Blacksmith - 6th March 2013 'Footnote'

http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.co.uk/

John Blacksmith (Antony Sharples) writes:

The kind person who sent me the emails which I reproduced on yesterday's blog contacted me again today to let me know that the other party had asked her to get me to remove them. In fact I'm no believer in posting other's emails without their OK so I at once took them down and put them in a safe place.

This was all connected, of course, with our little exercise in the last few posts of getting as many viewpoints as possible about the claim that the McCanns have "asked for terms" from Goncalo Amaral – so that they can be coldly examined and reproduced, in the light of the truth when it emerges. Quite a public interest initiative really, isn't it? A kind of retrospective truth meter so that people will then be sure who they can trust in the future and who were lying through their fucking teeth.

Naturally, since most of the Blacksmith Bureau has been concerned with the McCann's repeated, incorrigible and self-admitted lying, we were very interested to hear what the couple had to say about this "rumour", so that their comment too could be fed into the truth machine. Alas, they will not tell us.

But it seems that in response to mounting pressure for an answer from the readers of the Find Madeleine Campaign page, the webmaster there finally said that she would talk to Kate about the matter. Later on she emailed some members, including the one who contacted me, and said that the claims that the McCanns were asking for terms were just unfounded rumours and weren't based on fact. That's fine, that's her entry into the truth machine draw.

But this webmaster, who unlike Kate and Gerry McCann, it seems, does read the Bureau, freaked out when she saw the emails here, contacted the person and in a rather coarse message – she lacks good manners—told her that she was to get the messages taken down by the Bureau immediately. Otherwise she would contact her "legal representation" – she lacks good English – and would, oh my God, contact Google! Much luck with that one, dearie.

She also claimed not that the relevant email was private, which it was, but that it was – she lacks knowledge of the law – confidential, which it wasn't. I was slightly perplexed by that since I read this on Tuesday night on Twitter:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Gi' O'er ‏@Mrsxxxx Blacksmith's private e-mails as mentioned in today's blog were actually posts on the publicly viewable OFM FB page - ROFL! #McCann”


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But don't let me intrude on private grief. The person who sent me the mails would rather I didn't remove them, on the grounds, she tells me, that:

"The undeniable duplicity of the McCanns and their cohorts is contained within those emails, we know it and so do they. Remove them and we are facilitating their deception. Publish and be damned say I but of course it is your blog so your call."

Anyway I've taken them down, as I said, since otherwise the privacy of one of the parties would be breached.

But it's not just a matter of privacy, of course: our ill-mannered webmaster, who can't even spell my name right, was extremely anxious to stress to her correspondent that it is she, not, no definitely not, Kate McCann, who is saying that the story that the McCanns cracked and asked for a settlement is unfounded. No, not Kate.

Well, that one goes into the truth machine as well, for recall at the appropriate date – Gosh, we do have a lot of entries! – but it does leave a couple of questions unanswered, doesn't it? Such as how did an insignificant website nonentity like this one know that the "rumour" was unfounded and not based on fact? And, while she was in contact, as promised, with Kate McCann, talking presumably about nothing special, why she didn't ask Kate whether the rumour was, as she herself was suddenly certain, (after having been unable to answer the question before speaking to Kate!) not based on fact?

Best thing she could do is contact her "legal representation" and sue me. Then she'd be able to tell us all about the conversation in court.

It didn't take long for the truth machine to start working, did it? There'll be more.

thanks, Blacksmith doesnt mince words, love it jimo

Haha BUSTED.

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.....

Brilliant. I saw the tweet he refers to. It was SO obvious.

Webmaster =

almostgothic wrote:Webmaster =

Oh FFS, Toasterman has sneeked in here from the other thread.

Talking of toast, I hope that nobody other than me forgot to drink a toast on Tuesday to celebrate the birthday of that wonderful human being, Kate McCann.

A belated greeting to the mother of the century.

I don't understand this one, can someone translate for me.
Many thanks in advance!

Loopdaloop wrote:I don't understand this one, can someone translate for me.
Many thanks in advance!

In a nutshell - OFM FB webmaster demands removal of email correspondence from previous blog post --> very angry --> threatens legal recourse --> very, very, very anxious to labour the point that it wasn't KM that said the cave-in was just a rumour, oh no definitely not, even though webmaster was going to consult KM before reporting back (tee hee!) --> emails removed but incident reported on in the footnote --> therefore webmaster just made things a whole lot worse!

almostgothic wrote:

Loopdaloop wrote:I don't understand this one, can someone translate for me.
Many thanks in advance!

In a nutshell - OFM FB webmaster demands removal of email correspondence from previous blog post --> very angry --> threatens legal recourse --> very, very, very anxious to labour the point that it wasn't KM that said the cave-in was just a rumour, oh no definitely not, even though webmaster was going to consult KM before reporting back (tee hee!) --> emails removed but incident reported on in the footnote --> therefore webmaster just made things a whole lot worse!

What about the facebook or twitter post claiming it was public messages?
I found it strange that bs removed the email as its not illegal as theres no confidential information!
Although if it is Kate what is interesting is that it means she is definitly active on the internet! It also adds credence to the theory that she may be Pat gurney!!

Maybe its just one of blacksmiths fairy tales.

Lioned wrote:Maybe its just one of blacksmiths fairy tales.

T4two wrote:

Lioned wrote:Maybe its just one of blacksmiths fairy tales.

or one of the blacksmiths' fairy tales.