Rosalind Hutton, s.e.x and the Dalai LamaPostby tigerloaf » Mon May 25, 2015 10:00 pm
Rosalind Hutton has recently been singing the praises of the disgraced, criminal ex-cop, Amaral. Her adoration of this bumbling failure from the PJ apparently knows few limits.
She seems to be blaming the UK media for his slovenly appearance and regular long lunches in the fish restaurants and bars of Portimao during the "investigation" he was "coordinating".
She ignores the fact that other cops on the case actually looked presentable, that other cops on the case were not pictured just about every day in those bars and restaurants in Portimao. She ignores the fact that it was not the UK media forcing Amaral to spend up to three or four hours in those restaurants at the height of the "investigation".
She even has the nerve to suggest that Amaral slept in the office and that was why he looked like a slovenly scarecrow after his boozy meals. Other officers may have selflessly given up their time but we all know that even on the first night of the case, Amaral did nothing more than make a few perfunctory phone calls before heading home to his bed. And we all know that his visits to PDL were rare indeed.
Her desperation to paint this boorish, lying ex-cop as some kind of hero of the PJ is quite ridiculous and wholly over-the-top. Not even the PJ is so glowing in their comments about the man. Indeed, if I recall, they ignored his leaving completely. His wife tells us so.
Her rather pitiful panegyric (spelling mistakes and wooden prose aside) has even drawn a challenge on her own blog (not from me I might add).
Her response deserves to be published more widely as it provides an excellent example of the limitations of her writing skills and at the same time a wonderful insight into her rambling and rather nasty mind.
Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton25 May 2015 at 16:56
LOL, with so many of you scam supporters, everything you spit out from your overworked keyboards, stems from the trouser area. You have no understanding of kindness, compassion, respect and moral decency. As all your motives are governed by your genitalia, you assume the same of everyone else.
Admiring someone does not mean you sexually desire them I admire the Dali Lama, but I don't wish to have to have s.e.x with him. Do you see where I am going with this?
Far be it from me to point out that she possesses one of the most "overworked keyboards" on the McCann scene or that somebody who has already in the MSM proclaimed herself to be a person who has no "kindness, compassion, respect or moral decency" should perhaps be less effusive in her condemnation of others.
"I can be quite a bitch. I enjoyed the wars and the spats. It saved kicking the dog, really."
“You do get a buzz when you squish somebody. I felt high. The more outrageous you are, the bigger the reaction."
“It is a form of attention-seeking really. It’s a real buzz that keeps drawing you back. Perhaps I should be ashamed of that but it is so easy to become hooked."
However I will make a couple of comments about her response.
Firstly she exposes her lack of grace and charm in her rather crude remarks. But then we need only look at her most recent picture to see that grace and charm are not the forte of this woman. Perhaps her recent image is meant to be a deliberate play on the phrase "Mutton dressed as lamb" with which we are all familiar? Perhaps she is having a dig with that photo towards all those who have deliberately mis-spelled her name as Mutton in the past? But who could blame them when the woman herself does not have a clue what her own first name is? And who in their right mind would describe herself under that image on her own blog page as "Currently awaiting refurbishment."?
Secondly, and more importantly because this lies at the heart of the Hutton bitchiness and hatred, I would like to comment on her reference to the Dali Lama (sic).
Hutton is not a student, she is not an expert. She is a lonely, bored woman who has latched onto the McCann case in between her forays into the world of drug abuse and family embarrassment.
“When the story broke in May 2007, I was suffering from the most terrible depression. I’d lost my mother, my best friend and my dad. I was very isolated and became engrossed in a forum on the McCann case. It was a way to switch off the pain of the real world. I’d gone from this lonely, isolated existence to suddenly having this huge arena of friends from all around the world."
Her inability even to spell the name of the Dalai Lama suggests he is merely a prop for her argument rather than a person she truly has studied. Had she studied his work or life for mere seconds she would be utterly ashamed of using him as an example in her argument.
Nobody reading her own hateful, bitchy spite can fail to see how disingenuous her reference to the Dalai Lama really is.
She loathes the McCanns. She hates Madeleine (her references to the child over the years prove this). She hates those who defend the McCanns and she has absolutely no understanding of what the Dalai Lama actually says.
The destructive effects of hatred are very visible, very obvious and immediate. For example, when a strong or forceful thought of hatred arises, at that very instant it overwhelms one totally and destroys one's peace and presence of mind. When that hateful thought is harboured inside, it makes one feel tense and uptight, and can cause loss of appetite, leading to loss of sleep, and so forth.
If we examine how anger or hateful thoughts arise in us, we will find that, generally speaking, they arise when we feel hurt, when we feel that we have been unfairly treated by someone against our expectations. If in that instant we examine carefully the way anger arises, there is a sense that it comes as a protector, comes as a friend that would help our battle or in taking revenge against the person who has inflicted harm on us. So the anger or hateful thought that arises appears to come as a shield or a protector. But in reality that is an illusion. It is a very delusory state of mind.
Chandrakirti states in Entry into the Middle Way that there might be some justification for responding to force with force if revenge would help one in any way, or prevent or reduce the harm which has already been inflicted. But that is not the case because if the harm, the physics. injury or whatever, has been inflicted, it has already taken place. So taking revenge will not in any way reduce or prevent that harm or injury because it has already happened.
On the contrary, if one reacts to a situation in a negative way instead of in a tolerant way, not only is there no immediate benefit, but also a negative attitude and feeling is created which is the seed of one's future downfall. From the Buddhist point of view, the consequence of taking revenge has to be faced by the individual alone in his or he future life. So not only is there no immediate benefit, it is harmful in the long run for the individual.
However, if one has been treated very unfairly and if the situation is left unaddressed, it may have extremely negative consequences for the perpetrator of the crime. Such a situation calls for a strong counteraction. Under such circumstances, it is possible that one can, out of compassion for the perpetrator of the crime and without generating anger or hatred, actually take a strong stand and take strong countermeasures. In fact, one of the precepts of the Bodhisattva vows is to take strong countermeasures when the situation calls for it. If a Bodhisattva doesn't take strong countermeasures when the situation requires, then that constitutes an infraction of one of the vows.
In addition, as the Entry into the Middle Way points out, not only does the generation of hateful thoughts lead to undesirable forms of existence in future lives, but also, at the moment that strong feelings of anger arise, no matter how hard one tries to adopt a dignified pose, one's face looks rather ugly. There is an unpleasant expression, and the vibration that the person sends is very hostile. People can sense it, and it is almost as if one can feel steam coming out of that person's body. Indeed not only are human beings capable of sensing it, but pets and other animals also try to avoid that person at that instant.
If we examine how anger or hateful thoughts arise in us, we will find that, generally speaking, they arise when we feel hurt, when we feel that we have been unfairly treated by someone against our expectations.
These are the immediate consequences of hatred. It brings about a very ugly, unpleasant physical transformation of the individual. In addition, when such intense anger and hatred arise, it makes the best part of our brain, which is the ability to judge between right and wrong and assess long-term and short-term consequences, become totally inoperable. It can no longer function. It is almost as if the person had become crazy. These are the negative effects of generating anger and hatred. When we think about these negative and destructive effects of anger and hatred, we realise that it is necessary to distance ourselves from such emotional explosions. Insofar as the destructive effects of anger and hateful thoughts are concerned, one cannot get protection from wealth; even if one is a millionaire, one is subject to these destructive effects of anger and hatred. Nor can education guarantee that one will be protected from these effects. Similarly, the law cannot guarantee protection. Even nuclear weapons, no matter how sophisticated the defence system may be, cannot give one protection or defend one from these effects. The only factor that can give refuge or protection from the destructive effects of anger and hatred is the practice of tolerance and patience.
Why? It is almost as if the Dalai Lama knows Hutton (and has already fled from her). The section in red is most accurate as we all know how often this woman reminds us of the way she was unfairly treated in the past.
