The Madeleine McCann Conspiracy - mccann groupie agendas and mine - a post from someone called Jim

http://mdeleine-mccann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/mccann-groupie-agendas-and-mine_17.html

The Madeleine McCann Conspiracy
An ongoing set of thoughts on what is going on in the Madeleine McCann Online world.

Tuesday, 17 December 2013

McCann Groupie Agendas - and mine
There are people on various McCann discussion groups who have other agendas than to find the truth in this case. Let me explain:

First, my own story: … When I retired from a lifetime of being a commercial accountant, my wife was reading Kate McCann's book, Madeleine. She expressed serious doubts about the story and was the first to call it her 'novel'; thus I started researching on the Internet.

A lifetime of analysing accounts and once even being involved in an investigation to uncover a criminal fraud ended with a director receiving a suspended prison sentence for was helpful experience in my reading.

Quite soon, I found myself being concerned about the failure of those on Twitter and on various forums to check facts and the carelessness of so many claims, particularly those who claimed the McCanns were guilty but whose scenarios quite simply were not possible or credible. The worst case was Pat Brown who seemed to reach the conclusions already reached by others, but whose logic would certainly not satisfy a jury.

At first I didn't understand why pointing out the failure of mathematically and forensically precise logic was not understood. Indeed, those who didn't understand the importance of such precision criticised me for, supposedly, upsetting the people whose comments I showed were logical non-sequiturs, whose logic, quite bluntly, didn't fit the facts.

It is now patently apparent that many people have an agenda to confuse the issues; such people are, I am certain, McCann supporters who have infiltrated the forums - some with many names. So why do I make such a claim?

One of the main streams of attempting to discredit my insistence on precision and logic is a childish accusation of being another person. Apparently, someone called Chris was involved with this case; so far as I can ascertain, he stopped working on it a few months before I arrived on the scene. My detractors even set up a website "proving" that we are the same person, including tweets (Photoshopped?) from an account that doesn't even exist. Eventually, I managed contact the Chris in question. It turns out he is terminally ill and too frightened to be involved in the case because of previous threats of some kind by McCann supporters. Why would one have detractors at all? Fear of truth? That the person is getting too close? That their own position of power is threatened? Just … well, just WHY?

So what is really going on? Well, I have a message where Irish Frances Gallagher claims her husband is a policeman and she has used his access to check people out. Why? This from someone who was originally on many pro-McCann forums but who then switched to become an admin on places like the Controversy forum, without explanation. She is also a personal friend of Lizzy (Hideho) who is reputed to make a small fortune from "monetising" her extensive range of McCann YouTube videos.

So it was quite interesting when she suddenly appeared on the McCanngate forum then subsequently on the True Controversy forum claiming I had upset someone (who said she was NOT upset by me – but nevertheless the claims continued). Another called Leanne called on BOTH Donna Durant’s IDs on Facebook, https://www.facebook.com/donna.durrant.5 where she claims to live in Dublin and https://www.facebook.com/donna.durrant.75 where she claims to live in “Mourne Road Drimnagh”. Ok, those are the facts, but what was the REAL agenda. I will publish that entire thread if asked to do so.

Then David Steel (accused by some of being many other IDs too) said that he had done private-detective type research to locate me and couldn't find me in my Facebook-stated village of Great Glen. That's because I was born there but haven't live there for about 60 years. Again, why do that? So why would someone who claims to be on the same side of researching the truth of McCann involvement in their daughter's disappearance want to discredit a fellow researcher? And to the point of always addressing me as "Chris" on Twitter?

And there's more. Only today, Ben Thompson (Who is organising the London March for Madeleine - which I initially supported until I realised why it was wrong - see below) sent me a childishly rambling, grossly abusive private message - calling me 'Chris' too. Yet another who believes everything he reads and acts without thinking; he only proves he has another agenda and that he is a manipulated fool. Yet again, why do that? Finally again, a seriously weird video was this morning published on Twitter with a claim that it was mine. WHY? WHAT is the agenda there?

You may well ask why so many administrative level people want to discredit someone who is determined to ensure that purported theories are, at least, credible.

You may ask why they actively encourage those who ramble about irrelevant points or spend say after day calling for arrests for the obvious red herring that the children were left alone.

You may ask why they discredit and remove anyone who is determined to keep to primary sources and who objects to unfounded rumours.

You may ask what kind of agenda ensures discussion threads disproving ridiculous theories lead to accusations of upsetting the person suggesting the impossible.

Is it in a classic determination to keep power and not allow anyone who has a more credible view?

Is their aim really to research when the actions demonstrate otherwise? We all know about the so-called "hostile takeover" of the Controversy forum on Facebook - 18,000 members yet every post is checked and huge numbers are deleted. Many dozens and possibly hundreds of the most determined and most logically precise researchers are thrown out and permanently banned; I am one such.

You may ask what the real agenda is and you may well come to the conclusion, as I have done, that there is a determination to confuse the issues. Like the McCanns themselves who issue numerous press releases about 'sightings' and making claims about their views and activities - there is an absolute determination to confuse.

So what can one conclude? Are these people really just simple fools? I doubt it.

Are they control-freaks and this is their only power-base? Perhaps if you are jobless as so many have admitted to being, this is all that's left to control, but there's surely got to be more to it.

Are they thinking they are helping the cause by trying to keep logical honesty out of the equation and replacing it with their own fantasies? Possibly.

It only needs a few - or perhaps even only one with multiple identities getting into a position of power in such forums to subvert an entire group, ensuring the truth is sealed from the wider public and permitting, even if not positively promoting a constant flow of rubbish - of calls for arrests - and other anti-McCann hype.

The solution is NOT to hate the McCanns; it is to study them. It is NOT to call for their premature arrest, it is to let Scotland Yard do their jobs and prepare a watertight case under both jurisdictions to avoid the case collapsing in court and obviate extradition difficulties. Perhaps the McCanns' first action was right - calling for a team of extradition lawyers to visit them in portugal within days of the disappearance.

What about the wider public? For the wider public, the solution is NOT to hinder the police by ridiculous and premature calls for arrests or wasting their time tweeting such calls to the Metropolitan or other police forces

The solution is NOT to march on London, calling for an investigation when one already over 100 man-years into the task by the world's leading and most famous "Murder Squad" (Homicide and Serious Crimes Unit of Scotland Yard).

No, for the wider public, the solution is to think. To think very hard about what is actually going on and meanwhile research and distribute logical and possible solutions. It is to wait for the police to complete their work and in the unlikely event that their work is stopped, THEN to call for an investigation, a public enquiry and other action.

The police have enough to do without us wasting their time.

Well, now, perhaps, it will be obvious why I started a new forum, for logical thought and genuine information on the Madeleine McCann case, with cousin Sophie (who also joined Facebook for the sole purpose of this case), and that can be seen on https://www.facebook.com/groups/686518301372031/ So far, with the exception of one person who admitted trying to disrupt it, there haven’t been the kind of problems experienced elsewhere.

As for what I say, if you don't agree, provide a logical argument why.

If, on the other hand, you want to show yourself to be a McCann supporter, employee or just a disruptive element, then go ahead and continue to discredit without any credibility on your part. You will not discredit a logical argument for the more intelligent who are capable of understanding it.

I stand by what I write, although am always happy to be proved wrong - with logic, not with the kind of abuse employed by Steel, Thompson, Gallagher et al.

Jim.

Jay Elles ‏@Jayelles1 2h
@JamesJArbuthnot what a piece f rambling nonsense Chris. Do your offspring know that you play these silly games? #mccann

Jay Elles ‏@Jayelles1 2h
@JamesJArbuthnot What about a post on "How James aka Chris isn't as straightforward as he claims"? #mccann

Rachel Granada wrote:I wonder how long it took "Jim" to type out that attention-seeking diatribe?

Mag Pieinsky Indeed James, blogs are amazing for conveying opinions and info. Well done! I added a comment. Xx
about an hour ago

James Arbuthnot Thanks - I'll check. It's well over 250 page views now.
about an hour ago

Mag Pieinsky " Again, why do that? So why would someone who claims to be on the same side of researching the truth of McCann involvement in their daughter's disappearance want to discredit a fellow researcher? And to the point of always addressing me as "Chris" on Twitter?" Well said James. SAme question to Gallagher who claimed she uses a police computer to search on truthers!!!!
58 minutes ago

Mag Pieinsky (and I SAW this for myself on her PRIVATE PMS since she was giving away her log details to a few people!)
56 minutes ago

Mag Pieinsky SACK THAT, if they want to be like that, Ben and all, I won't put ONE toe into their march!!!!
51 minutes ago

Mag Pieinsky Just unfriended him as well. Who the hell are these people??! I had doubts about him as he (Ben Thompson) seemed to be a "nosey parker" when I was on the grouyp calling itself "justice for Madeleine" ( = yet another "borrowed" name!), but now this confirms it all. Puppets, or??
48 minutes ago

James Arbuthnot I don't know, Mag. I feel perhaps that we have done this to death now. I've made my point and I can certainly see it from your viewpoint too. I don't want to put off any new people from joining us

James Arbuthnot One thing that Thompson (organiser of the London March) wrote in his long and abusive reply to my blog, which was too vile to publish in full.

I wonder if this is his philosophy generally and what HE does?

Thompson wrote: "Discover what this case is really about, decide which side you wish to help, come back with another id, and learn from your mistakes."

Lapieinsky19 December 2013 16:10:00 GMT
For information, here is a snippet of PRIVATE MAILS between Frances and her friends from a time when (this year) she was giving around her Facebook login details. ( For the file + screen-shots / even photos contact me at lapieinsky@live.co.uk but SAY who you are. )

"20:15
Debbie C W
yes so do I Frances, absolutely. You heard what Linda said about his house and how he looked didn't you?

20:15
Frances Gallagher
If I get his real name and date of birth I can get T*m to check him out on the polce pc [ = POLICE COMPUTER!]
We saw it ..,.wasn't exactly prosperous

20:16
Debbie C W
He has two names, David B--- and David -----

20:18
Frances Gallagher
I think David ---- is his real one, "

ETC ETC ETC.......................................

- also, the "three witches" were talking about their collected details about other people (including me, Hideho and many others), and some of them were going as far to PAY for information. Another one mentioned a detective also.

As for Frances Galagher actually CHECKING people via a POLICE COMPUTER she has access to, it's rather worrying. Not quite LEGAL also. She also planned to use a man she knew to intimidate David B--- over the phone.

James, I will send you everything so if you wish you can publish a screen-shot in your post, and read the file for yourself since your name was also "on the line". I hope you publish an excerpt of what you have received by pm, to show us evidence, which this bit confirms.
Regards,

Richard Haynes HAVING READ THIS SHIT FOR A FEW DAYS.... I'm out o' here and advise other members to... as well. James Arbuthnot is a Grade A psycopath...... with a mission. imo.

Lizzy Hideho Taylor
I prefer to not address 'group politics' issues on this group but when attempts are made to discredit me ( ie this group) and admin I feel it is important...especially when it keeps being brought to my attention...Hence this post. It's all rather tedious and I'd prefer this wasn't used as an opportunity to discredit others. However I do like to see the truth and am troubled when people hide the 'truth' about who they are and blame others if their little 'secret' is discovered, and subsequently attempt to discredit others in retaliation. I will accept any accusations that are the truth and I easily ignore name calling...but you only lie to me or about me once....

James Arbuthnot has decided to include some accusations about myself and admin in his new blog and others have decided to use it to discredit.
----------------------------------------
'So what is really going on? Well, I have a message where Irish Frances Gallagher claims her husband is a policeman and she has used his access to check people out. Why? This from someone who was originally on many pro-McCann forums but who then switched to become an admin on places like the Controversy forum, without explanation.'
------------------------------------------
Frances is a great Admin and I have proven trust with her. Any malicious claims which are not substantiated are without foundation. Also odd that James Arbuthnot would ask her help with your new group two weeks prior to this blog!

----------------------------------------------
A comment about myself
' She is also a personal friend of Lizzy (Hideho) who is reputed to make a small fortune from "monetising" her extensive range of McCann YouTube videos.'
----------------------------------
A 'small fortune''?

James claims to use logic...so where is the logic in myself making lots of money from Youtube when I don't even come close to meeting the criteria required for monetisation!

---------------------------------------------------------------
Criteria for YouTube partnership
(...)
Please note: you may not be able to monetize videos which use any of the following without the explicit permission of the person who created or produced all material:

Music (including cover songs, lyrics, and background music)
Graphics and pictures (including photographs and artwork)
Movie or TV visuals
Video game or software visuals. Click here for details.
Live performances (including concerts, sporting events, and shows)

Video monetization criteria

You must meet these minimum requirements in order to monetize your videos:

Your content is advertiser-friendly.
You created the content or have permission to use it commercially.
You are able to provide documentation proving you own commercial rights to all audio and video content.
Your content complies with YouTube’s Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. YouTube reserves the right to disable monetization for accounts that do not follow our guidelines.

Examples of content that may be eligible for monetization

You filmed your cat and there is no background music.
Your video contains royalty-free music, and you can prove commercial use rights using a direct link to its terms.

Your friend created content for your video and states in writing that you may use and make money from it.
You created original music yourself and are not signed to a label.

Examples of content that would NOT be eligible for monetization

Your video has music you purchased on iTunes or content you taped off of television.
You edit together a compilation of content created by others.
Content with violence and/or nudity meant to shock and disgust.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
James has a wealth of information that is really beneficial to the search for the truth and I have always hoped that he would focus on that instead alienating everyone around him!

James appears to have conveniently forgotten that I spent an enormous amount of time trying to help him stay in the group when I was getting such negative feedback as to his rudeness. I even offered to open a seperate area in the REF forum so he could use that to showcase his wealth of information.

He refused, claiming he didn't want to be individually highlighted.

I kept him as a member regardless of several vocal efforts from others to ban him...until on day when I made a post with no names mentioned and he gave me an ultimatum...to remove it or I would pay the price...

I was give a 30 minute countdown which I ignored as the post he referred to was of a generic nature.

He suddenly spammed the board with many more than 40 posts (which affected many members inboxes) and disrupted the sequence of the board.... I managed to stop him after 40 or more post by doing the only thing I could... A ban!

He then went on to Twitter and tried with multiple tweets to discredit me...(as he had promised)

I had truly tried to help him with hours on the phone (some at his expense) and am subsequently being discredited.

I have no problem with people having different IDs but I do have a problem with lies...

As for credibility....and his accusations against those claiming he is Chris Stedman....

He seems to forget that I had his personal phone number and was able to Google to discover the identity of the person that it was attached to it....

.