CRISTOBELL/HUTTON'S LATEST HATE-FILLED RAMBLINGS PART 1

Broho wrote:What a bloody boring load of unimaginative drivel.  

How can you be so cruel to refuse to accept she is a brilliant writer? Sykes

Easily!

Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton20 May 2015 at 17:15
Know exactly where you are coming from 14:04 - it is a forbidden topic in my home, but more from boredom these days than the subversive aspects smile

Bizarrely in 2007 it became taboo to say you did not believe Kate and Gerry, it could get you barred from pubs and thrown out of parties - the hater/pitchforker mentality took a grip of the UK, and even remnants exist to this day. A few months ago, I was torn to shreds by Dom Joly (the prop comic) on twitter, who was calling me everything bar a demonic bitch! I can see why he works with props rather than words - reading is clearly not his forte.

Most people (and prop comics) are tabloid headline skimmers, their understanding of cases such as this, are based purely on what they see in bold print on their red tops. Sadly, as we have seen in this case, a lot of professional journalists do this too.

Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton20 May 2015 at 17:03
Madeleine has been dead for a long time 16:53, a win for Madeleine would be justice and God help her, a proper burial and closure for those who cared about her.

If you are implying this is a hate blog, then you couldn't be more wrong. Forcing people to believe that Madeleine is alive and findable is wicked beyond words, do you not see that?

Disgusting bitch.

 Saturday, 23 May 2015
WHY GONCALO AMARAL HAS TO BE THE BAD GUY

Oh to have been a photographer in PDL when the call went out for pictures of the grief stricken parents and cops behaving badly.  One of the most fascinating aspects of this case is watching the way in which the publicity campaigns have been orchestrated and the public manipulated in order to make the lie become the truth.

From the off the parents were portrayed as clean living, God fearing catholics who had never done anything wrong in their entire lives.  Kate and Gerry turned immediately to the church and thus got on board millions the world over who already believe in unseen entities and the word of the Lord - they were always going to struggle with the athiests.

At the height of their campaign they went to see the Pope, lit candles and begged the world to pray with them.  Not only had they lost their daughter but they were the victims of a scruffy, hard drinking cop who just wanted to wrap the case up quickly so he could get back to his wine and women.

And it was a phenomenal success, one wonders how much of the Madeleine Fund was used to pay photographers for pictures of Portuguese detectives looking crumpled and K&G looked martyred, but impeccably dressed.  

The critics of Goncalo Amaral are obviously unfamiliar with the writing premise of almost every, strike that, every, fictional detective book/film/tv series etc. That is, renegade cop (with human failings) pursues clean cut rule following pillars of the community. Cops have strict rules and regulations to abide by, but we all cheer them on when they break them to catch the baddy.

The most successful hero cops, are usually flawed in some way (it creates empathy with the audience), that is, they are alcoholic, workaholic, emotional wrecks who have troubled home lives, but they never give up.

The fiction is based on fact. Its not the box ticking, clean cut, rule following automatons who solve the crimes, it is those who break the rules and think outside of the box, who get their man. And in real life, as in fiction, they are usually up against 'the establishment'.

This detective drama is writing itself, Goncalo is the baddy in a crumpled suit with a fondness for wine. His slate isn't clean, he didn't wear a smart uniform with polished shoes and a shiny badge. Whilst his career climbing colleagues were hand pressing their lapels, he was out getting his hands dirty - he's a cop, not a Sunday school teacher.

I smiled when I read that one of the things that hurt Goncalo was being called a 'bad dresser' - that has a sting like no other, especially when you know the basta'ds are out to get you looking at your worst.  It isn't true of course, it is all part of the 'monster cop' persona the Team McCann propaganda machine have created.  The British press are loathe to interview him because the reality bears no resemblance to the image of him that has been created.

Whilst clean living SS Commandants may be the epitomy of law and order, they are not ideal role models for a successful detective. You can demand the population play nicely and stick to the rules but they rarely do. Only in Steptford and Pleasantville can law enforcement officers perform their duties in their Sunday best. When chasing criminals, hair will fall out of place, clothing may be damaged and shoes may be scuffed. Has a criminal ever 'got off' because the arresting officer was inappropriately dressed?

The accusations being thrown at Goncalo Amaral are everything we expect, so much so, they are almost cliché. Goncalo is probably not very different to every middle aged, hard working cop the world over, His enemies have merely taken his flaws and amplified them.

Tuesday, 2 June 2015
MCCANN SCEPTICS ARE NOT THE SICK TROLLS

So the justice seekers are once again the sick trolls according to the headline of tomorrow's Daily Star and Jerry Lawton.  The reasons why they have raised £25k+ and rising have been obscured once more by the martyrdom and continuing pain of Kate and Gerry McCann.  A couple to whom no amount of money is ever enough. Over £4m has passed through their non transparent Fund, most of it spent on protecting the parents' reputation and seeking vengeance on anyone who dares to criticise them.

In supporting Goncalo Amaral, the public finally have a way in which to show how disgusted they are at the cover up that appears to have the entire British establishment in its grip.  They know the newspapers are lying to them and they want to know why.  

But lets turn to the real trolls in this case.  The small gang of internet thugs who have guarded the McCanns reputation by patrolling social media sites seeking out the more vocal, crushing them with threats of 'naming and shaming', and proving they meant business, by selecting the harmless Brenda Leyland as an example.

In the words of Gerry, it was a disaster, most of those who saw what happened did indeed think, 'yeh, Brenda was just like me, and she didn't deserve that'. You see we are not the sick trolls.  We believe that little 3, nearly 4, year old girl deserved a chance to live.  We do not accept that a little girl can just disappear with no-one held accountable.  Like Goncalo Amaral we want to know what happened to Madeleine and we are not stupid enough to believe the McCann lies.  Who are the bad guys?  The ones who seeking justice for the child, or the ones covering up the circumstances of her disappearance?  Isn't it kind of sick to cover up a child's death?

But lets take a closer look at the McCanns publicity campaign, or more particularly the anonymous gang/army of self appointed guardians who defend the MCann family so vigorously online.  Or at least the hardcore who remain, the ones who do it just for fun - they are so crap at what they do, I don't think anyone would pay them.  

The pro McCann sites are a funny little circle of Uriah Heeps that's for sure, lol.  I can almost picture them sitting there eating worms as their world closes in. Sites such as STMs and JATYK2 are dark, murky and very strange places indeed, the 'characters' are surreal, nameless and faceless, their fear of exposure is palpable.  The raging Tigerloaf, shivering in his/her cowardly boots while demanding that ALL McCann sceptics be named and publicly shamed - demanding for others that which he/she fears the most.

Why the terror of exposure?  What are they afraid of?  They demand that our publishers, employers, family, friends, neighbours etc, be made aware of our beliefs on the McCann case, yet they are so ashamed/fearful of their own.  Do their families, employers, neighbours know what they do?

If their cause is honourable and their motives good, why not use their own names and faces?  If people were attacking my family, friends or those I love or admire, I would not hesitate to stand proudly beside them.  And I wouldn't have been in the slightest bit bothered by Martin Brunt turning up on my doorstep with a camera crew because I write with honesty and integrity. I KNOW I haven't written anything I would be ashamed of.  The best and the most important 'writing' advice I have ever received or given by the way.  You never have to delete anything.

As protective as the creatures on JATYK2 are of their real characters, they often give insightful little snippets away and it is at times like these I can see how pitiful they really are.  For students of psychology, psychopathy and what it is that makes people evil, these sites make fascinating studies.

Naturally, I especially pick up on the comments directed at myself (my own narcissism, lol),  The reasons people hate me now are exactly the same as they were, when I was 5/10/15/55, there is a pattern.  I am attractive, confident and articulate and I don't know/refuse to accept my 'place'.  And anyone with similar traits will know exactly what I am talking about, and can like myself spot the 'usual' enemy in a nanosecond. I never changed for any of them in the past, and I'm not going to do it for the new ones now, lol.  I don't want to be a sheep, I want to be 'special' - my daddy told me I was, and I'm gonna be!  I eschew society's codes and conventions and I laugh out loud at Bureaucracy - that seems to upset some people, especially those with state of the art filing systems.  My blunt honesty disarms and frightens some people, it puts them in touch with feelings of their own that they would prefer to keep hidden.  Its much cosier and safer on their side of the fence, with the crowd.

Embittered women of my age and generation look to me for reasons to continue in their own safe domestic sphere and keep their heads down.  I'm an example of what happens to attention seekers and the scolding I get is my just desserts for stepping out of line, not forgetting of course, its great fun bitching about others.  Think garden fence and 'er down the road, who is no better than she ought to be and you get the gist. Some things never change.  

To a certain section of white middle class men, I am an abomination, a terrible influence on their subjugated wives and a direct threat to the cosy patriarchal status quo.  Unfortunately (and creepily) for me, their underlying fear/loathing of women is  directly linked to their genital area. I'm not special in this regard btw, any adult woman would have the same effect.  

Injustice infuriates me now just as much as it did when I was 5 - if HE can do it, so can I!  I have always taken the side of the underdog, if I could see other kids struggling to say what they wanted, I knew I had the gob on me to say it for them!  For what it is worth, I have instigated rebellions from the playground to the work place to the local town centre, I just can't help myself.  Ergo, I have had the same 'enemies' all my life, only now there are more of them and they are easier to spot.

I have given myself as an example but all of us who have been on the receiving end of the vicious McCann publicity machine will recognise everything I have said.  The stalking, the Blacklist, the Death Dossier all emanate from the pro McCann side of the fence, but you already know that Jerry.

Trolls are indeed sick, but sicker I think are those journalists who attack decent, caring, law abiding citizens who have the right to ask what the hell is going on.  If the only way to get justice for the little British child Madeleine is through the Portuguese civil courts, then so be it.  The McCanns can't silence everyone.

Proof of her claim she is 'attractive'.   (Should have gone to 'Specsavers'.)

silly old wrinkly needs to take a long hard look at herself in the mirror

cheap looking tart works in the red light district but thinks she is a shrink.

From Myths with thanks.

Postby tigerloaf » Thu Jun 04, 2015 12:04 am

Tuesday, 2 June 2015

MCCANN SCEPTICS ARE NOT THE SICK TROLLS

So the justice seekers are once again the sick trolls according to the headline of tomorrow's Daily Star and Jerry Lawton.

Correct!

The reasons why they have raised £25k+ and rising have been obscured once more by the martyrdom and continuing pain of Kate and Gerry McCann.

Seriously, who really cares about a pathetic little fund for a convicted ex-cop where a miniscule proportion of the British public have given over and over again to help him pay for lawyers in Portugal when they know he is the cop who thoroughly botched (according to his successor) the chances of finding a missing little child, the daughter of those you laugh at for their pain with your perverted comment of their ‘martyrdom’?

A couple to whom no amount of money is ever enough.

They are looking for their missing child? No normal person would ever give up on the hope of finding their missing child when there is not one tiny piece of evidence that she is dead. Only a heartless bitch would urge them to simply forget her and not try to raise funds to find her. But then again what did you call yourself when talking to the media? Ah yes! I recall, ‘bitch’.

Over £4m has passed through their non transparent Fund, most of it spent on protecting the parents' reputation and seeking vengeance on anyone who dares to criticise them.  

Your envy regarding that sum shrieks from the page of your blog. Incidentally, I discovered this afternoon that Google brings up your site as top link when a search for “Christobell Bog” is entered.

Back to the £4m which you keep proclaiming the McCanns have raised (rather more impressive than the desperate repeat donations which were needed to get a pitiful £25,000 to support the Portuguese criminal, Goncalo Amaral). Your normal policy of posting lies is once again your downfall. The actual fact which your lie attempts to hide is that the Madeleine Fund is fully audited to the standards required by the UK system. It is categorically not as you lie, ‘non-transparent’. It is fully monitored within English law and subject to all the rules of Companies House.

However neither of the two funds which you support for the criminal, Goncalo Amaral, have ever been made transparent to anyone at all. There is no oversight of these funds. I challenge you to prove that these funds which you support are even legal, explain what tax is paid, how are the funds administered etc. If you cannot do that, please do not worry as I believe that the legality of these “funds” may well be challenged in both Portugal and England by the authorities.

As for your idiotic claim that most of the Madeleine Fund has been spent “on protecting the parents’ reputation and seeking vengeance” then you are simply repeating the spurious and completely un-evidenced claims of failed ‘researchers’ over the years. If you cannot understand that challenging the proven lies (even his own publishers admit Amaral simply made stuff up) of Amaral was supporting the search for Madeleine, then I am truly sorry for you because that is perfectly clear to people who do not proudly proclaim themselves to be nasty bitches as you do.

In supporting Goncalo Amaral, the public finally have a way in which to show how disgusted they are at the cover up that appears to have the entire British establishment in its grip. They know the newspapers are lying to them and they want to know why.  

And how they have rallied to the criminal ex-cop who failed Madeleine McCann so badly as a cop and attempted to destroy the search for her to protect his own disgracefully flawed reputation, not. A handful of people have scraped together £25,000 to raise money for “the best lawyers” when the buffoon has already got rid of the real best lawyers, failed to pay some and simply argued with others. Many have had to make two or three donations to reach that figure.

But it is a laughably small sum in comparison to the sums raised spontaneously when Madeleine went missing and which led to the need for the fund in the first place and to the sums raised by the public to support the McCanns over the years.

And, of course, Rosalinda/Linda/Rosalind Hutton, you forget that much of the money in the fund has reached the fund because the media spread the same filthy lies which you still cling to but could never support with evidence. The fact that you are still clinging in some vain hope the lies will become truth is pathetic.

 But lets turn to the real trolls in this case. The small gang of internet thugs who have guarded the McCanns reputation by patrolling social media sites seeking out the more vocal, crushing them with threats of 'naming and shaming', and proving they meant business, by selecting the harmless Brenda Leyland as an example.

You really have a bizarrely warped view of the world. I see that many realise that all your writing comes from your own supposed suffering as a child. You lash out without thought for the others on the receiving end of your bile because it makes you feel better. Your description of me and others as “thugs” is wildly incorrect but extremely, illuminating about your own view of the law and of society.

Are you so bigoted against the McCanns that you cannot accept the law of this country or that of Portugal? Are you aware that there is no law whatsoever against me or others highlighting the vicious lies, the atrociously flawed research, the contradictions between a poster’s nasty commentary about wholly innocent people and their work as carers, nurses? Are you aware that it is positively encouraged by the police to report any action, be it online or in real life, which a person genuinely believes may be illegal? Or is your head so far up your own rear that you have missed those normal aspects of society?

Brenda Leyland was as were others in that dossier (and no, I had no hand in the compilation of that dossier whatsoever) acting viciously against others for the thrills of online trolling. That you cannot see that is sad. That you cling to Brenda Leyland as a kind of saint of the trolls is pathetic.

In the words of Gerry, it was a disaster, most of those who saw what happened did indeed think, 'yeh, Brenda was just like me, and she didn't deserve that'. You see we are not the sick trolls. We believe that little 3, nearly 4, year old girl deserved a chance to live. We do not accept that a little girl can just disappear with no-one held accountable.

Of course it was a disaster. Any suicide by a person with longstanding mental issues is a disaster. But anyone who tries to pretend that the death of Brenda Leyland had anything to do with the McCanns is deluded. This was a seriously problematic woman with severe personal and family issues who was encouraged by ‘bitches’ such as yourself, Rosalind/Linda/Rosalinda Hutton to get involved more and more deeply in the hate campaign. The only connection to the McCanns is the shame she felt having been involved in the hate campaign. We may never know for certain but it seems possible she killed herself from the shame of her own activities, because she eventually realised when faced with the facts that she had been led by ‘bitches’ such as yourself into a wholly unjustified hate campaign.

You are utterly delusional when you claim you are not sick trolls. Your freely admit you are a sick bitch. What is the difference in reality?

The only decent thing you have posted so far in this blog is that like normal people the bitch who calls herself Rosalinda or Rosalind or Linda Hutton thinks a little girl deserves a chance to live.

Unfortunately it is perfectly clear both to the Portuguese Police and to everyone who has genuinely studied the case with an open mind that one of the main reasons we do not have any notion as to who what happened to Madeleine is the pitifully flawed investigation led by Amaral.

Like Goncalo Amaral we want to know what happened to Madeleine and we are not stupid enough to believe the McCann lies. Who are the bad guys? The ones who seeking justice for the child, or the ones covering up the circumstances of her disappearance? Isn't it kind of sick to cover up a child's death?

Oh dear Lord, how much truth there is in the old adage that the greatest fool can ask more than the wisest man can answer? Questions should be posed based on reality not fantasy. When your questions are based on false premises they can hardly be answered sensibly.

Your initial statement refers to McCann lies. The problem is that there are no lies. Only in your bigoted mind do such lies exist. Genuine investigators unlike the criminal ex-cop Amaral and the silly online “researchers” fail to understand that nobody has perfect recollection and tiny discrepancies do not a liar prove.

“Who are the bad guys?” is your first question. Well the sane and reflective part of society (as opposed to the “bitches”) see criminal cops as bad guys (that would include Amaral, of course and many others of his team and friendship group). No sane and reflective members of society would believe that those seeking to find their missing little girl who have been declared not to be persons of interest by two police forces, who have a full police investigation declaring that no evidence of any crime against them was ever found would believe the McCanns to be bad guys but of course nasty online bitches and people who rely on flawed ‘research;’ such as yourself do.

Sane and reflective people know that the criminal thug who Poulton is shacked up with is a ‘bad guy’. They know that Poulton’s online chum the criminal bitch, Deborah Butler who had absolutely no thought for her dying and neglected (by her) parents is a ‘bad guy’.

And sane and reflective people do not believe that those who are standing up for the innocent parents of a missing little girl whose very chances of being found were damaged by a criminal ex-cop so he could try to protect his own reputation (much good that did him), those who are exposing the sick perverted filthy from the haters such as yourself, the flawed ‘research’ from buffoons such as Bennett etc. are ‘bad guys’. Sane and reflective members of society know that those who stand for the rule of law and the protection of those who are innocent are in fact the ‘good guys’.

And as for your utterly revolting declaration in that last sentence that a missing child is dead when there is not a single tiny piece of actual evidence to prove that just shows that your own declaration of yourself as a bitch is spot on. And no matter how hard you try to big your bitchiness up, bitches are not actually ‘good guys’, they are self-indulgent nasties who peer in at decent society enviously. Your self-pity really shows in everything you write. Your envy of those who had parents who took care of them, your hatred of those who try to enforce rules and laws which you simply reject and so on.

Were you able to provide evidence for your claims that the McCanns deliberately lied or that Madeleine was dead you might deserve some modicum of respect but of course neither you nor your fellow hate trolls can do any such thing. That is what makes you the bad guys – your whole argument is built on sand and you are too bigoted to even realise.

But lets take a closer look at the McCanns publicity campaign, or more particularly the anonymous gang/army of self appointed guardians who defend the MCann family so vigorously online. Or at least the hardcore who remain, the ones who do it just for fun - they are so crap at what they do, I don't think anyone would pay them.

I am proud to defend innocent people such as the McCanns against online trolls and self-proclaimed bitches such as yourself with your lies, your absolute inability to understand the law, your flawed ‘research’ into the files etc. I do not do it for fun at all as you so stupidly allege. That very sentence proves just how lacking in evidence your claims so often are. You simply guess spitefully and nastily when you have no proof of something. And that little dig about us being “crap” is 100% destroyed by the very blog you are writing. And as for being paid. Not a single example of anyone being paid to support the McCanns has ever been shown anywhere no matter how many times idiots and bitches such as yourself and that lunatic tweetmonger with the pink bucket of blancmange might try to suggest otherwise. It is yet another of those myths that you cling to so dearly to support your hate campaign, another of those many, many lies which you throw out time after time oblivious to the fact that posting such bilge without evidence just proves the paucity of your case.

The pro McCann sites are a funny little circle of Uriah Heeps that's for sure, lol. I can almost picture them sitting there eating worms as their world closes in. Sites such as STMs and JATYK2 are dark, murky and very strange places indeed, the 'characters' are surreal, nameless and faceless, their fear of exposure is palpable. The raging Tigerloaf, shivering in his/her cowardly boots while demanding that ALL McCann sceptics be named and publicly shamed - demanding for others that which he/she fears the most.

What kind of sad mind pictures people who are supporting innocent parents looking for their child as “eating worms as their world closes in”? Clearly yours does. What an insight to the way your mind is working!

For your information, I am neither shivering nor wearing boots of any description. I never wear boots in the summer. Why would I be shivering or hiding or worried in any way at all. I won’t be doing any of those things that your rather warped imagination suggests. I have absolutely nothing to fear at all. I am committing no offences by highlighting the hate campaigners online. I never post anything innacurate or guessed about the people I name as haters. I invariably post full evidence for anything I claim about people. That is a big difference between me and you. It matters not a bit that you post in your own name and I use the normal and perfectly acceptable online tradition of using a pseudonym. What actually matters in the real world rather than in your sick mind is that I am posting at all times based on real evidence whereas your posts are childish and immature guesses as to the facts or reliance on hater myths such as the one that the McCanns told lies or that there is some kind of actual proof that Madeleine McCann is dead.

I fear absolutely nothing. Those, like me who tell only the truth have nothing to fear. I simply choose not to reveal myself to bitches such as yourself who admit to revelling in gossip and who from the evidence of your own posts have no understanding of truth. Intelligent people can see why without me having to explain myself to a self-confessed bitch.

Why the terror of exposure? What are they afraid of? They demand that our publishers, employers, family, friends, neighbours etc, be made aware of our beliefs on the McCann case, yet they are so ashamed/fearful of their own. Do their families, employers, neighbours know what they do?

No terror of exposure at all. Just the common sense of anonymity online. If the police believe I have done anything wrong they can find me in a matter of minutes. I have never attempted to hide. I simply do not have any reason to demand attention as you do. If people choose to post in their own names then it is entirely their choice. If they do so in contradiction to other things on their pages then I can highlight that fact to anyone I care to. I have broken no laws. So I am not worried. If these people don’t like their bosses or their families being made aware of how nasty their posts can become then I suggest they don’t indulge in such nastiness online on pages where their own children, family and workplaces are mentioned. As for whether my family know or not, it is none of your business. If you choose to ask them I can assure you, though, that you will get short shrift and they will recognise you as a hater immediately. Take from that what you will.

If their cause is honourable and their motives good, why not use their own names and faces? If people were attacking my family, friends or those I love or admire, I would not hesitate to stand proudly beside them. And I wouldn't have been in the slightest bit bothered by Martin Brunt turning up on my doorstep with a camera crew because I write with honesty and integrity. I KNOW I haven't written anything I would be ashamed of. The best and the most important 'writing' advice I have ever received or given by the way. You never have to delete anything.

Just because some people are self-publicising narcissists such as yourself (a bitch who gets pleasure from being in the limelight) does not mean that is the norm for society. I can choose to publish my name or not. Ever since the Internet began there has been a convention that when joining a forum it is perfectly acceptable to use a pseudonym. Just because you don’t like that freedom does not mean I have to adhere to your limited view of the world.

I believe in genuine freedom of speech, the legal version, constrained by the accompanying responsibilities. There is no need for names if the person (such as myself) merely sticks to facts and fact-based opinions. The law constrains those who post lies such as the media who when unable to evidence their articles found themselves heavily penalised. The law doesn’t care if the author’s name is attached or not – the truth is what matters. And I repeat, I have no fear whatsoever of the law but no intention of deliberately exposing myself to trolling bitches such as yourself who revel in gossip.

There is a wonderful irony to those who have seen the flaws in your writing, ie the complete lack of evidence from you to prove your hate claims such as the death of a missing child or that her parents deliberately lied etc. You proudly boast that you have no shame at all in posting such claims without there being the slightest real piece of evidence to prove these (and many other similar things in your posts) claims. Your pathetic insistence that you lack shame is disgusting to those like Brunt who know just how wrong you are. Had you done any real research, had you bothered as I have to get a good grasp of Portuguese and bothered to compare the garbage produced by some so-called translators and reporters then you would realise just how infantile your bleatings truly sound.

As for the advice you received. Tosh. All good writers draft, re-draft, and then throw it all away for a while and re-write and so on. Even those who say they never go back over their work are not letting on to the fact that an editor goes through their work with a fine toothcomb. Only the likes of Barbara Cartland dictated and didn’t care to edit or re-draft. And though she was successful, she hardly produced memorable literature. If you mean you never delete anything even though it is wrong – such pig-headedness is not intelligent, its very foolish. There are glaring factual problems with your writing and those who have done proper research see them immediately. They make you look rather stupid.

As protective as the creatures on JATYK2 are of their real characters, they often give insightful little snippets away and it is at times like these I can see how pitiful they really are. For students of psychology, psychopathy and what it is that makes people evil, these sites make fascinating studies.

That is just verbal diarrhoea. I cannot speak for others but I have to tell you there are no snippets of my character in my posts other than my belief in absolute freedom of speech for all to tell the truth. Those who lie as part of a hate campaign should be exposed for their lies. There is no law pertaining to freedom of speech which permits hateful lies to be told. They can be challenged by anyone and where they are bad enough they should be removed and punished. That is real freedom of speech, not the perverse version the hate campaigners and bitches such as yourself, Rosalind/Rosalinda/Linda Hutton claim for yourselves. As for your being a student. More tosh. There has never been the slightest indication that you have studied anywhere anything. Is this another of your wild flights of fantasy?

Naturally, I especially pick up on the comments directed at myself (my own narcissism, lol), The reasons people hate me now are exactly the same as they were, when I was 5/10/15/55, there is a pattern. I am attractive, confident and articulate and I don't know/refuse to accept my 'place'. And anyone with similar traits will know exactly what I am talking about, and can like myself spot the 'usual' enemy in a nanosecond. I never changed for any of them in the past, and I'm not going to do it for the new ones now, lol. I don't want to be a sheep, I want to be 'special' - my daddy told me I was, and I'm gonna be! I eschew society's codes and conventions and I laugh out loud at Bureaucracy - that seems to upset some people, especially those with state of the art filing systems. My blunt honesty disarms and frightens some people, it puts them in touch with feelings of their own that they would prefer to keep hidden. Its much cosier and safer on their side of the fence, with the crowd.

So now we come to the nub of the matter. Once again your blog descends into a narcissitic commentary on your disrupted childhood. Once again you hark back to those days when your parents put you in a home. You have never, even in your book, fully and honestly explained that. I wonder were you a little bitch that grew into an older bitch and then an old bitch? Was this boarding school strict for legal reasons perchance? I am not stating anything as fact but there are good reasons to consider these possibilities.

The very evidence you post yourself in the paragraph above that you have always been disruptive, that you consider yourself more special than others, that you “eschew society's codes and conventions” etc. Not exactly, the kind of person who could be expected to behave at home as a child? There is a great deal of resentment in your writing about the past, about the way you have been treated and a clear indication that as a bitch you enjoy getting back at the society you feel wronged you in some way.

Your blunt honesty and disregard for the rules of society and the feelings of others does not in any way disarm and frighten me. It merely disgusts me and makes me pity you and your parents and other family members. You seem to be trying to be a rebel and to get some kind of notoriety (since your book flopped) have latched as you claimed in the paper to a group of others who share your desire to find a ‘cause’. But in that last sentence in the above paragraph you try to tell us that you are avoiding the crowd while all the time the actual evidence of your own words proves the opposite. Just look back at your famed article where the quotes from yourself prove just how much you needed to be part of a crowd and preferably a crowd of like-minded bitches. No matter how much you pretend to be mature and strong the real you, as evidenced in your own words, is a weak person who needs the support of others.

Embittered women of my age and generation look to me for reasons to continue in their own safe domestic sphere and keep their heads down. I'm an example of what happens to attention seekers and the scolding I get is my just desserts for stepping out of line, not forgetting of course, its great fun bitching about others. Think garden fence and 'er down the road, who is no better than she ought to be and you get the gist. Some things never change.

Now you are truly fantasising as a narcissist! You are clearly dreaming of a world where people take notice of you, something you have frequently admitted to needing. However the truth is nobody looks to you bar a few other old gossipy bitches maybe. There are not swarms of people looking to you on your blog for advice, not swarms of desperate people looking to you for the answers of how to deal with their problems. The scolding you get is for your inability to research properly, your penchance for telling lies which people have proven over and over again. One has to ask was the reason your failed in court because the judge simply saw you as a liar, indeed how much actual truth is there in your book? Having seen how willing you are to lie without a second thought in the McCann case I do wonder whether the same personal trait was first developed in you memoir? It is you who is the gossip without actual evidence not those on the other side as you put it.

To a certain section of white middle class men, I am an abomination, a terrible influence on their subjugated wives and a direct threat to the cosy patriarchal status quo. Unfortunately (and creepily) for me, their underlying fear/loathing of women is directly linked to their genital area. I'm not special in this regard btw, any adult woman would have the same effect.

More fantasy. 99.999% of while middle class men have never heard of you, much less consider you to be an abomination. Perhaps your fantasy is based on bad relationships with those men you have met? You don’t influence anyone though. There isn’t a single sentence on your blog, for example, where there is evidence that men believe as you claim. As for your mention of genitalia, it is the haters whose perversions come through clearly in their sick paedophilic writing not the supporters of the McCanns. Once again you seem too embroiled In bigotry and hate to even notice where the perverts really are.

Injustice infuriates me now just as much as it did when I was 5 - if HE can do it, so can I! I have always taken the side of the underdog, if I could see other kids struggling to say what they wanted, I knew I had the gob on me to say it for them! For what it is worth, I have instigated rebellions from the playground to the work place to the local town centre, I just can't help myself. Ergo, I have had the same 'enemies' all my life, only now there are more of them and they are easier to spot.

You are either an idiot or a liar. Injustice is posting the lies you do about two innocent parents online. Injustice is your hateful insistence that there is no hope whatsoever of Madeleine being alive when there is not a single piece of evidence that she is dead.

And your lack of self-awareness is a clear flaw in your personality. It does you no favours to prove to the world as you do in the above paragraph just what a horrible bitch you really are. We know you like to tell the world you are a bitch as you proved when talking to the media. Now we have more elucidation as to your nasty personality. No surprises, just not making you look good. It is not a matter of enemies. Perhaps your teachers, parents, mentors etc were simply pointing out the flaws in your character which make you less acceptable in society but you were so up yourself and so into your rebellious side that you ignored absolutely everybody? Probably too late to change now and be a more constructive member of society but hey ho, I still offer the advice!

I have given myself as an example but all of us who have been on the receiving end of the vicious McCann publicity machine will recognise everything I have said. The stalking, the Blacklist, the Death Dossier all emanate from the pro McCann side of the fence, but you already know that Jerry.

Are you really so bigoted as not to see the irony? Have you not noticed that you and your fellow bitches and haters have been stalking the McCanns insanely and incessantly for 8 years? Are you so stupid you don’t even realise that is what you are doing? As for your pulp end of the market “death dossier” phrase, you really are trying too hard.

Only a fool would think that reporting potential crime to the police is wrong. And clearly you think that, ergo you are the fool.

Trolls are indeed sick, but sicker I think are those journalists who attack decent, caring, law abiding citizens who have the right to ask what the hell is going on. If the only way to get justice for the little British child Madeleine is through the Portuguese civil courts, then so be it. The McCanns can't silence everyone.

You are not a decent, caring, law-abiding citizen. You really are very, very stupid. By your own words you have proven and claimed to be a nasty bitch who revels in gossip and hate. You condemn yourself and the other sick trolls who campaign with you every time you put fingers to keyboard.

Keep up the good work of proving just what liars, fantasists, perverts and bitches the anti-McCann haters are. Amaral the criminal has now been chastised severely and found guilty by the courts in Portugal. So much for your campaign.

Ps I will post a couple of the claims Hutton has made recently and challenge her to prove them.

Hutton claims the McCanns lied (lying implies deliberate intent). Prove that.

Hutton claims that Madeleine is dead. Prove that.

Hutton claims to have been a journalist. Prove that

Hutton claims to have been a lecturer. Prove that.

I am certain she can prove none of these as there is no truth in any of them. However she now has the opportunity to show she is not simply a craven liar.

From Myths with thanks.

tigerloaf » Thu Jun 04, 2015 9:52 am
I have already seen one hate troll try to dismiss my post above with the incorrect comment that I should refrain from "ad hominem" commentary. So, in order to help this individual understand the meaning of "ad hominem" I will explain why that description of my post is incorrect.

Since the earliest debates among Romans in the original Forum in Rome it has been accepted that "ad hominem" jibes do not further the debate. Orators were urged to speak " ad rem" "to the point" or "on topic".

But it is "ad rem", when the previous speaker or writer introduces themself into the topic by referring to their own supposed skills or expertise to support the argument they are making, to challenge those details. The have made themselves part of the topic. Hutton does this all the time so challenging supposed facts she has presented is 100% ad rem.

Readers will see the difference between her silly name calling eg. "thugs" and my asking for evidence of her claims. She posts "ad hominem". I post "ad rem",

Cristobell Author ‏@RosalindaHu 3h3 hours ago
@wicatty009 @HiDeHo3 You can tell your mate tigerloaf if he thinks I am going to read all that shite he is seriously deluded, lol. #mccann  

So, she's read it, then.

Anonymous4 June 2015 at 19:03
@ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton4 June 2015 at 18:51

But you and Sonia questioned whether his payments to CR were genuine - wasn't that prying into the lives of others? He answered and provided evidence.

His question to you which remains unanswered was " Were you paid for your interview by the Sun, if so, how much?"

Is it so difficult to answer?

Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton4 June 2015 at 19:14
LOL, it tickles me that that bugs you so much, crack on.

Tony claims he pays Carter Ruck, some think he is a double agent, I merely think he's bonkers. He chose to put his bank stuff online, the choice was his. I choose not to and there is not an aggressive, stalking poster or law in the land that that will force me to, or quick version, kiss my ass.

Anonymous4 June 2015 at 19:21
@ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton4 June 2015 at 19:14

I have no intention of going anywhere close to you ass.

Your refusal to answer a simple question (not asked by me by the way) and your denigration of his reply speaks volumes.

From another forum with thanks.

I would suggest that Hutton's evasive answer can clearly be taken as an admission that she WAS paid by the Sun for that terrible article about her getting a 'buzz' from attacking others, and in which she was portrayed to the Sun's 6-million-plus readers as a vile anti-McCann troll.

If so, then to be PAID for an interview in which she signifiantly damaged the cause of the McCann-doubters is about as low as you can get - being paid by Murdoch to make McCann-doubters out to be vile trolls.

The attacks she has repeatedly made to her followers against CMOMM - by far the most-read Madeleine McCann forum on the internet - also raise serious further doubts about Hutton's - and Poulton's - true agenda in all of this

I think her only 'agenda' is getting her strings pulled by Poulton - she's got far worse since they hooked up. And when she is no longer of use, Poulton will backstab her like she does everyone in the end.

Saturday, 6 June 2015
Where is Madeleine in all this?



The above meme was posted on twitter by Ben Thompson yesterday with the tagline #Hutton #ATTENTIONSEEKING WHORE.  Ben is the facebook tyrant who claims I gave the anti's and himself a bad name by appearing in The Sun. He fails of course to mention that he wanted to do the interview, and was majorly pissed off at not being chosen.  The title of this blog comes the latest line by Aguila on page 46 of the top thread on CMoMM.  The entire thread, and in fact, ALL their hot topics are devoted to how much they despise Sonia Poulton and myself.  Where is Madeleine in all this?  Quite.

The once, partially credible research site of CMoMM is now a complete bitchfest intent on wrecking Sonia's forthcoming documentary and destroying both her and my reputations (where is Madeleine in all this?) and let's not beat about the bush, they want blood.  Pretty much anyone's will do especially during quiet times when there is not much happening on the McCann case and at the moment they want mine. They have already suggested that I will probably kill myself, and have prepared themselves.  I am and always have been a maniacal attention seeker, it was (posthumously) inevitable, for them it is already a done deal. The contents of the posts on CMoMM have merged with the posts on JATYK2 (the death dossier compilers) and they are now indistinguishable from each other.

The majority, actually strike that, all my critics target the fact that I suffer from manic depression, or as it is more fashionably called these days bipolar disorder. I have no shame about it, which is why I speak so openly. However, my enemies use my 'insanity' to dismiss everything I say, it saves them disturbing their one brain cell and actually responding to the points I raise.

The hope of those who label me insane, is that others will join in their hate fest and I will be blacklisted, scorned and caste out of society.  Some may even want the return of Bedlam, a place in which the general public can pay a small entrance fee to stare at and make fun of the lunatics. A nice day out for some families and a sure fire winner with the members CMoMM and their sister sites JATYK2 and Stop the Myths.

I speak honestly about my manic depression in the hope that others will recognise things I say, and won't feel quite so alone when the crippling black dog takes over.  Sometimes when you say things out loud, they don't sound half as bad and its reassuring to know that there are others out there who feel exactly the same.  And, I cannot tell a lie, my favourite form of narrative is comedy, sometimes a little giggle is all it takes to pick you back up again and get things back into perspective. That some people should take my honesty and vulnerability as a stick with which to flog me, reflects on them, not me.

Unfortunately, the world is full of ignorant people who still see mental illness and the mentally ill as a form of entertainment for themselves.  Sadly, the anonymity of the internet allows them to seek out targets and join groups where mocking and deriding the mentally ill is positively encouraged. The sorrow of course lies in their own ignorance, as the good Lord said, 'They know not what they do'. For some sickos, their ultimate goal is to push someone over the edge, then claim their victim was only doing it for attention. Thus, their hands are clean.

Of course, we can't stop sadistic people gathering to discuss their sadistic thoughts, but we can turn the mockery back on them  For nearly 8 years some of these fine, upstanding pillars of the community have hidden behind their anonymous avatars, ostensibly to discuss the case of missing Madeleine McCann, but more accurately, partaking in their favourite hobby - talking about the flaws in other people. And of course, their anonymity allows them to be as cruel as they wish.  However, in order to tear other people down as they do, these vicious critics must be beyond reproach themselves.  Anonymity allows them to TELL us they are God fearing folk with good intentions but there is nothing whatsoever to back it up.

Like members of the Klu Klux Klan, they don their anonymity hoods to seek out rule breakers and non conformists to slaughter for the public's pleasure.  So who are Aguila, Plebgate, Verdi, Noodles, Bennett at least has the guts to put his name and face behind his venom.  These self righteous people who have sat in judgement of the McCanns, myself and others remain in hiding.  They have appointed themselves, police, judge, jury and executioners, yet we don't even know if they male/female/transgender or cloned sheep.  

CMoMM have, it seems have given up any pretence of seeking justice for Madeleine, because they have found a much more stimulating pastime (many thanks to all those who pointed out my former spelling error ), they are now devoted to putting Sonia and I, back in our 'place'.  In my case, they have become a little band of grim reapers, whispering 'go on, do it', whilst rubbing their hands in glee.  It is despicable how people of that nature can pick up on little snippets of personal information, then use it again and again to batter you with. But I remind myself, that creeps like this are all around us, the only thing I have control over is the way in which I react to it.

For me the way in which I handle a crisis (and gangs of people calling you a harlot, whore, prostitute, drug addict, attention whore etc and pronounce you Mental online, can trigger a crisis unfortunately), I try to rationalise it and understand the reasoning behind it.  The bad vibrations always come from those giving them out, not those on the receiving end and I thank all the Gods there may be that I have never in my entire life felt that gut wrenching need to destroy another person.  As chilling as their behaviour is, it is also pitiful.  They live in fear, I don't.

Many people appear to be terrified by Sonia's forthcoming documentary.  Why?  The anger and hostility is almost tangible, and most of it is coming from the 'anti' side?  I became involved in this case because I was outraged that the truth was being hidden, and I have always gone along with the philosophy that ANYTHING that brings the truth to the general public's attention is a good thing.

I do now of course see just how naïve I was, but more of that another time.  Why is there a full blown campaign to stop the broadcasting of Sonia Poulton's documentary?  More importantly, why is the campaign being led by the CMoMM forum and other of the more deranged anti's?

Could it possibly be that some people are ashamed about the way they behave online?  CMoMM don't know anything about the documentary, ergo, all the fears they have are coming from themselves, they have created them.  Whilst they are happy to lecture the McCanns and myself and Sonia on the paths of righteousness, they are petrified of anyone discovering who they are. Have they no pride in their words? Don't they want all their hard work acknowledged?

They have formed an 'elite' (lol) and banned all the miscreants, low lives and those who do not tow the Bennett party line, ergo their slate should be as clean as a proverbial whistle, a forum of bible bashing, clean living, pillars of society engaging in noble discussion that places them above the rest of us.  So why have they gone into meltdown over the forthcoming documentary?  Why are they prepared to go to any means (apart from revealing who they are) to stop this documentary from being aired?  But I will let aguila have the last line, 'where is Madeleine in all this?'

"CMoMM and their sister sites JATYK2 and Stop the Myths ...."
"The contents of the posts on CMoMM have merged with the posts on JATYK2 (the death dossier compilers) and they are now indistinguishable from each other."  

These are the most stupidest comments I have ever read - CMoMM is an anti site, the other two are pro sites.  Sykes

 Monday, 8 June 2015
JAW JAW IS BETTER THAN WAR WAR

I have said this many times before, but I will say it again just for clarity.

When I first began commenting on the case of Madeleine McCann, I did not know whether the parents were involved or not, but I had a lot of questions.  At the time I was unsure, I would not comment negatively about them.  Although I am a libertarian and all round loon, I actually have my own very strict moral barometer and there are lines I will not cross.  Attacking a grieving family was one of them.

As more details of the case emerged and the files were released (I studied them day and night), both from a 'guilty' and 'not guilty' perspective, I began to reach the 'beyond reasonable doubt' stage, and it was only when I reached that point, that I became more critical.  Some the people I posted with in those days are still around, a few have become great personal friends and I post with them still on Facebook.  They have known my feelings about this case since the very beginning, and I am most definitely NOT a pro.

Regarding, where and who I post with.  There are calls (again) for me to be caste out and ostracised because I am talking to the enemy, there are a certain anti's (usually the anonymous ones) expressing anger and outrage at my behaviour.  They seem to think that because I am 'anti' (one of them), that they can dictate where I post and who I post with.  The idea is ludicrous of course, but they have spent so long bitching that they have lost touch with reality.

I am very much a believer in 'jaw jaw' not 'war war'.  That is, when you have a disagreement with someone it is better to sit down at the table and thrash it out.  The majority, actually strike that, all of the Madeleine groups are divided into two camps bitching about each other, each group agreeing (naturally) with everything their members say.  Well done, good post, pat on the back.  There is NO opposition.

Such is my nature, and I make no apologies, I find that boring and after 8 years, a little bit pointless.  For myself, I am writing for people who already agree with me, and as nice as that is, they are not really my target audience.  I want to reach those who are convinced of the opposite and those who may be hovering on the fence.

I have not 'gone over to the other side', and the idea that I have is extremely childish, it reminds me of playground bullying, 'don't talk to her, she's one of THEM', it's not the behaviour of educated, articulate, adults. As an educated, articulate adult I prefer to face the opposition head on rather than join a gang and whisper about them in a corner.

The Madeleine Debate Group is open to both sides of the McCann divide.  I think this is a good thing, they can make their accusations, I can counter them with arguments of my own.  We may be antis and pro's, but we are people first and happily there are enough well mannered pro's on the debate group to make discussion not only possible, but interesting and lively.  In my opinion, we need to stop looking at each other as 'monsters', because as long as we all have that imagery, the wars will continue.

I should add, that among my personal friends there are catholics and staunch tories.  We are polar opposites on our political and religious views, but we remain friends nevertheless, and I should also add, that they have never persuaded me to go to mass or vote tory!  

Wednesday, 10 June 2015
A GUIDE TO THE MCCANN FORUM WARS

The disappearance of Madeleine McCann coincided with the birth of social media and those who had been twitching on the sidelines wondering where the profit in the internet might lie, were thrown a golden goose loaded with golden eggs, as long as they were able to keep total control of the goose that is.

In the summer of 2007, the tabloids ruled, they gave the public the headlines and the news, and on the whole the public accepted what was written without question, because the papers are 'not allowed' to publish things that aren't true, right? We knew politicians lied to us, that was a given, but we somehow believed that the newspapers were on our side, the side of the people.

Despite its sleazy image, Fleet Street also had journalists with integrity, journalists who would publish and be damned, journalists who would dig their teeth into a story and go after the truth no matter what, their integrity wasn't for sale. Sadly, they are now few and far between. Its not entirely their fault, stories about Kim Kardashian sell more newspapers than stories about corruption.  The public gets what the public wants.

When Madeleine McCann went missing, we saw for the first time, the internet used at full throttle, and it was being used for a good cause, it demonstrated how one tiny girl could unite the entire world through compassion and generosity.  Momentarily, we all became as one, and it was a phenomenon. Everyone, the world over, wanted to help, but the only realistic way for most to assist was to donate cash.  Kerching.

Not only did Team McCann launch the most successful media campaign ever seen, they simultaneously launched an under cover online campaign to stamp out any opposition to the 'official' abduction story, and their fructiferous goose. The anonymity of the internet allowed them to steer public opinion in favour of the McCanns without revealing their original source.

The anonymity of the internet allows people to behave in ways they would not dream of in their 'real' lives.  They can express their dark, malevolent thoughts without anyone knowing who they are and if they are lucky they will find like minded folk and form a pack.  Therein, the nastiness and pitchforking lies.

Anonymity can be used for good, in that it gives a voice to legions who might otherwise wish to keep their heads below the parapet. In the early days especially, commenting negatively about the McCanns made individuals targets of one of the most malicious social media campaigns ever seen.  Facebook pages were scoured, backgrounds researched and a Blacklist compiled. For myself as a writer with a book coming out it was the kiss of death.

People had good reason to protect their online identities. Threats to make examples of 'haters' were prolific on every social media site, employers, neighbours, friends and relatives would all be informed of your antisocial behaviour online. It was a precursor to the example made of Brenda Leyland.

The use of anonymity online is a debate I won't go into here, suffice to say that anonymity allows people to behave in ways that are not constrained by normal social boundaries.  They can create false personas in whatever form they wish and present themselves as characters beyond reproach or wannabe gladiators entering an arena.

Whilst providing us with information beyond our wildest dreams, the internet is also filled with deception, or more accurately, fictional characters, that is people living out imaginary lives online.  They are easy to spot, they don't 'do' Facebook or Twitter, lol, and they hang on to their anonymity as if their lives depended on it.  However, 8 years on, the fear is now more imagined than real, I doubt there is a boss left in the land who cares one way or another what his/her employees think about the McCann case. For many, it may well be that they now regret their ill chosen words, others are simply hooked on taking bitching to the extreme and don't want to give it up.

So how did the forums begin?  As the summer of 2007 went on, the power of the internet began to work against the McCanns.  Whilst they could slap the tabloid newspapers with gargantuan lawsuits, they had no control over what was said online. For the first time in history, news could not be contained by borders.  Anyone who cared to look beyond the UK headlines could quickly find details about the missing Madeleine case that were, for some reason, being withheld from the British public.  The work of Joana Morais, Astro, Pamalam, Nigel Moore (McCann Files), Steel Magnolia (RIP) Teddy and others must never be underestimated, without their courage and integrity, the truth about this case would have remained buried.

I first became involved in the social media wars in the summer of 2007.  I was extremely puzzled by the details of this case and went online to see exactly how far the Tapas bar was from Apartment 5A and stumbled across hundreds of other people, who, just like myself, were wondering what on earth was going on.  As an AOL user I was pointed in the direction of the Europe Board chat room. The reception I received was comparable to that of a stranger walking into a hostile bar in the Wild West with the whisky flowing.  It was every man for himself.  I kinda liked it.  (I'm better now)

In the early days, several of the tabloids allowed their readers to comment about the case on their forums - the most popular of which, was the Daily Mirror.  However, as the hostility towards the McCanns increased, the forums were shut down.  This led to the birth of the 3 Arguidoes, the most prominent anti forum, and probably the one that fed the myth that all those who doubted the abduction story were pitchforking haters.    

As bloody as the Europe Board battlefield was, it was as nothing compared to the 3 As, for that you needed a full coat of armour and the Samaritans on speed dial.  Even then, there was an air of tyranny, it was no place for the faint hearted, and humour was strictly prohibited.  I have since discovered it was run by Tony Bennett and Bren Ryan, so there you go. The 3 As was doomed and Tony and Bren went their separate ways.

Tony set up a 'legitimate' forum via Jill Havern to run alongside the Madeleine Foundation.  The Jill Havern forum, the Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann (CMoMM) presents the evidence collected by its researchers for analysis and discussion.  It is also a platform for Tony to receive the recognition he feels he deserves for solving the case (Murat dunnit).  However, like the 3 As, CMoMM is a hostile, unwelcoming, environment, where newbies are treated with suspicion and derided for asking stupid questions.  Question mein host and you are out the door.  Their priority now is not solving the mystery of Madeleine McCann, so much as destroying the opposition.

Tony's Madeleine Foundation was the militant wing of CMoMM, committed to taking action against the McCann parents through frivolous law suits and intimidating them by distributing leaflets to all their neighbours. Yes, 'pros' that disgusted me as much as it did you.  It served no purpose other than to harass the McCann family and in my opinion it was rightly labelled as despicable by the tabloids. People who truly want justice are not cruel and sadistic, and when that kind of behaviour comes in, you have to question the motives.

Bren, like Gerry, had an epiphany, she saw the 'light' apologised to Kate and Gerry for all her past misdeeds and became their most staunch supporter.
Bren founded, or became part of Stop the Myths/Exposing the Myths, the best known of the 'pro' sites and the compilers of the Hate List that led to the death of Brenda Leyland. The Kingdom was divided, and each took up their separate thrones.

For several years Tony Bennett has gone unchallenged as the 'leader' of the antis. He wears a suit.  He was once a solicitor (?), he was once a social worker (?), he is a man of God, he is filled with brimstone and fire - no-one can doubt his passion and he is a proven academic (all that research).  He has no time for frivolity (he doesn't watch TV) and he creationist, that is, he believes God made the world in 7 days and has given each of us our designated roles in this world. He takes misogyny to a whole new level.

At this point, most people would be thinking 'clearly bonkers', but we are so indoctrinated by society's codes and conventions that we automatically store a suit clad 'academic' in the 'respectable' cabinet in our brains.  If he were covered in tattoos with a tunnel in his earlobe and facial piercings, we would have recoiled in fright, the suit had us all fooled.  There is a moral in here somewhere.

As one of my more enlightened readers commented, there has never been an anti movement as such, because groups by their very nature attract wannabe despots and tyrants who want to rule the roost.  I should mention at this point that leading is not something that has ever appealed to me, mostly because I am useless at it.  Whenever I was put in charge of a group I would take them all down the pub and face a disciplinary the next day. Ergo, I have been able to watch from the sidelines in both amusement and horror. In more recent years, we have seen the emergence of the super large Facebook groups and the thesis, antithesis and synthesis begins again, only the leading characters change.

For those with a genuine interest in the facts and details, I can see how its all become so confusing.  You just want to know 'did they, or didn't they?' And if you are a rational person, you will look at the case from every angle.  There are thousands of pages of credible research available online, the McCann files are a goldmine and the videos of Hideho a treasure. From the 'pro' side there is very little to read, 1. Because the McCanns have remained resolutely silent and 2) because there are no reasonable or rational explanations for the parents' very odd behaviour.

This is an intriguing case and without wishing to trivialise the tragedy that lies at the heart of it, it is a real life mystery, one that appeals to our inner detective.  A puzzle to stimulate and occupy our minds. For some a form of escapism. It was the butler in the drawing room with the candlestick.  High profile crimes attract huge public interest, especially the interactive ones.  The trial of OJ Simpson kept several nations gripped for several months with families falling out and threatening never to speak to each again. That we allow the lives of strangers to encroach our own personal space to that extent is bizarre in itself.

But again, I don't want to put people off joining the forums and groups. Once this case gets inside your head the need to understand/solve it becomes like an insatiable fever.  I fully understand the need to discuss it, which is why I don't tell people to stay away from the forums.  For many the need to put our theories to the test and bounce ideas backwards and forwards with others is overwhelming, and I hold my hand up right there. I actually encourage those new to the case to join the forums and facebook groups.  Despite the way it may appear, there are lot of genuine, kind and decent people out there.  People who want justice for the missing child, not vengeance on their perceived enemies.

The best advice I can give for anyone who wants to dip a toe, is read Goncalo Amaral's book and/or watch the documentary that accompanies it.  As for the groups, join all of them, test them out, some are better than others, but it is all down to personal taste.

As for myself I am done with the bickering, I have way too much going on. I am happy to respond to and interact with anyone on here pro or anti if they are polite and rational.  The personal abuse however, will simply go straight to spam.

Re: CRISTOBELL LATEST BLOGS - in this section
Post Cristobell Today at 1:54 pm

Thanks for putting up the link. Latest blog is a swansong on the whole troll and shill business. I am not wasting any more of my time on their nonsense, I have got way too much going on to be dragged down by their negativity and personal abuse. I have received more hate mail this week than the average murderer or paedophile, it actually made me physically sick. My crime? Having an opinion and, the horror, the horror, attention seeking. That I can't help, I remain the class clown and the voice of outrage when I see injustice, it's beyond my control, and I make no apologies for it. I have never sought to blend in with the crowd, and if more people were honest, they would admit that they don't want to either.

From now on they can discuss my mental health and character flaws in their gated communities to their heart's delight , I won't be reading it. Its been distracting me from what I should be doing and achieves nothing. I had a bit of an epiphany myself this week - although I think I am clever, I can, on occasion, be very naïve. I thought reason, logic and good manners could succeed above everything else. I was wrong. It is probably the grandiosity of bipolar when you are 'up', you believe can conquer the world, but then you cry like a baby when you can't. The truth is, I can't open the minds of these people, they are shut tight, it would be easier to teach Algebra to a lobotomised sheep. They are not interested in this case, they are interested in hurting people (anyone) and nothing will stop their quest. My crazy (Brilliant) mother, always used to say with some people the only language they can understand is feck off. And that I'm afraid is what I resorted to.

Apologies if anyone was caught in the crossfire, but for those who simply want to attack my character, those two words stand, they are not getting any more of my time. I am of course still happy to come on here and discuss the issues around this case etc, there are a number of people on here that I have a lot of respect for, but I will not be responding to any more personal attacks. I hope people can understand why I have made that decision.

Comment from another forum with thanks.

So, having gone on a foul-mouthed rampage in which she lied about, smeared, bullied, libelled and made malicious, false accusations about just about everyone in this corner of the internet, whatever their shade of opinion, Hutton is now playing the victim yet again.

And, predictably, looking for sympathy because of her 'illness'. I should think every single one of her many victims has the same reaction to her mendacious bleating.

Re: CRISTOBELL LATEST BLOGS - in this section
Post Tigger Today at 9:38 pm

cyber snail wrote:
Cristobell wrote "From now on they can discuss my mental health and character flaws in their gated communities to their heart's delight ,"

There are spiteful people who only seem to feel big and clever when they are inflicting damage on someone's feelings or reputation. I think you are right not to engage with them. Like bullies in the playground, their lives must be sad and empty to get their kicks this way.

Sad lot really. Feel lucky they are them and you are you.

Cristobell has volunteered information on her mental health rather frequently and she herself has said she is bipolar. Very frequently I must say. So not surprising it is discussed.

That alleged condition possibly explains why she sent me a tweet telling me to Fu... Off . when I asked why she said I sent her hatemail. Which is a criminal offence. One does like to know what one is accused of.
Again, this was in relation to her post telling us she sent a list of IP addresses of all the comments she didn't like to Poulton who would be able to trace the IDs.
When I answered that I'd never had a comment posted she replied that she should have known all the hatemail came from me. i post as Tigger btw.

The last tweets had the old refrain that she wasn't going to answer an anonymous person. Of course, she has no problem with anonymous persons if they agree with her. Her blog is full of sweet answers to their posts.

Re: CRISTOBELL LATEST BLOGS - in this section
Post Tigger Today at 9:38 pm

Post deleted. There is no place for personal feuds on the open forum

Re: CRISTOBELL LATEST BLOGS - in this section
Post Freedom Today at 10:10 pm

Please don't give up on being a positive human, Cyber Snail.

Far too many nasty, negative ones around at present.

I have deleted Tigger's inflammatory post.

Too late; don't you just love screenshots?    Sykes  

And now Bennett opines:

Rosalind Hutton (Cristobell) harvests e-mail ISP addresses to Sonia Poulton who then traces people's identities

Post  Tony Bennett Yesterday (11 June 2015) at 11:22 pm

A matter has arisen in another place tonight which deserves to be brought here because it has a bearing on the modus operandi of Sonia Poulton and her friend and co-worker on various McCann-related matters, Rosalinda Hutton.

Months back, a poster here (can't recall who now, but it may have been 'Cheshire Cat') warned of the possibilty that Sonia Poulton, who had once again appealed for McCann-doubters to come forward and contact her, might be harvesting details about McCann-doubters, and passing those details on to all sorts of unknown people (posisbly SKY News of course).

It didn't seem possible at the time, but with Sonia Poulton's increasing appearances on SKY News and her work in getting Hutton to make a prize idiot of us all in the Sun three months back with her 'I am an anti-McCann bitch and proud of it' article, it is beginning to look more than possible.

The information from the other place was on a message over there tonight by one of our returning members from there, 'Tigger'. Her message was considered so unacceptable over there (the admin of that forum defends Hutton to the hilt at all times) that this message below now appears in place of Tigger's post, which has been deleted:

I have deleted Tigger's inflammatory post.

By way of background, Tigger and Hutton are at loggerheads over one or two issues, notably another demonstrably false accusation by Hutton that Tigger had been sending her hatemail.

Without further ado, I publish below the now-deleted post, with the relevant part highligthed in red:

 Cristobell has volunteered information on her mental health rather frequently and she herself has said that she is bipolar. Very frequently I must say. So not surprising it is discussed.

That alleged condition possibly explains why she sent me a tweet telling me to F*** Off. When I asked why, she said I sent her ‘hatemail’. Which is a criminal offence. One does like to know what one is accused of.  

Again, this was in relation to her post telling us she sent a list of IP addresses of all the comments she didn't like to Poulton who would be able to trace the IDs.

When I answered that I'd never had a comment posted she replied that she should have known all the hatemail came from me. I post as Tigger btw.

The last tweets had the old refrain that she wasn’t going to answer an anonymous person. Of course, she has no problems with anonymous persons who agree with her. Her blog is full of sweet answers to their posts.

This is not a campaign by me against Sonia Poulton and/or her much-trumpeted documentary.

I am however driven to post factual information and constant warnings about her activities, once again in the hope that I am proved utterly wrong in the end

Cristobell wrote:
Lets just stop this nasty little rumour, started by tigger and now expanded upon by Bennett, in it tracks.  I have never said I SENT a list of IP addresses to Sonia Poulton - ffs, I don't even know what an IP address is! Shocked  

Even if I knew what an IP address was, why would I want it?  I do not have even the slightest bit of interest in the weirdos who send me hate mail, never have, never will and I'm not replying to them anymore.  

Really? Then why has she made so many malicious, false allegations about members of this site, and others? And she doesn't know what an IP is - more lies.

Tigger, the original complainant:

You did say exactly that Cristobella, too bad all whooshed - leaving an unaccountable gap between the 2nd and the 7th of February. Which is where your posts were and my questiins and those of Resistor.

My topic in the members' lounge fall into that gap too.mhard to delete all traces but at any rate, this will be whooshed too. So screenshot again...

I've added to above mentioned post and just to remind of your recent output as your memory seems to be playing tricks with you:

Cristobell Author (@RosalindaHu)
05/06/2015 18:50
@gcnjones you have FOS to ask me those questions, I have FOS to tell you to f*ck off, which please do take as my reply. #mccann

 This latest lie is refuted by someone called 'resistor':

No, you said that you would let the media go through the list of IP addresses that had posted on your blog.  Please do not try to deny it.  

Re: CRISTOBELL LATEST BLOGS - in this section
Post  Resistor

Sorry Candyfloss, but I am not going to sit here and let blatant lies be told on this forum. One moment Christobell is passing on IP addresses (to whoever) and the next, she "doesn't even know what an IP address is." Which is it? I'm sure a few of us would like to know. And Christobell isn't helping her case any by suddenly coming over all ignorant and ditsy, when she keeps telling us that she is anything but.

From another forum with thanks for comments.

Someone else agrees with:

No, you said that you would let the media go through the list of IP addresses that had posted on your blog. Please do not try to deny it.  
Seconded Resistor.
It's been said. I've never read any retraction

It has to be asked - is this why any posts criticising Hutton or Poulton disappear on so many 'anti' sites, as happened with that FB post earlier this week, and almost happened with this post about Hutton and the Data Protection Act?

Are people actually scared of her, and what she is doing with personal information? It's no secret that she's been passing personal info - probably wrong - about people onto Poulton.   Poulton has 'previous' for attacking supposed enemies, not least due to her involvement with that vile blog in which anyone who has stood up to her - including abuse survivors - is attacked in the most shameful manner.

We all watched in horror as Hutton bullied and lied her way around this corner of the internet earlier this week, so it would scarcely be out of character, after all.

Unfortunately, what we are seeing here is fear and paranoia CF. People who have written things anonymously now shivering in their boots terrified that their real identities will be exposed. My statement that I have no interest in them whatsoever should have eased their troubled minds, but once paranoia takes a grip, nothing will, ergo any further argument is pointless.

CMoMM have worked themselves up into a frenzy and Tony and Tigger are fuelling them on. From a human behaviour perspective, it is an interesting study, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Madeleine McCann case. All these people who have convinced themselves the world is out to get them, will carry on thinking that way, they probably thought like that at every age in their lives, only the situations and characters change. I am just another 'problem' life has thrown at them, whatever I say or do, won't make any difference whatsoever.

We only have control of our own lives. I know I keep harping on about it (its a kinda mantra), but for me it is a life philosophy, one that is newish and becoming more finely honed    That is, once we accept that we can only control what we do, we are nearer to finding inner peace. We can blame others, it may even be their fault, but we can't change them. The only thing we have the power to change is the way we react to their behaviour  

Last edited by Cristobell on Thu Jun 11, 2015 11:46 am; edited 1 time in total

Anyone still doubt that she is NOT a victim, but an aggressive bully? Looks like she's been doing it on MMM too, to other members:

Agreed and never any apology to posters like myself and many others who have been accused of having nefarious reasons for being involved in the case if we question the actions of cristobell or sonia..and to be honest I'm sick of having to defend myself against her diatribes, which are posted openly on here...chaff I think we were referred to on the thread in the members lounge a couple of days ago..

I think I'll just wait quietly for any news from operation grange, rather than reading about the life and times of cristobell, because it's just getting really tiresome.

So, she regards other members that have the wisdom not to worship her as 'chaff'?

Sunday, 21 June 2015
THE BRITISH FEAR

Where has the idea come from that small (British) children in bathing suits are sexual beings?  Why are UK parents obsessed with the idea that people are trying to take photographs of their children for sexual purposes?

The fear and hysteria around paedophilia stirred up by people like former head of CEOP Jim Gamble, make the UK look like a nation of paranoid weirdos.  Most holidaymakers, foreigners too, have cameras with them to take pictures of their holiday and their kids and their reasons for carrying them are no different to their British counterparts.  

The case of missing Madeleine McCann and the UK's Mainstream Media's desperation to find a foreign paedophile to take the rap, encourages badly behaved Brits abroad to fill their boots.  A 'heroic' Brit punches a Bulgarian for taking pictures of kids, and chief vigilante Jim Gamble steps forward to validate the brave man's actions. Every swarthy foreigner is a paedophile unless proven otherwise.

It is a nothing story of course, there was no gang of human traffickers, nor any attempt to abduct children.  But these badly behaved Brits abroad gave the UK Mainstream media several days of sensational headlines that supported the British myth that all adult men, especially foreign ones (and some women) want to have sex with children.

Schools in the UK now prohibit photographing or videoing children (even your own) when they put on plays and pageants.  The assumption being, that everyone with a camera has perverse motives. Parents accept that 'everyone is a suspect' (themselves included) without question and many have a bag of stones at the ready in case they hear the click of a camera where they shouldn't be one.

Others are demanding that lone adults shouldn't be allowed to visit parks or public places where children are playing.  A lone poet taking the time to stand and stare would be hung from the nearest tree before JG could say 'he's a pervert, so he is'.

So what is the truth behind this latest 'foreign paedophiles stalking kids like Maddie' story.  During the afternoon, a friendly Bulgarian momentarily put his arm around a 7 year old British boy.  By the evening, the British contingent had built a story of men taking photographs of kids and a cunning plan to abduct 3 (British) children.  All the (drunken) allegations were checked out by the police and none of the Chinese whispers had any foundation whatsoever.  The friendly Bulgarian the hero punched and the angry mob pounced on, had NO photographs of children on his camera and there was absolutely nothing to suggest he was part of gang trafficking British kids.

It truly saddens me to see this era of fear and paranoia.  Fear and paranoia that has been artificially created by our wannabe protectors.  The truth is, the majority of people  (worldwide) see kids as kids!  Sometimes cute, sometimes irritating and unless they are their own, they prefer them in small doses.  I feel desperately sorry for today's kids, they are being sexualised by the people who are supposed to be protecting them.  Their natural childhood sense of awe and wonderment is being suppressed by the irrational fears of the adults around them.  The world is out to get them just as much as it is their fearful parents.

I doubt for one second that the 7 year old boy saw the friendly hug from a stranger as anything other than a friendly hug, but I doubt he will ever think that again.    

she 's got some nerve , she 's in the biggest lych mob of the lot . and strangers shouldn 't be hugging other people 's children .

coco wrote:she 's got some nerve , she 's in the biggest lych mob of the lot . and strangers shouldn 't be hugging other people 's children .

I remember as a kid being told not to talk to strangers, don't go walks with strangers, don't let strangers touch you - and always tell dad or mum when you got home or, if near a police station, go in there and tell the copper. Sykes

Sykes wrote:

coco wrote:she 's got some nerve , she 's in the biggest lych mob of the lot . and strangers shouldn 't be hugging other people 's children .

I remember as a kid being told not to talk to strangers, don't go walks with strangers, don't let strangers touch you - and always tell dad or mum when you got home or, if near a police station, go in there and tell the copper.   Sykes

I thought all kids were told that. Did she tell hers to give all strangers nice hugs in return.

there' s something wrong with her . first thing people tell their kids is not to talk to strangers , not that they might get nice hugs . nasty piece of work , she is .