Sunday, 15 January 2017


Those who have been following my blogs over the past couple of weeks are saying that I have changed, that I have gone over to the 'dark side' and that I am now supporting Kate and Gerry McCann.  Some have been concerned (Ok, one person, thank you Liz) that I am having some sort of mental breakdown, that I'm not myself. Unfortunately, as I have multiple personalities, I'm not sure which one of us she means.  I jest, it's not necessarily a diagnosis I agree with, I think we all have different 'characters' for different situations and most of us can keep the mad ones hidden for most of the time.  

But it would be true to say I have been hurt.  I have written about the Madeleine case for many years, despite the severe detrimental effect it has had on my writing career and my reputation.  Why? because I hate injustice, and because a child shouldn't just disappear with seemingly no questions asked of those who had care of her.  

I'm not generally a bullet point maker, but on this occasion I will make an exception, because I want to highlight the issues in this case that keep me here and keeps me putting my neck on the line for justice.

1.  Responsible Parenting 

When Gerry was asked if there were any lessons to be learned, he replied with many words, but basically, 'yes, we didn't do anything wrong'. Wrong Answer! Not only were the suspects claiming they did nothing wrong, but so too were the dozy mares on breakfast TV and in the newspaper columns. 

There were of course vital lessons to be learned, lessons that were totally ignored in order not to hurt the parents feelings.  Children die, and that's heartbreaking, but the only way to make any sense of a child's death is to try to make something good come out of it.  That is, do everything in our power to prevent the same thing happening to another child. 

The Abductor, Child Predator, story was false.  Not only has it cost two governments millions, it has been used to scare parents into having their kids microchipped and demanding a national DNA databank.  The whole debacle created a budding new corporation and enriched existing charities. 

The issue of the McCanns and the Tapas group leaving their children on their own has not only been swept under the carpet, the government have built a flyover on it.  All those millions of tabloids sold in the name of Madeleine, were not warning their readers about the dangers of leaving toddlers unattended, they were all but putting out posters saying your child could be next.  It has created a culture where this generation are confined to their bedrooms eating pizza.  It breaks my heart that so many children today have so little freedom.  They are being indoctrinated to live in fear - the message, there is a predator behind every lamp post has been this century's best seller.  

Accidents in the home are the biggest danger for toddlers, and that is a lesson that should have been stressed over and over.  Ironic as this may sound, in the 1980's I watched a child safety documentary presented by Jimmy Savile.  As a new and pretty clueless young mum, I learned more in that hour than I could have in a hundred books. 

2.  The involvement of the 'Establishment'  

No matter which way you look at this case, the original investigation was scuppered by the interference of the UK (New) Labour government.  Since taking Goncalo Amaral off the case in September 2007, the case has not moved so much as inch forward. If Scotland Yard or the PJ make the slightest move towards the Mr and Mrs, an entire house of cards comes tumbling down.  It is abundantly clear they had lots of help, a fair few perverting the course of justice in a criminal investigation. 

To myself, and no doubt to many who have followed this case throughout, we can see the enormity of the crimes, and we are astonished today as we were 10 years ago, that nobody seems to care.  Unfortunately, huge miscarriages of justice occur daily, some, such as Hillsborough will never be forgotten because their supporters, bless them, will never give up on their loved ones and the appalling, spiteful decisions that led to their deaths.  Ninety six people died at Hillsborough, and the establishment's involvement in the cover up was 96 times greater.  This is just one small girl.

While the truth behind Madeleine's disappearance has the potential to grab world headlines, it has fallen way down the ladder, it is competing with so many sensational stories, cover ups, financial scandals, and a raving lunatic as US President, that it is unlikely ever to get the same attention again.  The zeitgeist has changed, human interest stories have been replaced by glitz and celebrity, not a path available to the pap loving McCanns. 

Will those responsible ever stand trial?  Despite all I have said above, there is still a glimmer of hope.  Operation Grange remains live, so too, as far as I know, does the PJ investigation.  The PJ of course, were quick enough to shelve the case in 2008 when they realised they did not have enough to prosecute, and they were adamant for several years that they would not 're-open' the file without new evidence.  That it is still 'live' in Portugal should mean something.

Before moving onto the next point, I would like to be clear about my sympathy for Kate McCann.  Yes I feel sorry for Kate, as I would for anyone in a wretched situation, even if that wretched situation is of their own making.  I guess I am one of the few people who wept when Saddam Hussein was dragged out of his bunker, stripped and beaten to death. 

I have stated again and again, that Law, Order and Retribution are really not my thing.  I am interested in crime because I study human behaviour, my quest is enlightenment.  The punishment part, not so much, OK, not at all.  It is an issue where I spend much of my time with my head in the sand.  It is not to say that I don't feel that anger and rage, I do, the face of Ian Huntley for example, incenses me, I don't think I could see him in the flesh without attacking him.

Now what I am about to say will infuriate my enemies even more, but Kate is not in the same category as monsters such as Ian Huntley or Mark Bridger, she is a mother for whom something went desperately wrong. Gerry was being truthful when he said 'there's been a disaster'.  That is she didn't kill her child for any sort of gratification, sexual or otherwise.  If there was a crime that night, it was a crime of passion.  Not premeditated or with malice aforethought.

The interim report of Tavares de Almeida concludes Madeleine died in the apartment and the parents did not want to give up the body. Anything else regarding the events of that evening is pure conjecture.  There is no mention of paedophile gangs, and no mention of orgies going on in the resort. 
The premeditated, malice aforethought crimes began in the aftermath, with the hiding of the body and the misinformation they were giving to the police and the media.  Far from going into a panic, they went into overdrive, their methodical scientific minds, planning not only ways in which to avoid any form of prosecution, but also ways in which to make a fortune. 

Though the financial crimes are whitecollar, they are just as damaging to their victims.  Millions in cash and resources has been diverted from genuine charities and genuine missing people.  People have been misled, taken for fools.  But the cruellest of their actions has been against Goncalo Amaral.  They have gone above and beyond to destroy his career and reputation, not because they were thinking about their daughter, but because they wanted vengeance. 

Had they confessed that night that there had been a terrible accident and that they were sorry they left the kids, they probably would have received compassion.  The public hatred for Kate and Gerry grew out of their lack of remorse - they have never blamed themselves, they have always blamed others.  But on top of that, they always looked so darn smug.  'What do you do if there is a sighting?' a reporter asked Gerry in the early days.  From the expression on his face, his first answer should have been 'try not to giggle', the second was 'not take them too seriously'.  Ie. the complete opposite of what you would expect from the father of a missing child.  They blame Goncalo Amaral, but their own expressions have told their story throughout. 

I don't think Kate deliberately killed her child.  Ergo, it is only natural that she would be bereaved.  I agree that didn't look like the case in the summer of 2007, both she and her husband thrived in the Portuguese sun, and that I think is something many of us find hard to forgive.  I can't because it shows a shallowness of feeling towards the child that reveals narcissism.  Any child, and there are many, who grew up with a narcissistic mother will have a deprived childhood.  Not in the sense of being deprived of food, warmth, or even suffering physical punishment, but in the withholding of affection, preference given to siblings and of course, jealousy. The narcissist mother will be jealous of the child who takes away attention that should belong to her.

Narcissistic mothers are so common, it doesn't count as abuse per se.  The child may grow up with self esteem issues, but they are just as likely to grow up twice as strong.  Little Madeleine I think, would have been the latter, as her nan said, 'that girl could throw a tantrum'.  The snippets we do know about Madeleine, show that she was not an abused child.  She had a wide vocabulary (always an indicator), she was outgoing and not afraid to stamp her feet.  Abused children have few words, and what they do have, they are afraid to use.

I want to see Kate and Gerry stand trial for every crime they have committed, but I don't see the need for internet researchers to make up a few more. Especially when the heinous crimes they are alleging, directly affect the lives of the children involved.  Kate would have be an automaton if she were not suffering now, the pain and stress is etched into her face.  Some might say she deserves it, myself too on occasion, but we are not Judge and Jury, nor are we law enforcers.  Right now there are a small number of people who have reached a verdict and are handing out their own form of punishment on social media, that makes me very uncomfortable. 

Monday, 9 January 2017


As for the CSA Inquiry etc - all BOLLOX. The majority of the child abuse that went on in the 60s/70s/80s, was carried out by employees of local authorities who had care and control of vulnerable children.  That is, orphans and those rescued or seized from 'dysfunctional' families.    

In the orphanages, the religious institutions, approved schools and the childrens' homes,  abuse was common day to day practice.  By their very nature these care homes were designed to attract the very worst of human behaviour. Can you imagine the paedophiles, the sadists and the psychopaths salivating as they read the job description?  'you will often have sole day to day and pastoral care of 12 children of different ages who have no parents or anyone who will believe a word they say'.  Every industry attracts psychopaths, but sadly, the care industry more than most.     

But here's a thing, and here's why the CSA Inquiry is bollox.  Of all the abuse that was inflicted on children in care, the Government, the MSM, all the do gooders and even the public (because they are being steered that way), have focussed on the titillating SEXUAL abuse.  And let me be honest here, those of us who were being battered and forced to scrub floors through the night, envied that tiny few who were being groomed and showered with privileges. 

Abuse was rife during those decades because all the cogs were in place to support it.  Every society, even the richest, has vulnerable citizens to take care of - and they will usually opt for the cheapest and most inhumane method as long as it looks as though they are doing their duty.  Which is where the Church steps in.  Not only did they relieve the local councils of their burden, they vowed to rehabilitate the offspring of the undeserving poor and turn out obedient citizens with a healthy respect for authority. 

The Child SEXUAL Abuse will never focus on the real abuse that was going on, because those floodgates would turn into a tsumani.  Basically, it is saying, it is OK to whip children, lock them in cupboards, make them wear rags and degrade them, but for fuck's sake don't embrace them.  It should all be laughable, because it is the deviant far right, trying to out deviant the even further far right. 

So far the armies of 'investigators' are only interested in targets who's names will attract tabloid headlines.  If the dirty old git who stuck his hand up your kilt, hasn't had at least a one man show, forget it.  And we're not interested in the bus driver who said you had nice tits when you were 12 either.  However, if the perp has any connection to a political party whatsoever, even leafletting, pull up a chair.  

For the survivors who have come forward, there is nothing in it for them but a continuation of their trauma and pain.  There won't be any payouts, there won't be any 'justice'.  At the moment, they are being used as willing pawns in a very sick game, the only healing they will get, will be in using that 'sixth sense' to help protect others.

Zero children are being protected by this ongoing money pit,  and God knows there are enough kids desperately in need right now.  Nothing will be learned because the investigators are ignoring the bleeding obvious.  The authorities, all of them, placed the care of their most vulnerable children into the hands of psychopaths,  Some of whom were sexually attracted to children, but most were bog standard sadists. 

The only lesson to be learned from the entire sorry saga, is that carers, not just of children, but also of the elderly and the disabled should be psychology screened during the interview process and the means to do this already exist. Anyone who has ever worked in the care industry will have encountered
co-workers (happily a minority), who's attitude towards their clients was less than humane. Unhappily for me, and I am sure many, my constant challenging of 'rules' and whistleblowing, cut short my own, much loved, employment as a  support worker.  I tried to do as a co-worker, good friend, and very wise woman advised, which was, not make waves, because ultimately the clients wouldn't have us anymore.  We sort of felt that our being good, would make up for the bad, and I'm sure a lot of carers out there will recognise that sentiment. 

In the above instance, the system beat me.  They broke me, quite literally, made me question my own sanity.  I survived because I turned to the internet and read everything I could on 'bullying in the workplace'.  Without any hesitation, I thank those brave enough to tell their stories, and the analysts and psychologists for explaining it.  At some point I will give an account of the experience, tis a struggle though, the memory still has the power to traumatise me!  Mostly guilt, because I felt as though I had abandoned those dear, sweet people I cared so much about.

But I digress.  Seeking out those aged, and probably infirm, abusers is pointless.  They were taking advantage of the system that existed at that time.  Hopefully, throughout the rest of their miserable lives, they were never able to hold such positions of power again.

The CSA Inquiry, are not making headlines such as 'Fred the Milkman, age 89 once exposed his John Thomas to a schoolgirl', because apart from a few old biddies saying 'Ooer, 'ave you read about old Fred, what was he like, ha ha', nobody could care less.  Some might say that's because Fred the Milkman didn't work in childcare.  But isn't it also possible, and far more likely, that the victims were also abused by people who didn't work in childcare, who weren't once famous, or who never held political office?  Are those memories less traumatic, equally traumatic, more traumatic, or inconsequential?

Wednesday, 4 January 2017


UPDATE  13.01.17

#McCann Hashtag Scum

As I watched the Donald Trump press conference, I thought there is a man who has been totally humiliated and he is as mad as hell. 

I thought much the same as I read the avalanche of abuse aimed at me this morning on the McCann hashtag.  Pointing out that all the sicko deviant sex allegations actually come from their own twisted heads was never going to go down well, but heck, someone had to. 

That I am not popular with the baying mob on twitter, bothers me not a jot.  In fact I would be worried if I were.  I am delighted to say I have absolutely zilch in common with any of them, all their words and actions are based on pure hate - reason, logic and humanity, have long since left the building. 

It's ironic to see the sanctimonious claim that they are 'thinking of the children', especially on the McCann hashtag which is devoted entirely to ripping the twins' lives apart.  They squeeze out crocodile tears as they claim to be 'doing it all for Maddie', a 3 year old who died years ago, and who wouldn't want their kind of help anyway.  'We vow to make your parents and siblings suffer every day for the next 10 years+', yeh, she would have loved that. 

Most don't have the guts to reveal their real names and faces.  Understandable, daily hate mongering is hardly a noble profession and they have much to be ashamed of.  As thick as they are, they know they are universally despised, and quite rightly, they are not seeking justice, they want blood.  They are the scabby unwashed who fight for front row seats at the scaffold, salivating as the axe comes down.  The McCanns are not human apparently, but then neither are they.   

I believe beyond reasonable doubt that the abduction was faked and the McCanns and all those involved in the cover up should stand trial.  And by that I mean a real trial, not the kangaroo Courts of the Madeleine forums, facebook pages and twitter. 

Tony Bennett, Richard Hall and Peter Hyatt are dirty old men successfully selling the contents of their filthy one track minds to those dedicated 'truth seekers' on twitter.  That their accusations have little to do with reality, and even less to do with Madeleine's disappearance, matters not, it's the kind of stick designed to cause maximum pain to this family so they happily go with it. 

As for those in a frenzy on the #McCann hashtag, you repulse me as much as you repulse any sane person who looks at that tag. You are not there for justice, you are there for punishment and retribution, and you are dishing it out yourselves in your daily game of taunting and spreading hatred.  How does that help Maddie or any of the children involved?

One final word.  My pen is my sword, I can take down any one of you anytime I choose.  My dear old dad used to say to me 'don't destroy someone just because you can'.  His words have saved your batshit crazy gang thus far, but don't depend on them, in certain cases I will happily make an exception. 

UPDATE 10/01/17

I am now universally despised by more antis than pros in this case.  I can't say I am particularly bothered, both the pros and the antis are way over represented by the psychopaths, the criminally insane and the plain old sanctimonious. One well known journalist I know remarked that they were the most despicable people he/she had ever encountered. 

There are many good and honourable reasons why the victim in this case should have justice.  So too Goncalo Amaral who was assigned the task of finding the child.  But there have been other victims, and I include myself here, who's names and reputations have been deliberately tarnished for pointing out the deceit that has been going on. 

And the deceit is coming from both sides!  All those poised with pen in hand ready to publish when the shit hits the fan, are scratching around for a USP, Unique Selling Point.  Sex sells.  I will admit, it's omission from my own memoir contributed to it's lack of popularity.  No graphic sex scenes and nothing embellished, it was doomed. 

Regardless, I personally won't accept anything less than the truth.  Disliking a person is not proof of, almost unheard of, heinous sex crimes against children. I do wonder if the finger pointers are descendants of Salem's finest.  The fact that it is extremely unlikely and no-one else can see the demons, matters not.  Little Maddie with make up on, and the beautiful face and the exposed nipple of a 12 year old are the work of the Devil! They are all 'Signs', doncha know. 

Those who are still battling off reason and logic, should ponder for a moment. What would be the most logical reason for doctors, holidaying with doctors, not wanting to give up the body of a child who died accidently or otherwise?

1.  An overdose of miscalculated drugs. 
2.  Deviant child sex involving the Labour Cabinet, Clement Freud, Cliff Richard and MI5 (or is it 6?), Barack Obama and the Pope. I have to say, Bennett's suggestion that Clarence Mitchell was top level secret service was one of those laugh out loud moments. 

I would advise careful thought and consideration before selecting an answer.  Perhaps even putting down the glass, the bible and/or quit the self flagellating for a few moments.  Which of the two above, is more likely?  Therein lies the road back to sanity. 

UPDATE 09/01/17

I see the God of all hellfire (Bennett) has revived an ancient thread giving 60 reasons why the pictures of Madeleine in make up were/are deviant.  The 60 reasons are a selection of comments found by Bennett online that support his own twisted imagination and agenda.  And in this instance, he fully supports the views of Mark Williams-Thomas, another 'expert' who interpreted pictures of 3 year old Madeleine as sexually provocative.  There are a few dissenting voices on the thread, those who point out how nonsensical the Lolita idea is, but they are deemed the deviants and the paedophile appeasers and most have disappeared never to be seen again. 


It is a common theory among most the 'antis' that the pictures of Madeleine McCann dressed up by her Mummy as a Princess, are somehow sinister and contain sexual overturns.  And just to be clear as to what Pointy Finger number 1 is implying he has helpfully entitled one of the photographs 'Picture 2 - Madeleine dressed up by an adult as 'Lolita''.  I'll give the sane among my readers, a few moments to allow that chill running down their spines to settle as they contemplate those words.  Especially those wannabe statement analysts. 

Who the fuck thinks like that!  And many thanks to the correspondents on my previous blog for highlighting these grotesque, and spiteful accusations. This blog is dedicated to Kate McCann herself, I hope she is looking in.  Don't worry about wasting money on lawyers Kate, I'm about to pulverise the little rat on your behalf. 

Mothers and daughters have played dressing up since time began Mr. Bennett, it is one of those milestones in our lives that leaves us with precious memories to enjoy in our old age.  Kate is a  mother who lost her daughter, she will have fewer memories than most, it is beyond cruel of you and others to make such disgusting and vindictive accusations.  It is spite, pure and simple, nothing is to be gained by implying that those innocent snaps of Madeleine are evidence of abuse!  All these evil and heinous accusations serve only to add to this mother's pain. 

So what if an adult put Madeleine's necklace, why the need for shock for awe? Ditto the eyeliner and eyeshadow.  Again, so what?  Going by Bennett's criteria, is every mother who helps her daughter put on bangles, necklace, ear rings etc, a child abuser?  Or is that particular twist of the knife reserved for Kate McCann alone?  My mother would spend ages backcombing my air and I have treasured pictures to prove it.  Is a 4 year old with the high hair of Dusty Springfield appropriate?  I didn't have daughters, but I provided my 8 year old son with masking tape and lollypop sticks so he could make his own 'Freddie Kruger' hand, what does that say about me? 

You are a complete dumbarse Bennett, and a very spiteful one at that.  You have zero understanding of human nature, and not so much as a smidgeon of compassion in you.  How dare you take this poor mother's precious memories and degrade them with your own murky fantasies.  Who, other than yourself, sees a picture of 3 year old dressed up as a Princess and obviously having fun with her mummy, as a 'Lolita' ffs?   And Lolita  by the way, was a pubescent girl reaching a sexual awakening, not a toddler.   

As for the way in which Madeleine is posing (jeez, I can't believe I am even responding to it), has he ever tried to photograph a 3 year old?  They very rarely keep still and stand on their heads whenever the mood grabs them,  which is  fairly often. The bouncing, skipping Maddie with her siblings in the hallway demonstrates what a happy, confident little girl she was.  Why go to so much trouble to 'prove' that she wasn't?  What is in it for you Bennett et al, other than the satisfaction of knowing that you have added pain to a family who are still grieving.  Applying reason and logic, what mother on this earth, would dress their child up for the delectation of online perverts?  Is it not enough for you that Gerry and Kate have lost their daughter? 

I hate to think what goes on in the imaginations of those who point the finger.  Especially those who insist this case involves some form of deviant sex.  In the case of Pointy Finger 1, Bennett, we have the most heinous of crimes known to man and beast, sex with children. And Pointy Finger 2, Textusa, insists PDL was a den of iniquity filled with  bed hopping not seen since the days of ancient Rome. 

Pointy finger 2, you can laugh off.  It has an air of a Carry On film or a Whitehall farce, where the man inadvertently ends up in bed with the mother in law.  Pointy finger 2 however is just sick and deserves to be scorned and rebutted as the pure hatred it is. 

These dirty allegations, and they are pure dirt derive purely from the minds of those who are emotionally immature and unable to understand sexual  dynamics.  Their need to protect children makes no sense whatsoever, when you consider that there is a live investigation and real children are very much being affected by what is said online.  People like Bennett, Hall, Textusa, Hyatt, Frances Gallagher, should hang their heads in shame at the pure venom they are trying to stir up.

Those making up those odious claims should have the contents of their shit heads hurled right back at them.  And I urge all those on the blogs, forums and facebook pages to challenge them outright on where their sicko imaginary scenarios come from.  What mother would use her little girl to titillate perverts? All those disgusting connotations come from their own minds, nowhere else.  There are no precedents because it has never actually happened.

The majority of adults, including the McCanns and their friends, get on fine with their equals, they don't shrink in the presence of the opposite sex or other adults they are attracted to.  They have no need or desire to prey on noisy, often smelly, toddlers.  I mean seriously.  Given the option, an evening with interesting, entertaining, like minded friends and good food and wine.  Or an evening in an apartment with screaming, demanding kids who won't give you a minute's peace for love nor money? Have these accusers never met a toddler?

Sex and control go hand in hand (especially after watching Borgia).  We all (secretly) set out to conquer the object of our desire.  The battle can go on for years, if we are lucky, it makes the world go around. There is no kudos in seducing a child.  No doors opening, no financial reward, no admiration from peers.  No pats on the back or praise for pulling the 4 year old.  On the career and ambition front, it is taboo, a dirty little secret that will always have the power to destroy.  So Mr. Bennett, why would a group of successful, upwardly mobile group of professionals be involved in the sickest and most heinous crime know to man and womankind?

Happy New Year Kate.  You're welcome.

Sunday, 1 January 2017


Happy new year to all my readers old and new, thank you for sticking with me, and thank you for returning again and again.  Just to pee my enemies off, I am absolutely chuffed with the way my blog has developed.  It has survived all the pettiness and squabbles that caused most of the other groups and forums to self combust.  I've never been in the slightest bit bothered about trolls, troublemakers and disrupters, and I am happy to publish alternate opinions as long as they are not littered with abuse and insults. 

As should be clear, I cannot and will not be censored, and I don't want to censor anyone else.  This hasn't led to anarchy or a need for a panic room, the opposite in fact, this is one of the few places in the niche Madeleine world where alternate theories and opinions are welcome.  I'm desperate to know what others think, which is why my blog is interactive.  Far from being upset when I am proved wrong, I am grateful to be enlightened.  One of my favourite, and oft used phrases is 'you know, I never thought about it like that before'. 

The part of me that wants to believe in the good of human nature, would like to be proved wrong in the Madeleine case.  The last few remnants of Catholic would like the burden taken away, It would be nice to go back prior to that summer of 2007, when the world appeared to be more stable and Western governments less corrupt.  This case is so much more than a little girl who went missing, and hopefully one day, all those who used her name and face so unscrupulously will be held to account.

Meanwhile, I have been trying to put off 2017, hiding under the duvet won't make it go away.  I am not so much concerned about Brexit, I actually wanted to stay until I saw how much it mean't to ace turncoat Owen Smith, now I think Out is right.  Much, much, worse, is that that the USA have, incredibly, elected a raving lunatic as  their next President.  It's kinda like the UK voting in Benny Hill. A slobbering letch with bad hair chasing scantily clad lingerie models. 

And it's not just that Donald Trump has been elected the next US President, it is the fact that his 'greed is good' philosophy is spreading like a plague throughout the world as we are seeing a rise of the far Right not seen since the 1930's.  Centre politics won't defeat them because they have more in common with them than the Left.  When given the choice, Mr. 'Centre' himself, Nick Clegg, chose hard right tories over wishy washy Blairites. 

Anyway, enough of the soapbox, my warmest wishes to all my readers and thank you so much for your interesting and insightful contributions.  I am always grateful to anyone who takes the time and trouble to comment, the interesting points you raise gives me much to discuss, many thanks.

Happy New Year!   

Saturday, 24 December 2016


Like many I found the two Jonbenet Ramsey documentaries totally mesmerizing, it is a case that has fascinated me for years.  For those unfamiliar with the Jonbenet case, the details were almost a prototype for the Madeleine McCann mystery that was to come. 

Just like the Madeleine case, an exceptionally beautiful child was stolen from her bed in the night, but in Jonbenet's case, her brutalised body was to turn up in the basement.  The first cries of Patsy Ramsey were, my daughter's been kidnapped [and just to prove it], there's a ransom note.  The first cries of Kate McCann were my daughter's been taken, [and just to prove it] the bedroom window is open.  Both mothers are clearing themselves with their opening lines. And it could be said, with statements, and/or actions that they personally have prepared. 

It could be argued that both Patsy and Kate were acting like ferocious mummy tigers.  As a bit of an FMT myself, there have been times when my kids have been in danger or I have perceived them to be in danger.  Times when the fog lifts and I have sprung into action to protect my young.  Times even when I would have signed a deal with the devil himself without bothering to look at the small print.  I certainly would not have sat around weeping, wailing and planning my own defence. 

The problem I have with the weeping and wailing, especially the throwing of himself on the floor by Gerry, is that it simply doesn't ring true.  We are all genetically programmed with survival skills, if we weren't we wouldn't be here. In traumatic situations, our thinking becomes clearer and more determined. That flood of adrenaline enables us to catch the baby before he/she falls on the floor or attempts to drink bleach.  We don't go all fuzzy as the T-rex approaches us, we get the feck out of the way.  The actions of the educated Kate, Gerry and Patsy Ramsey are contrary to human or even animal behaviour.  Our first instincts when our young go missing is to look for them.  For Kate and Gerry, emergency medical situations were part of their vocation.  While the rest of us faint at the sight of blood, a medical professional will stem the artery, we don't expect to see them out cold alongside us.   

And given Gerry's, err let's say, controlling disposition, one thing I have never been able to understand is why he didn't demonstrate his organising abilities with the search parties.  His time, and the time of his wife were, apparently better spent on SOS phone calls to influential people in the UK.  Not the actions of a father desperate to find his daughter, but the actions of a father desperate to hold onto his remaining kids and his reputation perhaps? 

John Bennett wanted to go ahead with his planned flight on Boxing Day, the private plane was at the ready.  He clearly wanted to get his wife and son away from the scene, tellingly he said in an interview, he never spent another night in that house.  Like Gerry, he was not concerned with finding his daughter's kidnapper/ killer, he was protecting his remaining family.

Poor little Jonbenet died on Christmas night according to her tombstone.  The amazing experts who worked on the two documentaries, analysed every part of the evidence in detail.  For myself, I was already beyond reason doubt stage, it was the 3 page ransom note that did it, but I leaned towards the 'unstable mother' findings of Steve Thomas (Jonbenet's Avenger) rather than the theory that the 9 year old brother did it.  I simply couldn't believe that a 9 year old could be physically strong enough or indeed wicked enough, to strike a fatal blow to his sister's head.

After watching both documentaries, I am back to the drawing board.  I then went onto watching the interview with Burke Ramsey and Dr. Phil that included interviews with Burke as a child.  I won't analyse him other than to say he was more than capable of being part of a secret, 'if I did, I wouldn't tell you' he said as a 9 year old.  The adult Burke made uncomfortable viewing.  He was clearly socially awkward and highly defensive, both of himself and his parents.  He was an overprotected child who has grown into an overprotected adult - he has sworn allegiance to his protectors.   

But here's a thing, and it's a statement from last night's superb documentary that made me stop and sit up straight.  What is strong enough to motivate a mother to lie, scheme and plot to the extent that mothers Patsy and Kate are perceived to have done.  Plots so sinister and machiavellion they could be straight out of the dark crime section on the bookshelves.  Such stories are not without basis, history and literature is littered with plotting mums determined to place their little soldiers on the throne.  Figuratively speaking of course.  Neither Patsy nor Kate could protect the daughters they lost, and that kind of pain would drive a mother to do literally anything to protect the children she still has, even to the point of madness. 

It could be argued that everything Patsy, Kate and their husbands have done, has been done to protect their surviving children.  Ie. that's it.  No titillating swinging scene, no paedophile gangs, no government VIPs being flown out of PDL in helicopters, no deep dark secrets. 

Whist the way in which these adults have protected their children is indeed questionable, it is capable of being understood.  Some might say they went way above and beyond, in the ferocity of their fight, and the accumulation of vast wealth and government protection.  That their altruistic motive of 'protecting the kids' was overtaken by fundraising and their own need for public recognition. 

But let's not be churlish.  Tis the season of goodwill, and maybe a good time for many among the antis to consider for one moment that everything the McCanns have done, has been driven by their love for their children.  No dark, sinister motive.  It doesn't excuse their actions, and it doesn't make them right, but it does make them human.

Merry Christmas everyone, I now have a mountain of sprouts to peel, a ham to glaze and a bottle of Irish cream that is screaming to be opened as soon as the ice cubes set.  Forgot to buy ice, doh, not to mention a white tablecloth that desperately needs a wash and will now have to go in with the coloureds :( 

Thursday, 22 December 2016


UPDATE - 28.12.16

In response to Bampots on Madeleine McCann Mystery, and to whom, many thanks :)

[quote="Bampots"]I must admit have been extremely brave to say what you did....i did not get any impression you were in anyway supporting pedophillia![/quote]

Some do unfortunately Bampots, it is usually the first insult thrown if anyone is 'brave' enough to discuss this subject honestly.  Accused paedophiles are not allowed to have any defence, because anyone defending them will be accused themselves.  It's all pretty medieval actually.  When someone, like Jim Gamble [who is no academic] states looking at underage images leads to heinous crimes, it is taken as a fact because he is the expert.  I believe he also wanted to include watching obscene cartoons in his long list of arrestable offences. Does he have any evidence to back up these claims?  Who knows, no-one dare ask him. 

The Paedophile Hunters, men after his own heart, they like the cut of his jib and are exactly the time of people who would be attracted to his proposed vigilante task force.  They too have great enthusiasm for rooting out and garrotting witches, all under the guise of 'look how macho I am'.  And of course, ripping a paedo limb from limb proves how straight and heterosexual I am.  Of course it does.

I know I go on and on about lucky I was to have such forward thinking parents, but I truly was.  I was so outgoing that I made dear friends of every age and from every walk of life, I feared no-one.  And I was always drawn towards the outsiders, those excluded.  I've always taken the time and trouble to get to know the outsider and it has always enriched my life.  It is probably why, as a feminist, I have never hated men!  I had the best dad in the world, and men around me who took the time and trouble to teach me everything they knew, even though I was a girl, lol. 

I also worked for 3 years as a support worker for those with mental health problems and learning difficulties.  Of all the jobs I have in my life, it was the most rewarding.  When the interview panel asked if it was 'empty nest syndrome', I gave a resounding yes.  I grew to love all the clients I looked after, I was deeply touched by their innocence and simplistic view of the world.  One client, a partially disabled guy in his 60's was fixated on cameras, videos and technology, but with learning difficulties, it was on an ongoing struggle.  He worked at a local factory sweeping up, for which he got paid £9.40 per week (yeh, I know).  On his way to and from work, he had a penchant for strolling through the local park trying to take pictures of children, school girls especially. He was picked up by the police several times and returned home, having been given a good talking to by the police, and full of tears and remorse.  He was not a malicious or violent man.  He shared his flat with another disabled guy who was a wheelchair users, and during the night when they were on their own, he looked after his friend.  I, and indeed all the other carers, knew that he wasn't in any way a threat to children.  There was nothing 'mean' about him, he was a child himself. 
It does indeed chill me to the bone to think that 'Alfie' could be a victim of this horrendous form of public justice and punishment.  He is a vulnerable old guy, in fact just the kind of guy who would be pilloried as a monster.


I have threatened, a couple of times I think, to tell the story of my close relationship with an adult man (not a relative) who I first met at the age of 4.  Tom was an amateur photographer and I was a precocious kid who loved his company.  So how did we meet?

As a small child I lived with mum, dad, my older brother (by 11 months), and our Landlord, in a small house opposite Holloway Sanatorium in Stroud Road, Virginia Water.  It was a sanatorium for the rich and famous and the visitors arrived in chauffeur driven Bentleys and Rolls Royces.  I remember them well because I once ran into the road chasing my ball, and a lady in a very smart suit got out of her car and smacked me!  I remember all of us swearing secrecy because if my mum had found out, she would have smacked me too. 

It was an idyllic place to grow up, it was pre 'Moors Murders' and the whole neighbourhood was our playground.  There didn't seem to be any such thing as childminders in those days.  My mum and dad worked shifts, my mum nursing and my dad in the kitchens.  And we had lots of playmates, as most of our parents worked across the road in the hospital. We were the kids of doctors, nurses, porters, kitchen workers, from all sorts of backgrounds, mostly immigrant.  My best friends were 3 little Indian sisters and a German boy called Heina who wore lederhosen.  I loved the shock value of introducing Heina as my best friend, it was the early 1960's and it was great the way their eyebrows flew up when I said, and he's German.

Our houses backed onto a large paddock that was surrounded by nurses homes and staff accommodation and that was how I came to meet Tom, a wonderful man who became my next best friend.  Tom was a single man who lived in the male nursing home and it was his job to deliver bakery goods to all the staff quarters.  It was the era of Cowboys and Indians in the films we used to watch in a staff cinema within the hospital.  It was at a time when institutions took care of  their employees and their families - we also had use of an outdoor swimming pool and beautiful grounds. Tom in his slow moving electric cart full of goodies became the wagon train we kids used in ambush while pretending to be a tribe of marauding red Indians.  Tom accepted our 'raids' in good spirits, often playing along and pretending to have been shot by an arrow, and we always came away with treats. 

Tom was an amateur photographer and when he was off duty he would often come out to the paddock and take pictures of us as we played.  I was fascinated by his cameras and what he was doing, and I became a frequent visitor to his room, where he would show me all his cameras and pictures and give me cups of tea and cakes.  He was a quietly spoken and very thoughtful man, in retrospect he was shy with other adults, but with me, to my delight, he would talk for hours, and better still, he had the time and patience to listen to all my chatter.

I honestly don't remember how old Tom was, in the 1960's all men had the same hairstyle and all men looked old! From all  the thousands of pictures I have, there is only one of Tom, taken by myself according to what's written on the back, where he looks in his late 30s.  He always wore a suit, shirt and tie, and a rainmac he wore over the top on rainy days.  When working he wore a brown hospital coat over  his clothes.  He was a very kind, mild mannered man, always smartly turned out, very well spoken and the complete opposite of my loud, crazy family, where you had to fight to get a word in. 

When my brother started school at 5, I was the unhappiest child in the world.  On his first day, I totally showed the whole family up by having a full scale temper tantrum in the playground, because he was allowed to start school and I wasn't!  I had to be carried out of the school kicking and screaming.  Not only was I irked (thus began the feminism), but I no longer had anyone to play with.  I'm not sure if I latched onto Tom, or he latched onto me, but I began visiting Tom frequently when my brother was at school, and I soon brought him home and introduced him as my new best friend. 

My parents were then, and in fact for most of their lives, irritatingly unshockable. They didn't bat an eyelid and gave him the same warm welcome they gave to everyone.  I think they found him a little awkward to talk to, but they liked him.  I did once ask my Dad many years later if he was ever worried about my friendship with Tom.  He said he did of course, but the main thing was, I was happy.  And because I was the type of kid who never stopped talking, I would give him every detail of where 'me and Tom went' and 'what me and Tom did'.  I never kept anything back.  Still can't.   

I became Tom's muse, that is one of the main, if not the main subject of his photographs for the next 5 years, that is, up until I went into care.  At the age of 21 I received a huge box of albums that captured and documented most of my childhood. One of the most wonderful gifts I have ever received.

It's difficult now to remember what Tom and I used to talk about, but we talked constantly as we walked miles and miles looking for nice scenery and locations for Tom's pictures.  If he looked sad I would run up behind him and hold his hand, and sometimes I would just jump on him and give him a hug when he least expected it.  I could always make him laugh. Quite often I would go back to his room with him and lay on his bed while he fiddled about with his cameras and negatives or sat in his chair.  He was completely engaged in his photography, possibly somewhere at the lower end of the autistic scale.  He was always striving for perfection, the right lighting, the right angle.  Some of the notes that accompany the pictures recall how impatient I would get waiting for him to press the button, apparently I told him, he should be 'quick like me'. 


Never in all the time I knew him and spent time alone with him, was there ever any question of anything sexual, and yuck at the thought.  Tom only ever showed me kindness and friendship and respect and it breaks my heart to think what would happen to him in this hysteria led climate.  Tom was a well brought up, highly educated man with impeccable manners. He found my quite frequent temper tantrums and fallings out with my family highly amusing - I would turn up at his door hating everyone and he would put the kettle on.  He always managed to calm me down and even see the funny side.  He taught me some great lessons for the bipolar that was to come. 

I'm not na├»ve, and as an adult I have to consider there is a slight possibly that he got his jollies from the pictures he took of me, but I very much doubt it. 
He was more interested in the position of the tree, the shadows in the leaves and the position of the sun, than he was in getting me to keep still.  But even if he was, I don't really care because he never harmed me, all my memories of him are happy ones.  One picture captures a moment when I myself and a pal meet Tom in a country lane, the dialogue on the back says we were running towards him [to smother him in hugs and kisses] when he told us to stop so he could take the picture.  Kids don't greet abusers in that way. 

I'm loath to discuss sexual abuse in the same blog as dear old Tom, but probably like many, I didn't go through childhood unscathed.  At least 3 of my divorced mother's (uppercrust) suitors exposed themselves, and 2 of them thought I might like to look at pornography with them.  One of them did actually touch me, once, then bought me a new dress in Harrods and let me steer his open topped sports car in a car park whilst I sat on his knee which was how the grope occurred.

Was I traumatised by any of it?  Not at all, my honky tonk mumma taught me how to defend myself and not whine.  Both good lessons.  And I don't hate any of the men either.  They were trying to get to me with kindness, not abuse, and accepted my rebuttals graciously.  It pains me to see all of these victims claiming their lives were devastated by an inappropriate grope.  I wish women would 'man up' (I hate that expression as much as the next feminist, but it's late and I'm tired, lol) and stop using the victim card.  The world is full of men (and women) who will try to take advantage, and that applies at 6, 26 and 66, every age actually.  I think the incidents described above will probably apply to many adults, especially where parents have new partners.  And in most cases the grooming will be of the generous kind, rather than assault and battery.  The majority of paedophiles woo children in the same way as heterosexuals and homosexuals woo their 'love interest', with kindness and charm rather than with shackles and masking tape. 

The reality is, a lot of men do like very young women and adolescent girls and boys in a sexual way, there is no point in denying it.  See Ancient Rome and Sparta. And the same applies to adult women leering at shirtless teenage builders and attractive young men.  When I taught at college, I had two teenage students who brought to mind Adonis!  I would fantasise about that whole 'she was 31, I was 17' song, lol, but only my female friends found it funny. They were both lovely lads, one black, one white, each stunningly attractive, with a thirst for knowledge and adored by the girls. One did actually ask me if it was OK to ask a lecturer out to dinner, and I gave him a firm no, though I was secretly chuffed!

I wonder when it became taboo to appreciate the beauty of children and young people.  Happily history, literature and the Old Masters were able to capture the joy of childhood before the paedophile watchers and hunters moved in.  Writers like Hans Christian Andersen, Lewis Carroll and JM Barrie enjoyed close, some might say, intimate, relationships with children and out of those relationships came the most wonderful children's literature, written by men who could understand the world from a child's perspective.  They could bring the imaginations of those children to life and touch the big kid in all of us. 

Distinguishing between what is and isn't the sexual portrayal of children only seems to matter to those who are looking for signs. I doubt people in the 15th century were sent into a frenzy by the cherubs genitalia in the masterpieces of Raphael.  These hunters both official and official, remind me of the late, barmy, Mary Whitehouse, the kind of people who want to put a thong on Michelangelo's statue of David.   

But back to dear old Tom.  I am eternally grateful that I had parents who were so enlightened because my friendship with Tom was one of the most rewarding relationships of my life. I expect though, despite everything I have said, there will people  out there, who will claim the relationship was unnatural.  I accept it was unusual, but unnatural, not in the slightest.  One of the joys of life is that every now and again we will meet another human being who will be on the same wavelength, it might be a stranger in the supermarket, a neighbour or a work colleague.  And that attraction to that other person doesn't have to be sexual, it can be as simple as a shared sense of humour or a knowing look, we meet friends we like all through life. 

My relationship with Tom wasn't one sided, that is, I was never under his control.  I was a very determined little girl, a bold bitch according to my Irish Aunts. He had to show as much interest in making mud pies and catching spiders as I showed in his cameras.  We were so in tune, he bought me a pet mouse for my 5th birthday that I insisted on carrying around in my pocket, to scare old biddies.  My stories would make him laugh out loud, we had the same mischievous sense of humour. 

I like to think that our paths were destined to cross, I was always determined to be a writer and Tom supplied me with a photographic account of my childhood, possibly one of the most treasured gifts wannabe author could ever receive.  I guess I will never truly know if there was more to Tom's fondness for me than the constant photographs.  Some will probably say, of course there was, are you mad?  I honestly don't know, and not really sure I would want to, though I would be interested in the thoughts of others.  This is first time I have discussed this in public, I think it is fear that people will take something that was so precious to me and degrade it. 

We all thrive when we receive love and affection, and as a small child who regularly fell out with everyone, Tom was the 'constant' who always adored me no matter what.  I returned to see him again and again because I loved the way his face lit up when I knocked on his door and I loved listening to him telling me how wonderful I was.  If the best gift you can give a child is confidence, then he gave it to me in shedloads, I feared no-one, not even the brutal sadists and paedophiles who rescued me when I was 11.  But that's a whole other story. 

Tuesday, 20 December 2016


Well done to Aaron RoachBridgeman on his excellent Vigilante Brits documentaries.  However, I was deeply disturbed by paedophile hunters  and the way in which they have touched upon a public nerve that takes us back to the dark ages. 

Firstly, these are not educated men.  And I am not saying that out of a sense of snobbery, I'm saying it because they know nothing whatsoever about their subject, and nothing whatsoever about psychology and criminology. In pretending to be 12 year old girls, they are putting real 12 year old girls at risk.  What on earth are they saying to these predators to keep them hooked for months on end?  Clearly the Lolita they are chatting to online is not instantly available, but there may be other young girls who are.  Is it ever a good idea to lead a paedophile on to the point where they bring condoms and a rope?  What if they got the rendezvous mixed up and the pervert thought, well I'm here anyway. 

The problem with vigilantes is that they, the leaders especially, usually have unresolved issues. That is they have been personally affected in some way, either themselves or someone close to them.  Their rage is understandable, but their self prescribed cure of vengeance won't make it go away.  They believe if they 'get' every 'paedo' the pain will stop. Their judgement and sense of reason is warped by that stage of their development when they were traumatised. No legitimate law enforcement agency would or should ever use them, they would be psychologically unstable and totally unqualified.   

Because their goal is punishment, in the form of public shame and crucifixion, they have completely caste aside any form of reason or humanity, and justice doesn't even get a mention.  Informed that one man had committed suicide, the hunter replied, it's not because of what I did, it's because of what he did.  Absolving himself completely of the tragedy while the crowd cheered on.

Ye Gods, what kind of justice is this in the 21st Century?  It's a crowd pleaser is what it is.  No doubt in former lives these men were the hangmen or the groupies who followed them.  They are all about the punishment, they want someone, anyone, hanging at the end of the rope, the paedos draw a good crowd when they get bored with the Muslims. 

It angers me because it feeds into the same crazy philosophy that created 'All men are rapists', only this time round, it's much dirtier and nastier.  This assumption that all men who like, or who even really really like children, want to harm them is ridiculous.  In most cases the opposite is true, men who genuinely like kids and enjoy their company are rare, and to be treasured!  Assaulting a child is the last thing on their minds, they want to protect them, like an auld dawg passing tips onto the young 'uns.  It breaks my heart that the wonderful bond some men seem to have with kids is now seen as suspicious.  All those cheeky compliments and wise words, held back for fear of being misinterpreted.

But returning to those Paedophile Hunters.  I can't help but wonder what it is they say to their 'prey' to keep them dangling online for 7 months?  Do they keep producing pictures of a '12' year old girl?  What are they offering to entice dirty old men to come and meet them in a car park?  Judging by the samples of the conversations, their alter egos aren't saying anything a 12 year old  girl would say.  12 year old girls are excruciatingly embarrassed by everything, I know, I was one!  I sometimes wonder if the only dirty talking going on online is between the hunters and the hunted.  Real 12 year olds would laugh their socks off. 

 What terrified me the most with the paedophile hunters, was the amount of support they had from the public, and the media.  It was a bit like a Trump winning the presidency moment, where you ask yourself 'is this for real?' 'Should we take it seriously?'.  Unfortunately, as the Trump result showed, 'hell yeh'.  Because unfortunately, once you approve small armies to go out there beating the shit out of those they hate [figuratively speaking, or not], you are on the road to anarchy, or tyranny, take your pick.