Marching on Scotland Yard 19.08.14 Blacksmith Bureau

John Blacksmith writes: I had a recent net encounter with someone who wished to bring the award-winning Hall Gospels to a wider audience. It was not because they contained new information, I was told, but because they reached out to those who, for whatever reason, didn’t know the “truth” of the McCann Affair. Helping them, you know.
Hmm.

In 2007 it was possible to believe that the McCanns were deliberately preventing the truth of the Portuguese investigation from reaching the UK public by lies, suppression and active deceit. And it was true, proven, as we’ve demonstrated before, by the relevant Gerry McCann blogs and the crucial, and absolutely damning, interviews in Scotland in late August. http://www.mccannfiles.com/id211.html When these are compared with Madeleine, that defence brief for a future trial, as Dr Roberts calls it, the lies are nakedly exposed.
And the MSM, with its 99% monopoly on news did indeed play the major role in this suppression. But now?
Madeleine For Dummies

The case must be the most reported in history. The UK MSM monopoly is as dead as the Lord Chamberlain's censoring department and now runs hopelessly behind social media in news provision, its main value being to confirm details of already-reported events. The majority of homes in the UK are online and use the net avidly, with access to all the known details about the case.
Yet the idea persists that people are somehow unaware of the most obvious “truths” of the case because – leaving conspiracies aside – the MSM are not telling them. If only, goes the line, if only this ignorant majority can be reached with a Madeleine-for-Dummies initiative then the population will possess the truth.
And then? Well…they’ll do something, won’t they? What exactly? Here people are less clear, although fuzzy implied scenarios seem to suggest a wave of outrage of unimagined proportions leading to marches, demonstrations, shouting in Parliament and calls for action.

And who is it that will bring these truths? Why, people like Mr Hall, of course, suitably briefed by that long list of acknowledged helpers in the credits, people who know all the stuff that the mere public are too stupid/uncaring/misinformed/brainwashed to know for themselves. It is a view that combines an extraordinary sense of helplessness - it's all a fix - with an extraordinary belief that we know the truth.
The majority of the UK public knows about the McCann case and doesn’t give a fuck. Not being stupid they’ve seen and read enough to know that they aren’t getting certainties on the affair because few such certainties exist, only bewildering claim and counter claim.

They were sold the case as a dramatic narrative – a soap – from the crude and impoverished imaginations of the parents using the MSM, with all the cheap soap boxes ticked off: the result was a roaring soap success, just like the death of Princess Diana, something people could really indulge themselves in. But Diana, having provided her soap ingredients – "class", sexiness, money, glamour, bad choice in men etc. etc. – unselfishly gave us an appropriate climax with her grotesque and sordid death in a Paris underpass followed by a petal-strewn long goodbye. Now that’s a proper ending to a proper soap.

Who lost the script?

But the McCanns and the MSM couldn’t provide one! They couldn’t produce the nipper, the parents didn’t throw themselves off the Black Rock and nor, oh dear, could they "demonstrate their innocence". All the possible narratives of that story ended in September 2007, when the messy and confusing facts began to replace the soap lies – and it’s been downhill ever since with a soap that ultimately couldn't satisfy, lost its magic and thus its ratings.

We can't get no...
For what we are left with isn't an attractive or intriguing mystery like a spy thriller, or a wild story like Breaking Bad but one that touches on all sorts of banal but horrible things best left unconsidered – families behind closed doors, the secret vulnerabilities of children, kinship taboos. If the average member of the public feels anything about the case it isn't anger, it isn't a raging desire for justice but discomfort. It isn't feel-good and it never will be.

The couple that slowly emerged from behind their manufactured images are unattractive yet not truly monstrous enough to induce widespread loathing and lust for retribution; the rest of the family have not, to put it mildly, the looks or brains to emerge into Pippa Middleton stardom; Amaral stumbled onto the set uninvited and has no appetite for pretence, soaps or showbiz so the public has been denied a cop-pursuing-justice hero to identify with. Lastly, it has gone on far too long and become boring. Faced with this most people have, rightly, turned away.

Anything but reality

It is this gradual triumph of real life – which, unless you’re in love, has its slow and tedious side – over manufactured fictional narrative that has reduced public interest in the case, not shortage of information. The irony is that the devotees of the affair who claim 20/20 vision and wish Mr Hall to convert the unseeing masses are more in thrall to unreal dramatization - soap existence - than the supposedly bovine public, who had the good sense to sign off and get on with their lives once the tabloids stopped writing episodes in October 2007./b]

[b]A thoroughly miserable tale with no winners and few redeeming features, one with no consequences for anybody except those involved, has to be converted into another soap to keep it running in devotees' own minds: enter MI5, the tenth tapas, Paedo Power, Brown’s secrets, Brooks hypnosis, Murdoch's millions, Mitchell the secret agent, whitewashing Scotland Yard, scheming billionaires and on and on.

All of it is far cruder than anything that the repressed, infertile but sexually obsessed Gerry McCann conjured up as he lay on the floor in PDL screaming about "paedophile bastards", and far more unlikely than the cleaned-up soap script that he and his mad wife gave to the MSM to present to the world. Frankly Mr Hall's advisers and the McCanns deserve each other: they think very, very much alike.

So no, no marches on Scotland Yard. Meanwhile the police there continue to investigate.

Iris wrote:Quite right LJC.  If it had been THAT high-level a coverup, we would never even have heard of the McCanns.

My personal favourites are -
Madeleine was a clone
Madeleine never existed at all
Madeleine was married off in a Jewish ceremony that went wrong, as apparently Jewish girls get married at three
Freemasons are covering up for the McCanns

I'm sure there are many more that are even more bizarre.

whatsupdoc wrote:...so there is no conspiracy about the connection between the McCanns and Freemasonry. Just facts.

Iris wrote:I come from a long line of Freemasons and Eastern Star.  My dad and brother were both Grand Masters.  I know how they all "help" one another out, which is why I never wanted anything to do with it.   I saw one too many shady business dealings.   But the death of a child,  that's a different thing entirely and you would never even get one single lodge to cover that up, never mind the entire order of Freemasons.   That's why I am saying that a freemason coverup is a conspiracy theory.

comperedna wrote:That is one of the better Blacksmiths that I have read. The solution may be quite a simple one, but the massive cover-up? He does not really explain that.

margaret wrote:I've never believed the Freemason cover up, Freemasons are still human after all.

I don't see a government cover up either, the Mccanns created a huge tidal wave of publicity which many people wanted to jump on, the PM was just one and since the Mccanns were declared arguidos where did the government ever be seen to assist them? Everyone pretty much dropped them.

We've yet to see if the review turned investigation was to help the Mccanns yet....

Claudia wrote:Madeleine McCann went missing while her parents were having dinner elsewhere. She was left with her twin 2 year old brother and sister. They have addressed or tried to address the EU parliament, The Culture, Media and Sport Committee heard evidence from them as victims and Kate is an ambassador for Missing People. If that isn't evidence that they are well protected then I don't know what is. Any other couple in the same circumstances would have been ripped apart.

LJC wrote:

Claudia wrote:Madeleine McCann went missing while her parents were having dinner elsewhere. She was left with her twin 2 year old brother and sister. They have addressed or tried to address the EU parliament, The Culture, Media and Sport Committee heard evidence from them as victims and Kate is an ambassador for Missing People. If that isn't evidence that they are well protected then I don't know what is. Any other couple in the same circumstances would have been ripped apart.

No, its not evidence of protection.  Unfortunately (or their supporters would say fortunately) the McCanns set about setting up a European-wide missing child alert system and had to take this proposed legislation to the European Parliament.  That is the process it has to go through I would imagine and, as they had not been found guilty of anything, they could not be denied.

As for the Culture, Media and Sports Committee - what about Max Mosley?  This very odious and sordid man also gave evidence there to stop Google from directing its search engine to pictures of an orgy that he took part in. But the Committee was set up to look into privacy standards relating to certain individuals, it was not there to pass judgement on them.

As for Missing People, they are a charity.  I'm not sure what protection they could offer Kate McCann.  However, they can offer her support and they are doing so.  Personally, if I was in charge of a charity for missing children, Kate McCann would be the last person I would chose but, having a little knowledge of charities, I would think it works because all publicity is good publicity and it helps the charity to achieve its goal of making money.

Claudia79 wrote:Well, some call it conspiracy, others protection and others special treatment. There is one thing that is a fact: no other UK citizen in the Algarve has had the ambassador call the police on their behalf and told them what crime to investigate. The fact that you choose to mention their names among those of RH and CR just reinforces my point. As for CR, it's too soon to say anything. As far as RH is concerned, he spent his whole adult life committing crimes if we are to believe what has been said and even if he dies in jail he will never fully pay for what he did because he was protected until now. Had he died younger and he would have got off scot free.

LJC wrote:

Claudia wrote:Madeleine McCann went missing while her parents were having dinner elsewhere. She was left with her twin 2 year old brother and sister. They have addressed or tried to address the EU parliament, The Culture, Media and Sport Committee heard evidence from them as victims and Kate is an ambassador for Missing People. If that isn't evidence that they are well protected then I don't know what is. Any other couple in the same circumstances would have been ripped apart.

No, its not evidence of protection.  Unfortunately (or their supporters would say fortunately) the McCanns set about setting up a European-wide missing child alert system and had to take this proposed legislation to the European Parliament.  That is the process it has to go through I would imagine and, as they had not been found guilty of anything, they could not be denied.

As for the Culture, Media and Sports Committee - what about Max Mosley?  This very odious and sordid man also gave evidence there to stop Google from directing its search engine to pictures of an orgy that he took part in. But the Committee was set up to look into privacy standards relating to certain individuals, it was not there to pass judgement on them.

As for Missing People, they are a charity.  I'm not sure what protection they could offer Kate McCann.  However, they can offer her support and they are doing so.  Personally, if I was in charge of a charity for missing children, Kate McCann would be the last person I would chose but, having a little knowledge of charities, I would think it works because all publicity is good publicity and it helps the charity to achieve its goal of making money.