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

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 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.

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.  

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.

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

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

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.

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.    

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 .

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

Monday, 29 June 2015

30th April - what does it all mean?

I haven't commented on this computer stuff because I simply don't have the technical knowledge to make head nor tail of it.

However, stepping back and looking at the bigger picture, if the date of 30th April is in fact correct, it points to premeditation and pre-planning, something that would fit the theory of Dr. Ludke and something that would take this crime to a whole new level*.

I am not sure I can buy that.  Not only is it chillingly evil, it doesn't make any sense.  The first appearances of Kate and Gerry were very raw. in particular, Kate looked genuinely traumatised, she wasn't acting and those early photographs of her show significant bruising to her wrists and arms.

Also, from a logical perspective, it makes very little sense.  If you are planning to murder your child, there are a multitude of ways in which you could do it without placing yourself at so much risk.  How cold, callous and calculating would you be to take the child on a family holiday with friends in order to murder her?  Not only  would you be surrounding yourself by witnesses, you would be taking your chances with a foreign police force and a foreign criminal justice system that was beyond your control.

No-one can dispute that the disappearance of Madeleine caused a media phenomenon, but it wasn't something that could have been predicted.  Nor could it have been foreseen that the public would have responded so generously.  The abduction story was seriously flawed from the outset!  If there was any preplanning, then it was crap. The first biggest hurdle the parents had to overcome was the neglect aspect, they had to convince the watching world that they were blameless, despite leaving 3 toddlers alone whilst they were at a bar. Not an easy feat.  They also had to persuade their professional friends to admit to the same neglect of their children, thus also putting them at risk of neglect charges and possible repercussions to their medical careers.

I have always approached my study of this case from a KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) perspective, I have seen what happens to the overthinkers - their heads explode (see Tony Bennett and CMoMM).  There is a theory that there was no neglect - that is, all the children were looked after in one apartment each night, whilst the parents were 'swinging' (bed hopping).  This is a theory that has sprung up from the armchair detectives and not one that is supported by Goncalo Amaral.  I too think it is unlikely, because 1. Kate would pulverise any woman who even looked at Gerry, and 2. when your kids are toddlers you are exhausted and desperate for adult conversation, not hanky panky.  And seriously, would you bring your mother along?

In addition, if the kids were indeed being looked after each night, why would the tapas friends put their own necks on the line by confessing to a crime they didn't commit?  There was a strong possibly that the parents and their friends could have faced criminal charges, and as doctors there is always a risk of being struck off the Medical Register.

There is also a theory that Madeleine died earlier in the week, which might fit in with the '30th April' date, but again it throws up a scenario that is unthinkable.  Effectively, the parents and the group would have had to continue their holiday, crèche routines, tennis playing, nightly dinners etc, for the next 2+ days as if nothing had happened.  They would also have to rely on all the small children not to ask where Maddie was.

I am not saying death earlier in the week is impossible, and it would fit in with the alerts of the blood and the cadaver dogs.  I have always struggled to understand how the smell of cadaver could have accumulated in two places (behind sofa and in wardrobe) in such a short period of time if Madeleine died on the evening of 3rd May.  However, I trust the first hand findings and theories of Goncalo Amaral, in that Madeleine was alive on 3rd May and seen by independent witnesses.  If she had died prior to 3rd May, it would involve a lot more people telling a lot more lies.

There are hundreds, if not thousands of people playing Cluedo in their heads in an attempt to 'solve' this mystery - each and every one aiming for that 'gotcha' moment, that one piece of the jigsaw that will crack the case.  If CEOP were indeed preparing for the missing Madeleine story on 30th April, it would be dynamite, but when you look at the implications, it is completely illogical.

Having said that, when looking at this case, you might as well throw your logical cap out the window.  Tis the twists, turns and WTF moments that keep us gripped.  Who could have foreseen former suspects who refused to answer questions, being awarded cash from the detective who investigated their case?

I suspect this topic will be around for a while and I will watch with interest, but I can't help thinking if those who devised this cunning plan had more time they would have come up with something far less fantastical and involving fewer people. But having said that, the scale of Operation Grange and the time it is taking suggests much more than a stranger abduction or an accident.

Friday, 3 July 2015
THE INTERNET, THE POLITICS AND WHY MADDIE?

In terms of evolution the internet has taken a giant leap for mankind, for the first time in history, EVERYONE has access to information and for those who rule us that is a terrifying and dangerous prospect. We have already seen the power of the internet in the Middle East revolutions and on the streets of our cities. Groups, gangs, protestors can contact each other within seconds. The people now have ways and means in which congregate with lightning speed, something no major 'Power' has ever had to face before.

Probably the biggest hit the 'authorities' have taken is loss of media control - they can no longer, edit, censor or sanction the news, the truth is always one click away. Education is spreading, not nearly quickly enough, but it is spreading nevertheless. We are no longer a nameless, faceless mob, we are real people and we have a voice and a means with which to check out the truth behind those sensational tabloid headlines for ourselves. Those in the news are no longer protected by their celebrity status, social media, twitter especially, has been a great leveller.

Sadly, most societies are built on deceit, it is, arguably, the only way in which to maintain law and order. If those who keep the wheels of society spinning in motion had to account for each and every one of their actions those wheels would stop spinning. It's a rotten job, but someone's got to do it.

The problem with power, is that once you get it, you then have to spend every minute of your day (and all your days thereafter) trying to hang onto it or get it back. Kenneth Williams as Caesar in Carry On Cleo captured it in a nutshell 'infamy, infamy, they've all got it infamy'. History is littered with tyrants and despots (some who even set out with good intentions) who have had to be executed, hide in bunkers, jump off yachts or be carried off in straight jackets. Tony Blair became a Catholic.

At the moment there is a 'media war' going on. The newspapers are losing readers in droves. Most of us now turn to the 'net' for our news and updates and if a story catches our eye, the means to investigate it further, is at our fingertips. We know that headlines like 'Madeleine was stolen by a swarthy paedophile gang' are rubbish, some of us are even offended that we are being treated as half wits. Tis true to say the majority of people live such busy lives that they rarely have time to read beneath the headlines of most stories. Governments are dependent on lethargy, its tried, its trusted, its reliable. Most people don't care, and there is no point beating ourselves up about it, if we are living life to the full, we have to prioritise.

The Madeleine Mystery is not a priority for most people, it is just a news story like any other. But those of us who were gripped by it uncovered a rabbit hole full of doors with bleddy great big question marks on them. The Madeleine story may have made the tabloids millions, but it has also exposed the murky way in which 'spin' has been used by the mainstream media to manipulate public perception. Many people are now seeing they can no longer trust the tabloids, people who would formerly have believed everything they read. Ultimately, I believe the McCann story will cost newspapers millions of readers. I think we are probably witnessing the fall of newsprint and the traditional media moguls, how many people still buy a daily newspaper?

Why the Need for Scaremongering?

Like their forefathers, today's 'authorities' must convince the masses that education is bad for them. And in this context, education means internet and information. Information equals power, and at this present time there is no way of restricting it to a chosen few. Should a computer expert devise a system of policing the internet, within hours, a more advanced and probably younger, computer expert will discover ways in which to get around it. Most kids snigger at parental controls. Fact.

The only way in which to persuade people to give up their freedoms and vote for legislation to police the internet, is by persuading them that they, or more specifically, their children. are in danger. Allowing the 'authorities' legal access to all our personal files would allow any government to arrest any citizen on any charge. Claiming our children are 'at risk' is a back door way in which to police the internet with the public's full support. Anyone objecting would be seen as a)having something to hide, or b)a paedophile defender.

According to last week's headlines, there are 750,000 male paedophiles out there, or 1 in 4, or whatever sensational stats you can pull out of those figures. These figures are not coming from psychologists or academics, they are coming from police sources and in reality they are meaningless.

750,000 men waiting to do what? Are they on the verge of attack? Is the danger to our children imminent? Have we entered the world of Philip K. Dick, where people who 'might' commit a crime need to be arrested and dealt with for the good of society? Are we so short of real crime that we have moved onto thought crime?

Unfortunately for Jim Gamble and the Police Federation, Theresa May is a Capitalist with a big 'C' - she understands the power of spin and the way in which different crime areas compete for funds. Western society is dominated by capitalism, even during the Labour years it was encouraged. Our local Councils. actually ALL our public services are now run as businesses - that is, they are run for profit. Their primary objective is no longer to serve the people, but to make cash (under the guise of serving people). It has all happened so gradually most of us didn't even notice, but in retrospect, it does explain why you will get a £60 parking fine if your tyre goes 50cm onto a white line and no reply to your request for a new bin.

The police, like every other public body compete for public funds. They are never going to say, 'things are improving, so you can give us less money next year'. A more cynical commentator might say they have an agenda to exaggerate the scale of the problems they face and the amount of work that they do.

Imagine for a moment that the police are not public servants, and that we live in a capitalist society where private security companies compete with each other to protect us? Their funding being dependent on how much protecting they do? As a society, our most precious possessions are our children, and when it comes to protecting them, money is no object and rationality flies out of the window. Whenever there is a baying mob, sure as eggs is eggs the more hysterical will be shouting 'think of the children' - those thinking of the children being the most popular and the vote winners.

Fortunately, defenders of Freedom of Speech are in the majority and those trying to seize power of the internet (and thus get back control of the news) will always face huge opposition. Whenever the powers that be take away our freedoms they tell us it is for our own good, our own protection. Creating imaginary danger goes back to biblical days, it keeps the mob in line, in order to stay under one safe, enclosed, protective roof, they have to obey the rules.

We all have an innate need to be protected, to pass responsibility for ourselves onto a higher power, be it a God, someone in authority and/or an alpha male/female. We are pack animals, we prefer to be in a group, hermits are rare, or perhaps I should say were rare, because technology is creating a whole new army of hermits, people who rarely see the light of day or interact with anyone outside cyber world, but that is a whole new argument.

Most people opt for law and order, they moan about jobsworths and petty bureaucracy, but they understand the need for it, its a rotten job etc. We have created a society in order that we don't have to look after ourselves from scratch, that is, physically do our own hunting and gathering, house building, repairing of broken limbs etc. We are no longer responsible for life as individuals. Phew. On the whole, we are happy that there are people higher up the food chain who will make our decisions for us and we trust them to make those decisions for the greater good. If the authorities tell us the enemy is at the gate, why would we doubt them? Kings have always needed money for armies to protect their subjects, in fact protection money makes up a large proportion of our taxes, it's something we never question. We demand more police on our streets, we demand well equipped armies and weapons of mass destruction that can never be used. We believe everyone is out to get us, and we believe those protecting us know best. If they tell us a Muslim guy in the deserts of Iraq is arranging with pals in the UK to steal a British child via Facebook, why should we doubt them?

In most instances it is better not to know the truth, knowing everything would drive us insane. However as Nietzsche said far more eloquently than I, there is NO higher power, no God to relieve us of self responsibility and those who believe themselves to be Gods, really aren't. Sadly, those who think they are God are the ones aiming for the top jobs and so intent on their goals are they, that they usually succeed. For some, their domain may simply be a stretch of highway with notoriously bad parkers, for others it could be an entire country. Their confidence in themselves knows no bounds, and such is human nature, it inspires others to believe in them, the leaders that is not the traffic wardens. If a leader tells us they will take control and make everything right, we can breathe a sigh of relief, check in our baggage and go out to play. We all have an innate desire to designate so we can crack on with what we really want to do without being bothered by boring details.

The scramble to get higher up the food chain is rarely a pretty sight because all the goodies are at the top and those who have reached it ain't letting go. It takes a certain kind of madness to hang on in there until the bitter end. For the majority of us, the battles rarely make any difference, one set of despots is much like any other, and unless new policy affects us directly, we do little more than grumble. It's the British way. And it is the way in which Governments chip away at our freedoms without anyone noticing.

Freedom of speech, or more accurately, Freedom of Information is probably the biggest threat to every government worldwide and there is very little they can do about it. At present. In order to gain control, they need laws to access every individual's private information. A government that knows everything about its' people will stay in power forever. Protesters, rebels, subversives could be rounded up in moments. Those who say, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear are being naïve. Whilst they may have nothing to hide under an incumbent government, that might not be the case under the next - if there is one. They are also signing away the liberty of their children and future generations.

Governments have historically used foreign wars to maintain power over their own populations, the enemy was far away and unseen and united the people as one. A common enemy is the foundation of many friendships and mutual admiration societies and it brings crowds together in a way that (almost) nothing else can.

In recent years the war has been against the adjective 'terror', and the public are united against the terrorists who hide among us, dawn raids are applauded, swarthy men are marched off in handcuffs with hoods over their heads, heroes are created, terrorists don't deserve any human rights - they are terrorists! And no government would misuse terrorist laws to arrest innocent citizens right?

This year's witches are the paedophiles and the perverts. The gangs hiding among us plotting dastardly schemes on the internet (thus leaving a cyber trail) and single adults having the audacity to go for a stroll in the park on their own. For most of us, fear for our children's safety overrides reason, and we believe that those higher up the food chain (professionals especially), know better than we do. We suppress our own instincts because we lack faith in our own judgment. We prefer to 'ask the audience' than make a decision ourselves.

So successful has the stranger danger message been, that the public now believe all adults (men especially), unless proved otherwise, are paedophiles. So strong is this ideology, that people automatically go into a defensive mode in order to prove they are not paedophiles themselves. They overthink, over explain, and overcompensate by declaring how much they despise paedophiles and in some cases they will join in an attack, or set themselves up as vigilante internet warriors. Nothing says you are not a paedophile, like punching one or hating them more than anyone else. Asking a hostile mob not to string up an elderly man with learning difficulties for leering at schoolgirls will get you hung alongside him. A paedophile defender is even worse.

But lets get down to the nitty gritty, the underage images online that demand a police clampdown on the internet. Surely the best way to protect the children being used in these images is to arrest the film makers! I know there is a supply and demand argument, but the present approach of CEOP to child porn is comparable to the drug police arresting all the addicts and ignoring the suppliers!

The truth is, most underage images online are being sent by randy teenagers to each other, which is fair enough, their hormones are raging and its what kids do, but should one of those images accidentally end up on the pages of anyone over 18, they could, literally speaking, be charged with possessing child pornography and placed on a sex offenders register. And if someone really wanted to arrest you, you could be done for your holiday snaps or taking a picture of your child in school play!

Because child abuse is such a taboo subject, reasonable, logical people are not getting involved in the debate. No-one dare question the facts and figures supplied by the police and the 'experts' for fear of being accused of being defenders of paedophiles, or worse still, paedophiles themselves. It is probably the worst accusation anyone can have against them, it destroys lives. Thirty nine men committed suicide as a result of Operation Ore.

Unfortunately, unless the academics,the intellectuals and those with common sense speak out, the lunatics will take control of the asylum and people will find themselves facing sexual deviancy charges for taking pictures of their toddlers making sandcastles. Schools are already banning photographs and there are demands for lone adults to be banned from parks. The 'think of the children' brigade have thousands of followers and they have lost the power of reason - we almost saw a tragedy last week in Cyprus.

Convincing the public of the need for a rigorous child protection unit has been the subtext to the Madeleine McCann Mystery all along. As head of CEOP JG wanted to break away from the National Crime Agency, and form his own quango - a government sponsored agency dedicated to protecting children from predators on the internet. Jim is a gadget man, he loves technology, and he understands its' power. Fortunately, so too do those who own the powerful social networks which is probably why CEOP remained with the NCA, and Jim moved on.

Sadly, Jim is not the only one who can see the potential of the internet. Child protection is a very lucrative business. it's an emotive subject that unites the public and the politicians and its an area safe from financial cuts. It may even be an area the police could outsource to private companies, so kids can be extra safe.

Madeleine McCann went missing at a time when the incumbent government were promoting a nationwide bank of our DNA and micro chipping of our newborns in the zillion to one chance that they might be abducted. Poor Maddie was the poster child, the little blonde cherub stolen from her loving, responsible parents who were entirely blameless and also church goers. Her's was not the face of a spotty, sullen teenager who had gone off in a huff, it was the face of an innocent, appealing toddler, snatched in the night. Her face quite literally launched a thousand appeals.

Her parents, as well as producing an amazing campaign for their daughter, also quickly became involved in the Amber Alert System. Ostensibly, a way in which to quickly track stolen children, but in reality, a way in which to enforce stricter border controls.

Gerry and Kate are typical obnoxious little Englanders, they believe themselves to be a cut above our European neighbours, which is why they have always treated the Portuguese with such disdain. They are also part of the school of thought that believes 'if we ban everything for other people, our lives will be better', their enthusiasm for Hacked Off was above and beyond. If people are forbidden by law from saying nasty things about them, the McCanns believe everything will be alright and they will get the respect they deserve. And it goes without saying, that newspaper editors, journalists etc, should abide to rules similar to those doctors have to, or be thrown in jail. I suspect the liberalism and power hungry world of the media world must have been quite a shock to them, but to their credit, they quickly got the hang of it.

Hutton seems to think that pervs looking at internet pornography involving children is a victimless crime! She really is sick in the head - or maybe just terminally stupid. She should stick to making sexy duckface and not try any of that 'thinking' stuff - it's clearly beyond her capabilities.

Hutton:

If you look at the subject of paedophilia from a Freudian perspective, some adults, mostly men, become trapped in the adolescent stage of their sexual development, putting it bluntly, they are turned on by schoolgirls, frilly knickers etc, for their entire lives. Some pay prostitutes to dress up as dominatrix and give them a darn good thrashing because it allows them to revert to their own inner child. Like it or not, sexual fantasy often includes memories linked to childhood incidents, the time at which a person becomes sexually aware. Most (normal) heterosexual men are turned on by girls wearing short skirts and playing netball for example. It doesn't make them perverts, their memory banks are simply retrieving early memories of tingling in the groin area.

Anonymous5 July 2015 at 12:32
I wonder, as I am the one time Russian Doll who chose not to belong to a club where you were a member , the MMM forum, if my reply will be published. Am I correct in believing that your view is that watching online child abuse [ it is not child porn according to experts who work in the field of child abuse, it is the abuse of children] , while horrific, is not as serious as the actuality of being involved in putting your hands on and sexually abusing a child?
Do you therefore view the viewing of a child being abused as a crime, but a lesser crime than if a person had been the perpetrator of such abuse, or not a crime at all? In your post above, is it the people watching images of child abuse whom you are accusing of having bad taste in porn? Film-makers and adult participants need arresting for sure and the children need rescuing, but you fail to address the issue of those viewing these images. If they do not go on to abuse and act out their fantasies, is it not criminal in your opinion? Do you regard their actions of actively seeking out images of non- consenting minors being sexually abused to be no more than bad taste in porn?
By the way, a drug addict is harming no-one other than him/herself. For you to make this analogy is absurd. The only others hurt are those suffering emotionally who witness self-harm.
Now, without getting bogged down in equating / not equating a viewer of abuse with a perpetrator, will you get off the fence and say clearly what you think of the actions of an adult watching another adult harm a child?

Thursday, 16 July 2015
PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE, WHERE DO WE BEGIN?

Tony Bennett is certain he is right and he is on a mission it seems to discredit an innocent family who did no more than report seeing a man on the night of May 3rd 2007 who looked like Gerry McCann.  Tony's mission is to blow their evidence out of the water and discredit them before or if, a trial ever takes  place in the case of missing Madeleine McCann.

Tony believes he has the right to question and interfere with anyone he chooses.  The means are available, through his computer he has access to as much private information about his victims as he likes and the will to seek and destroy them.  He is driven by hatred, probably wakes up each morning and thinks what poor fucker can I set about today, misery is my gospel, repent and ye shall be saved.

He is bored with Kate and Gerry, and he's never had much interest in the Tapas friends, or indeed any of the central characters involved in this case.  He is in the midst of a two pronged attack - destroy the witnesses for the prosecution and 2, destroy the enemies of himself.  He has worked way too hard to have his limelight stolen by manicured and coiffered bimbos.  I can imagine him weeping to 'It should have me', when the very attractive DCI Wall took over the Madeleine investigation.  He uses her picture as an avatar to keep his bile bubbling away and if Verdi is his sock, he is revealing a dark, twisted sexuality that he is blissfully unaware of.

Bennett seems to have spent the last two years (at least) attacking the enemies of the McCanns, his eye is definitely not on the ball, the ball being the questionable abduction, to focus on the only credible witnesses for the potential prosecution in case members of CMoMM forgot.

Most of the people Tony now attacks weren't even in PDL at the relevant time, but it matters not to TB.  His enemies now are those who would relieve him of his imaginary crown.  Every theory, other than his own must be stamped out, his opposition to Sonia Poulton's documentary has reached epic, paranoid, proportions.  He must convince the world, that those striving to expose the truth are the bad guys.  He forgets, there is only ONE truth, and it doesn't matter one iota how anyone gets to it.  Richard Hall gave it a good shot, but he should have done his homework.  Unfortunately, TB pitches volumes of dross, and people prefer to take his word, rather than trawl through it themselves, on the assumption that he has done so much research, he can't possibly be wrong.  A shame really, because it doesn't stand up to even the flimsiest reading, it is biased with a foregone conclusion, ergo it is worthless.

Tony, for whatever reason, is desperate to prove that the most important witnesses in this case are liars.  He has been smearing this innocent family for over 2 years and becomes apoplectic if anyone opines that the Smith family saw Gerry on that fateful night.  We all have the power and/or ability to stalk our enemies, the internet, our lives are more public than they have ever been.  But just because we can, doesn't mean we should and happily most of us respect each other's privacy.  For Bennett, there are no moral or social boundaries, he is without conscious or empathy, one of the witnesses he is smearing was 12 years old at the time of the incident!  Why he has never faced criminal charges for interfering in a live police investigation, I will never know.  A cynic might say, any potential trial is fucked before it begins.

Some very nasty characters have attached themselves to this case, not least Mr. Bennett, who has done as much, if not more, to keep the case of missing Madeleine on the front page of the tabloid newspapers.  This angry preacher of mob justice, has for too long been seen as the face of those who do not believe the abduction story.  His angry diatribes and physical presence in the parents home town sealed the myth that doubters were 'haters' and 'pitchforkers' - even though the majority of us were as shocked and appalled by his actions as everyone else.

I don't think he is acting with or for the McCanns, though he may have 'threats' hanging over him for other matters.  He is disingenuous, and more than willing to lie to smear his opponents or defend himself, that he may well be putty in the hands of someone who has something on him.

People like Tony are very easy to manipulate.  He is an easy target, ergo he is corruptible.  Why is he corruptible?  Simple, he has set himself up on a pedestal, he declares himself to be a man of faith with high moral values, he doesn't drink, smoke, party or do drugs.  He is a middle class professional in a suit, there is no white cider in his fridge or tracky bottoms in his wardrobe.  He sees himself as several notches above the rest of us on the evolutionary ladder and sadly, he has been able to convince several others beneath him, to look up to and admire the bleeding heart, religious zealot he has created.  Those a few rungs up however, merely see him as the twat he is.

Tony is playing the game of the many weeping television evangelists who have gone before him, though far less successfully it must be said.  Sadly for him, he has the face, if not the voice, for radio and he lacks a shapely, multi-(eye)lashed Babe and of course, Charisma.  Tony wants to lead an army of the people in a quest for justice, he wants to create a legacy.  Any 'cause' will do - from road signs to celebrities caught in sex scandals to a little girl who disappeared on her holiday - the causes Tony attaches himself to, come with newspaper headlines and precious television airtime for his loony beliefs - he wants to spread the word, the word of course, being his own.

The best that can be said of Tony, is that no-one doubts his sincerity. Anyone who can argue creationism with a straight face, takes seriously deluded off the scale.  This is a man with beliefs carved in stone, there is no room for discussion or debate, he is right. End of.  You can kind of see, why he has never achieved his goals, unwieldy people in any sphere whatsoever, workplace, domestic, etc, are impossible to work with, unless of course, they achieve the tyrannical status they desire, in which case, no-one has a choice.  Tony pretends to be open minded while taking notes to use against his correspondent later - to him, everyone is a potential enemy - it is why he has to keep such close tracks on anyone who joins his forum.  He lives in permanent fear of being 'found out' - most weeping evangelists do.  We can only guess at what it is he fears, but he sure as hell fears something.  The disingenuous always do.  

I am not knocking him entirely, anyone who wants to leave a legacy (if they are honest) will do the same, from Joan of Arc leading an army to Jim Gamble cleaning up Sin City to the humble writer trying to get a break.  I used my time in the convent to get a book deal with a major publisher, but it was too honest, it didn't contain any graphic sexual violence because I didn't see any.  I saw only the cruelty and the physical violence, I found out about the sexual abuse of others after I left.  Honesty has always been my downfall and my opinions on the McCann case was the kiss of death to my writing career.  Seriously, what (sane) writer would comment negatively about the McCanns knowing that they had a book being released by a major publisher?  In 2011 (having been delayed a year), when my book came out, Kate and Gerry were virtual Saints, no-one dared to criticise them at that time and trust me, being at the top of their dossier/blacklist did me no favours whatsoever.

By 2010 (when I got my book deal), I had been commenting on the McCanns for nearly 3 years, and yes, I'm sure they have all the screenshots, lol.  Had they left me alone, I may have dropped out and moved onto other projects but they have pursued me relentlessly.  To be honest, I don't know whether to thank them for their tenacity or curse them for distracting me from other things, but without doubt, they have driven me to pursue this case to the end.  When I get my (at the moment very sore*) teeth into a subject, I am a finisher.  

But back to Mr. Bennett.  Clean living, quasi intellectuals and zealots can and do inspire followers - people who admire devotion, sacrifice, high moral values and quasi egalitarianism - qualities essential for all leaders and wannabe despots (on the surface at least) - they must be better than us, in order to lead us.  Our leaders must not be tempted by frivolity and sins of the flesh and we prefer that they not get high during world peace summits - though some might argue, that they should    

Unfortunately for the clean living (I've never attempted it myself, lol), they must keep up the façade for evermore.  No-one can ever smell liquor on their breath or discover a bong in their filing cabinet.  As for off limits hanky panky, forget it.  For the holier than thou, it is one partner for life and sex is for procreation only. The truly zealous want bibles and cameras in the nation's bedrooms to ensure everyone adheres to the missionary position.

This case has unfortunately, attracted more than its fair share of the morally righteous, from those who would never have left their babies on their own, myself included, to those want blood.  Quite literally.  They are eschewing the natural order and the law of the land by acting as investigators, judge and jury, themselves and Bennett is chief rabble rouser.  Tony will not be the hero who solves this crime, though he believes he is, and he will not be the one issuing the punishment (his orgasmic moment), the fate of the child's aggressors, is, thank God, in the hands of a democratic, cilivised society - we hope.  

I can't normally be arsed to comment on Bennett anymore, but his latest rantings against the unfortunate Smith family, dragged into this circus through no fault of their own, happens to coincide with my recovery from major dental surgery (*I had a tooth out ) and I am a bear(ess) with a bit of a sore head.