murray Mint and a medium sized grape.
The only way in which to combat growing obesity levels is through education. Find at least one hour a week in the curriculum to teach kids how to cook, how to prepare and how to enjoy healthy food. They will continue eating for the rest of their lives, its not something they can give up like algebra, food is essential and basic cookery lessons with give them life skills most will keep with them forever more. It really is that simple, kids love to cook, ask the class of 1970, who still know how to make a hearty stew and provide a nourishing meal for an invalid.
People cannot be forced to change their unhealthy eating habits or give up their nightly tipple by a shower of middle class busybodies telling them whats good for them. People who eat cream cakes until they weigh 70 stone have rather more problems than the price of their weekly shop. They will simply find another high calorific food source if bear claws are priced beyond their reach. The serious drinkers might of course try illegal potato vodka and end up irreparably maimed by their first sip thereby rendering their occasional use of NHS facilities permanent. The problem Mr. Milliband, is that addiction is a mental health problem that can only be resolved through the addict understanding their illness and making a conscious decision to try and resolve it.
The utilitarian approach of punishing the entire population, or should I say, the low paid and the unwaged, for the excesses of the few should be binned before a task force is set up to measure our waistlines and monitor our shopping lists. I already have nightmare visions of government officials weighing us at the checkouts and forcibly removing the boxes of Ferrara Rocher from our trollies, and the box of smarties hidden in our pockets.
Whilst the idea of getting the population hop, skipping and jumping towards the salad aisles might sound noble and philanthropic with your chums over a a fine port, when one is going home to a freezing cold bedsit, a hot sausage roll from Greggs (with added tax) is more appealing than an iceberg lettuce. It should also be mentioned that given the very limited resources of your core voters these days, binging on warm pastries is unlikely to be an option.
The problem drinkers, those clogging up the NHS will not stop drinking because the price of their tipple has gone up. Alcoholics ALWAYS find money for booze, even if it means the family has to cut down on food and the kids have to go without shoes. Alcoholism is an addiction that does not understand reason, logic and the need to budget sensibly. If an alcoholic is prepared to risk his or her life by downing a bottle of vodka in one, making it a pound dearer won't stop him. That is the reality. Addiction is the problem, not the price of a unit.
The kids knocking seven bells out of each other on the high streets, will not stop doing it because the drinks are crazy prices, they are already crazy prices, but it doesn't stop youngsters missing their Friday nights out, nor should it. The alcohol problem in Britain has naff all to do with the pricing and availability of alcohol, it is born out years of Nanny State rule, that doesn't have the courtesy to treat its citizens as independent, thinking, adults as other European countries do. We've always had to sup up quickly, before the last bell.
Kids who understand the dangers to their health of excessive drinking and the shame of out of control behaviour, are more likely to drink sensibly - and those who don't, learn the lesson like every generation before them, the hard way. Education is the only effective way to change attitudes and behaviour Mr. Milliband, not 50p on an alcopop.
I sometimes wonder if the Labour Party have now bought into the 'bash a benefit cheat or a poor person' ideology of their opposite numbers? Do they no longer have any desire to change the miserable lives of the downtrodden and the underprivileged through education and inspiration? The only way to stop destructive behaviour is through enlightenment. History has shown time and time again, that the lash does not change negative behaviour and good sound advice and law enforcement won't stop people drinking alcohol and partying like its 1999. The good health advice might be coming from a right on cool guy, but he's still the baptist preacher ranting about hell and damnation if we don't change our ways. The oldies are not always goodies. For those with addictions, they are already in hell.
If the government wants to make an impact on the future health of the nation, then it needs to target the youngsters who are attending school every day and who will benefit from an education in food technology for the rest of their lives, its like learning to drive, its something you never forget. If every child left school with even the most basic knowledge of nutrition and dietary needs, it would save billions in future NHS costs.
It is easier and of course, more profitable to opt for a solution to the nation's health problems with an idea that generates income rather than one that deals with the root cause and future prevention. Here's a wacky idea, if Labour really care about our health, how about lowering the price of healthy food, rather than raising the price of the junk?
This proposed tax (and that is what it is) on alcohol will not stop binge drinking but it will stop ordinary families from having a bottle of wine with their Sunday dinner or a couple of pints in the pub after work. Do Labour really think they can stop problem drinking by raising the price of alcohol? Should the complete sentence really say: stop problem drinking among those who can't really afford it?
Have any of the advisory committee who came up with this ill thought out idea ever met an alcoholic? or indeed a drug addict? Do they honestly think price will put them off? Do they know how much drugs are and how much cash addicts hand over on a regular basis? Have they ever heard an addict, in any situation, say, well its gone up £10 a gram, so I won't bother anymore?
In their own world, MPs relax after work with a pint of beer or a fine claret, tickedy boo for them, but not good for the plebs. Is the plan to raise the price of alcohol across the board, the Dom Perignons and the Chablis, as well as the white ciders and the strong lagers. Or can those with superior taste buds and bigger salaries be trusted to behave?
Similarly, the nation's obesity problems will not be resolved by stopping poor kids from having sweets - forcing them to watch their richer peers stocking up on mars bars and kitkats will really hammer the good health message home. Nothing makes you feel better than watching your mates buy stuff you can't afford, and any future urges to binge will of course be unrelated.
The majority of working class parents, and indeed drinkers, are not stupid, and they use alcohol and treats in much the same way as the professional classes. Contrary to popular belief, and the belief of condescending labour politicians, most working class mums do not stuff chips in their babies mouths as soon as they get them home from hospital.
This generation of parents are far more enlightened than their predecessors, we all have 24/7 information via our tv screens, monitors and phones and most girls and young women know the exact calorie count of a Murray Mint and a medium sized grape.
The only way in which to combat growing obesity levels is through education. Find at least one hour a week in the curriculum to teach kids how to cook, how to prepare and how to enjoy healthy food. They will continue eating for the rest of their lives, its not something they can give up like algebra, food is essential and basic cookery lessons with give them life skills most will keep with them forever more. It really is that simple, kids love to cook, ask the class of 1970, who still know how to make a hearty stew and provide a nourishing meal for an invalid.
People cannot be forced to change their unhealthy eating habits or give up their nightly tipple by a shower of middle class busybodies telling them whats good for them. People who eat cream cakes until they weigh 70 stone have rather more problems than the price of their weekly shop. They will simply find another high calorific food source if bear claws are priced beyond their reach. The serious drinkers might of course try illegal potato vodka and end up irreparably maimed by their first sip thereby rendering their occasional use of NHS facilities permanent. The problem Mr. Milliband, is that addiction is a mental health problem that can only be resolved through the addict understanding their illness and making a conscious decision to try and resolve it.
The utilitarian approach of punishing the entire population, or should I say, the low paid and the unwaged, for the excesses of the few should be binned before a task force is set up to measure our waistlines and monitor our shopping lists. I already have nightmare visions of government officials weighing us at the checkouts and forcibly removing the boxes of Ferrara Rocher from our trollies, and the box of smarties hidden in our pockets.
Whilst the idea of getting the population hop, skipping and jumping towards the salad aisles might sound noble and philanthropic with your chums over a a fine port, when one is going home to a freezing cold bedsit, a hot sausage roll from Greggs (with added tax) is more appealing than an iceberg lettuce. It should also be mentioned that given the very limited resources of your core voters these days, binging on warm pastries is unlikely to be an option.
The problem drinkers, those clogging up the NHS will not stop drinking because the price of their tipple has gone up. Alcoholics ALWAYS find money for booze, even if it means the family has to cut down on food and the kids have to go without shoes. Alcoholism is an addiction that does not understand reason, logic and the need to budget sensibly. If an alcoholic is prepared to risk his or her life by downing a bottle of vodka in one, making it a pound dearer won't stop him. That is the reality. Addiction is the problem, not the price of a unit.
The kids knocking seven bells out of each other on the high streets, will not stop doing it because the drinks are crazy prices, they are already crazy prices, but it doesn't stop youngsters missing their Friday nights out, nor should it. The alcohol problem in Britain has naff all to do with the pricing and availability of alcohol, it is born out years of Nanny State rule, that doesn't have the courtesy to treat its citizens as independent, thinking, adults as other European countries do. We've always had to sup up quickly, before the last bell.
Kids who understand the dangers to their health of excessive drinking and the shame of out of control behaviour, are more likely to drink sensibly - and those who don't, learn the lesson like every generation before them, the hard way. Education is the only effective way to change attitudes and behaviour Mr. Milliband, not 50p on an alcopop.
I sometimes wonder if the Labour Party have now bought into the 'bash a benefit cheat or a poor person' ideology of their opposite numbers? Do they no longer have any desire to change the miserable lives of the downtrodden and the underprivileged through education and inspiration? The only way to stop destructive behaviour is through enlightenment. History has shown time and time again, that the lash does not change negative behaviour and good sound advice and law enforcement won't stop people drinking alcohol and partying like its 1999. The good health advice might be coming from a right on cool guy, but he's still the baptist preacher ranting about hell and damnation if we don't change our ways. The oldies are not always goodies. For those with addictions, they are already in hell.
If the government wants to make an impact on the future health of the nation, then it needs to target the youngsters who are attending school every day and who will benefit from an education in food technology for the rest of their lives, its like learning to drive, its something you never forget. If every child left school with even the most basic knowledge of nutrition and dietary needs, it would save billions in future NHS costs.
It is easier and of course, more profitable to opt for a solution to the nation's health problems with an idea that generates income rather than one that deals with the root cause and future prevention. Here's a wacky idea, if Labour really care about our health, how about lowering the price of healthy food, rather than raising the price of the junk?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)