Monday, 18 April 2011

Declaration of Rights

By Deuce

I believe it is sensible to take stock of the need to question the book and sum up the basis for challenging a very public doubt-raising agenda, being sold for monetary gain by an ex policeman, convicted of perjury, Goncalo Amaral.

The basis of challenging such agenda’s, arises from the declaration of human rights. The source we are all bound by, as equal in assured protection. The three human rights that concern this blog are the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty, the right to privacy and the right to free speech. I have a personal fourth, but will cover that to wind up this article.

Let’s examine the bloggers covering the missing Madeleine topic found in various places on the Internet. Those who support Amaral’s thesis often quote from the files a comment which says the McCann’s lost the opportunity to prove their innocence.  I have even witnessed comments that suggest declaring the McCanns as being presumed innocent, does not mean they are, as if the presumption has an excuse to be ignored. This urge to reform the meaning of the presumption of  innocence, in such a manner,  contravenes the human right to privacy.  As normal people know, two wrongs don’t make a right especially when breaking one human right to uphold another.

Presumption of Innocence.

1.  Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Ok, from the above statement, the right to be presumed innocent is afforded primarily to those who have been charged, awaiting trial. Therefore as Kate and Gerry have never been charged of any crime, they are not just presumed innocent. They ARE innocent. But the essence of this human right affords them the same protection from false accusations.

The McCanns are innocent without doubt as confirmed by the law and democratic human rights. Anyone who suggests otherwise by public implication that they are guilty of a crime, are breaking the human right to privacy.

Right to Privacy.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, or to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Yes indeed, the McCanns daily receive interference with their privacy with attacks upon their honour and reputation from public comment boards, propaganda forums, Goncalo Amarals book and the more local group led by Anthony Bennett. If the McCanns had to deal with all of these attacks individually, they would be unfairly and overwhelmingly diverted from their campaign to find Madeleine. It is a sad and perverted agenda that some people choose to be involved in, that risk diverting the McCanns attention and priority of searching for their beloved daughter.

What about free speech? Amaral upholds the human right of free speech to excuse the publishing of his book, yet ignores the right to privacy and the fact of being innocent without any suspicion; even more profound than the right to be presumed innocent, alone.

Freedom of Expression.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

This right comes with responsibility. To directly contravene two other human rights in order to practice one is not responsible. But the law and the declaration of human rights protects us from irresponsible freedom of expression. Indeed we can rely upon the right to privacy. When freedom of expression is without doubt an attack on the honour, integrity and good name of innocent people, these victims have the right to the protection from the law against such interference and attacks.

Currently Goncalo is being challenged for his attacks on the McCanns integrity, good name and innocence, in the Portuguese justice system. There should be only one right outcome, we shall see as it does not bode well when the prosecutor who shelved the case suggested he considers a presumption of guilt needs to be proved innocent.

My personal addition to the list of human rights covered here, the right to life.

Right to Life.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

I think this right is important to remember. Especially in the absence of the missing whose fate remains unknown.  For Madeleine McCann, in her absence we must uphold the right to life on her behalf. We must never give up believing that Madeleine McCann can be found alive and well. Any public suggestion that she is dead as closure for any search is an attack on the human rights of Madeleine Beth McCann. People like Goncalo Amaral, Anthony Bennett and those who comment publicly on the Internet, will do well to remember this before exploiting the child’s name for their negative agenda’s.

Sunday, 10 April 2011

For the Love of Madeleine.

By Deuce

This article is related to the conspiracy umbrella which Goncalo Amaral has parked himself under, to justify his own explanation of his fall from grace. It should have come as no surprise to Amaral that he should find himself sheltering from the storm he created alongside fringe elements of an active group of conspiracy theorists. He has certainly reached rock bottom, in my opinion, to need the support of such groups to maintain momentum for the sale of his written word. That written word tainted by the fact he is a convicted perjurer.

Vee8 and Honestbroker have covered aspects of the contribution of conspiracy theorists already. I would like to focus on the Madeleine fund. The fund set up by the McCann family is the only campaign actively and practically searching for Madeleine. Yet these fringe lunatic groups spam media sites proclaiming the fund as a fraud. They know the truth and the facts, yet with great disrespect for missing Madeleine, they rely on recruiting the more gullible of folk into their groups. How could these people be a worry when normal folk can see right through them? I believe the most damaging work that erodes hope for Madeleine is Amarals book. Yet there is the addition of publicity from fringe groups, momentum to that damage from one small group in particular, headed by publicity seeker, Anthony Bennett, who regularly receives monies from members of the public through the use and exploitation of Madeleine’s name as title for his group of fanatical conspiracy theorists and you can now see why the search for a missing child can be damaged, even by 'The moon landings were a lie' types.

The most prolific of statements being spammed on media and social network sites, is that raising monies through charity events for the fund is morally corrupt because the fund is not a charity. That the monies raised do not go to searching for Madeleine, but to fund the family's finances.

Charities, by law, can only be named and managed as such if the monies raised are for the benefit of the public in general. When a child goes missing and the police investigation goes cold, funding becomes crucial to the family still searching. There are charities that raise money to elevate awareness for all missing children, which is fantastic. The McCann’s support such charities themselves. But without taking anything away from the crucial and hard work of selfless volunteers who support these charities, it is without question beneficial for a child to achieve individual attention if possible. With the extraordinary media attention on this case, a fund for Madeleine makes absolute sense. The extraordinary media attention indirectly raises more awareness for all missing children.

Let’s get back to the law regarding fund raising. As the Madeleine fund is for the benefit of one child, logistically, it cannot legally be called a charity. But the law does not frown upon raising money for a missing child. Without the umbrella of protection afforded by the label ‘charity’ the law requires a fund to be practiced as a Limited Company. This gives similar, if not greater, protection to those supplying funding and assures transparency and legality for those running the campaign.

A full and comprehensive definition of the fund can be found on the official campaign website.

The Madeleine fund follows the codes of practice as set out by the Institute of Fundraising.

The Madeleine Fund is a legal and above board fund. That is without question. What is questionable is why there is a minority of people who would suggest otherwise in face of the facts, which are readily and openly available. I don't know why.

I do know why the McCann family set up the Madeleine Fund.

For the Love of Madeleine.

Mothers Day Sunday, 3rd April 2011.  Please contribute to Kate and Gerrys Miles for Missing People run which took place on Mothering Sunday weekend. 

Wednesday, 6 April 2011

The McCann-Murdoch media manipulation machinations.

By Vee8

Control the press and you control the people. A popular maxim among those who study the history of propaganda. Which brings us to the next of the anti-Madeleine’s bizarre conspiracy theories, that in order to convince the British public of their innocence the McCanns now have total control of what the media says about them. “The press are not telling us everything,” they trumpet. “The press are biased to the McCanns” they complain.

Funny that, because I’m sure I’m not the only one who remembers such lurid headlines as

“Find the body, or the McCanns will escape!”

“We can prove they did it!”

“Maddie DNA found in hire car!”

Eventually the press situation became so bad that Kate and Gerry had no alternative but to take legal action, via a libel suite against the press. Not a very good job of control if the people they were controlling had to be threatened with a court action to stop them from not behaving, is it? In a full, front page apology on the Express, the then editor had to concede that there was no truth whatsoever in any of these allegations, more recently admitting that he had been misled by elements within the PJ who now seem to him to be not entirely trustworthy. Tell us something we didn’t know!

The real question, one avoided studiously by the anti-Madeleines, is how on earth COULD the McCanns gain such power over what we read about them in the daily papers? The anti-Madeleines say that Rupert Murdoch is under orders to protect them. Really! Orders from whom? The McCanns? Rupert Murdoch is one of the wealthiest people on the planet, head of an enormous media conglomerate, rich beyond the dreams of most ordinary folk, and more powerful than all the Marvel comic book heroes rolled into one. What on earth could the McCanns possibly offer him in order to secure his support? All the money ever donated to the fund would be nothing but small change to Murdoch. Blackmail? What do they have over him? I am certain bigger, more powerful and/or dangerous people have probably tried, and failed.

Ah, but what about the government? They are, after all, protecting the McCanns aren’t they? They could order him to protect Kate and Gerry.

Seriously, let’s all just think about that for a moment. There is good reason to argue that it is Murdoch who is the King maker to the British political establishment. He decides which party his newspapers are going to support, and invariably that is the party who wins the next election. In fact some of my work colleagues’ grumble it is a waste of time even holding an election, and that we would be better off writing to Murdoch with our wishes for who we want to govern us next! No, I’m afraid our politicians fawn over Murdoch, seeking his favour and support, they do NOT issue him with edicts about what he must or must not do to comply with government policies, cover ups or scandals.

But even Murdoch does not own ALL of the British press or the media outlets, what about all the other newspapers, or the BBC? Well this is where Mr Clarence Mitchell steps unwillingly into the anti-Madeleine’s spin machine. Clarence Controls the media. Or that, at least, is what one Tony Bennett, of the so called Madeleine foundation CLAIMS Mitchell said. “It is my job to control what comes out of the media.” Perhaps THIS is where the McCanns gain their influence over the opinions of the general public? Alas for poor Bennett, no. This quote is nothing more than a mis-translation from an interview on an Italian TV programme. What Mitchell ACTUALLY said was I CHECK what comes out in the media, and that word translates, from Italian into English, as control. So Clarence no more controls the media than he controls the tides.

So, what is it exactly that the press isn’t telling you? Well, all the lies, disinformation and conspiracy theories that have already been debunked and discredited, time without number, not just here on our blog but on forums and blogs all over the net. Stuff like the much vaunted Gaspar statements, which, if ever they WERE published nationally, would almost certainly result in legal actions against whichever editor was foolish enough to print them. Stuff like the refusal to answer the 48 questions, or the refusal to return to attend a reconstruction. What is conveniently forgotten is that the press DID report these. In fact, depending on which paper you bought it was 48, 60 or even as many as 101 questions.

Later, when it was shown that Kate did not to answer the 48 questions on the explicit advice of her solicitor, mostly predicated on false assumptions about ‘incriminating forensic evidence’ that didn’t exist, this too was dutifully reported by the media, including the BBC, which is odd if, indeed, the media truly is in the pocket of the McCanns. The request to attend the PJ reconstruction too was reported, and the McCanns explained that they HAD, in fact, AGREED to attend a reconstruction, provided it was televised, ’Crimewatch’ style. The PJ refused their request, without explanation. Naturally the McCanns had better things to do with their time, rather than fly all the way back to Portugal to take part in an i dotting and t crossing paperwork exercise that would do nothing to help find their daughter.

So is the British media biased to the McCanns? Should equal weight be given to the thesis of Amaral? Given that the British, and for that matter the rest of the world’s media all know that Amaral’s thesis has as much validity as the flat earth societies postulations I would say no. Even when the flat earth society does get a mention anywhere in the world’s press, it is in a mocking, contemptuous way. Come to think of it, perhaps Amaral should get more press. He and the flat earthers sit well beside each other.

Sunday, 3 April 2011

The sword of truth.

By Honestbroker.

It's a little-known fact that no one saw Madeleine Beth McCann on May 3rd 2007. That's not from 22.00pm or after, but rather at all on that day. Really, it's true. I mean, there are those who claim they saw her. But righteous seekers after, and purveyors of, truth and justice for Madeleine Beth McCann who ride around forum land atop mighty steeds, slaying the unrighteous, rooting out corruption and falsehood and putting the record straight, wield the weapon of truth – the crèche record. The crèche record never lies. Or at least, I'm unsure whether it never lies or whether it purports to tell a truth that is actually a lie – that Madeleine was in the crèche on May 3rd. Either way, the crèche record is unimpeachable and unimpeached (except, possibly, in the sense that it might have been impeached to tell an untruth the unimpeachable know is impeached). In the face of this weapon of purity that shines light into dark corners, exposing the duplicity and double-dealing of the darkest hearts, mere words of pathetic humans are blown aside like paper cups in a tornado.

So who are these pathetic humans? Well, there's David Payne, who insists he saw Madeleine at around 1700. Now, of course, David Payne is one of those dubious Tapas-types, you know, who along with six others of the same ilk (his wife, Fiona, Jane Tanner, Russell O'Brien, that lot …) sold their souls to the Devil, perjured themselves and risked their reputations, careers and possibly freedoms to criminally cover up for the misdeeds of the nefarious couple, Kate and Gerry McCann. So we can forget him.

Who else? There's Emma Wilding. She claims to have said 'hello' to Gerry as he dropped Madeleine off at the crèche on the morning of May 3rd. But then, she is just a pimply-faced youth who works at the crèche, so she doesn't count. There is also Catriona Baker. She was actually Madeleine's personal nanny. She claims to have gone down to the beach with Madeleine on that fateful day.

Now Catriona Baker, particularly, incurs the wrath of the righteous and pure atop their mighty steeds. You see, she actually struck up a friendship with the Devils incarnate themselves, Kate and Gerry. In days of yore, when the righteous and pure were lads and lasses, people in Britain would be committed to the Tower on charges of High Treason for less; or, in Portugal, would be acquainted with refined instruments of memory-prompt, persuasion and correction, such as the rack or the thumb-screw. My, how times have changed and standards have dropped. There is a slight snag, here, of course, but nothing, I'm sure, the righteous and pure can't deal with. When Cartiona Baker gave her rogatory interview, her friendship with the McCanns was already well formed. But what she says doesn't differ markedly from what she told the Portuguese police on 10th May, just a week after Madeleine's abduction, and well before any friendship with the McCanns had developed. Still, I hear a rumour that friend to all on the side of righteousness and truth, Duarte Levy, has explosive and, as yet, unrevealed film of Gerry, the day before Ms Baker gave her statement to Portuguese police, marching determinedly towards the abode of Ms Baker, pushing a wheelbarrow, filled to overflowing with euro-notes, which he used to buy the silence of Ms Baker on what she didn't see or do, and more particularly, the lies of what she did see. I gather that in an act of unprecedented philanthropy, Levy will offer this explosive video by auction to the highest bidder, with bids starting at 50,000 euros --
strictly cash before delivery.

Then there is nanny Charlotte Penington, who perfidiously insists that she read stories to Madeleine on May 3rd. Who else inhabits the hall of infamy? Well, there's Elisa dias Romao, Maria MA Jose and Cecillia dias Firmino. All say they saw Madeleine on May 3rd. All are either plain wrong or lying, although opinion is divided among the righteous about whether some of these pathetic humans might, actually, have been duped. Did the nefarious McCanns introduce a 'Madeleine substitute' on May 3? Could Charlotte Pennington, who didn't make personal friends with the McCanns, somehow, have actually failed to notice that the child to whom she read stories on May 3rd was actually a Madeleine substitute? Let's face it, rustling up a 'Madeleine look-alike' at short notice, who not only looked like her, but was also trained to speak, react and behave like her, would actually have been a doddle.

Now, of course, the true motivation for the writing of that book becomes clear. With so many people in on the truth whose silence has to be bought, money to appease the blackmailers has to be raised somehow. After all, it can only be money that's kept them quiet so far and the cash to continue to keep them quiet must be found …

They've got it all sussed, the righteous atop their steeds.

Friday, 1 April 2011

The one with the Freemasons.

By Vee8

Now Government cover up conspiracy theories are all well and good, but they are a bit on the common side. It is easy for everyone to blame their particular elected body for each and every mystery that they can think of, which leaves YOUR theory struggling to be heard above the others. What you need is something to make YOUR theory stand out, make it eye catching. So what better way than to wrap one conspiracy in another? And who better to drag kicking and screaming into your otherwise anodyne scheme than that most mysterious of all groups, the Freemasons? The masons probably have more stories and myths surrounding them than King Arthur and all his knights. Legends about satanic rituals, child sacrifice and the ushering in of a new world order. All complete rubbish, of course, and none has ever even come close to being substantiated, but that matters not to the anti-Madeleines, they know a good conspiracy theory when they see one. (In fact I’m surprised they haven’t yet claimed the Apollo Moon landings were shot in a film studio in Rothley!)

And so, once again with not a shred of proof in sight, they claim that Gerry is a Freemason, as is Gordon Brown, Richard Branson, Brian Kennedy and everyone else who ever came within their sphere of influence. Now I have no idea if Messrs Brown, Branson or Kennedy are masons, and it makes little difference if they are. But, is Gerry? Not so far as I know. Not that Gerry would need to be secretive about it, any mason is free to tell anyone who asks that he is a member. They hold regular meetings in buildings known as lodges, which are known within their locality as such, and anyone can observe them coming and going. One contestant in the Big Brother TV series was quite open about it, and was happy to answer questions from the other contestants about what being a Freemason was about. So if Gerry were a mason he would quite freely acknowledge it if asked. So far though, he has never commented on the subject, so quite how he became so obviously a member is a mystery to me.

But why are the anti-Madeleines so determined to forge this connection between Gerry and the masons? Well they claim that if he were, and if Mr Brown was also a mason, then Gordon would be duty bound, by some sort of mysterious, unspoken masonic code, to protect a fellow mason, even one who may have sexually abused and murdered his own daughter. Using our old friend logic, and a little research, we ask, is there any basis in fact for this reasoning? Categorically no. If you care to Google Freemasons, you will find the following sites, and I include the following extracts.

Do Freemasons give other Masons advantages?

No. Freemasons are not allowed to achieve material gain or any preferment from membership. The Mason Book of Constitutions clearly defines giving other Masons advantages as a misuse of membership, which is punishable by expulsion from Freemasonry or suspension. Therefore, members are not allowed to give other Masons advantages when it comes to job offers, contracts, promotions, and other such items. Masons are also not allowed to lie to authorities to protect a Mason who has committed a crime or misdemeanours.


On his entry into Freemasonry each candidate states unequivocally that he expects no material gain from his membership. At various stages during the three ceremonies of his admission he is forcefully reminded that attempts to gain preferment or material gain for himself or others is a misuse of membership which will not be tolerated. Abuse of membership can result in penalties varying from temporary suspension to expulsion. Nor may Freemasonry ever be used to protect a fellow Freemason, or anyone else, who has behaved dishonestly or unlawfully.

But the real question is CAN Gerry even BE a Freemason? The answer is again, quite unequivocally, no. Though the Freemasons themselves openly welcome members from any faith, race or background, as a practising Catholic Gerry is barred by his church from entering Freemasonry, as again the following website extracts show.

Furthermore, local ecclesiastical authorities have not remained silent on masonry either. On April 19, 1985, Cardinal Bernard Law released a report to the United States Catholic bishops that "shows that the principles of masonry are incompatible with Christian faith and practice whether or not a specific masonic organization happens to be engaging in activity against the church." Even as recently as March 1, 2007, Bishop Gianfranco Girotti, the regent of the Apostolic Penitentiary, reaffirmed the Church's position at a conference on freemasonry at the St. Bonaventure Pontifical Theology

Therefore, the Church's negative judgment in regard to Masonic associations remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and, therefore, membership in them remains forbidden. The faithful, who enroll in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion.

Q. I have a friend who is a Freemason who wants to become Catholic but is under the impression he can't because of his status as a Freemason. Is this true? I have heard it both ways and can't find a definitive answer on the Internet.

A. It depends on whether or not your friend still intends to remain a member of Freemasonry after he enters the Church. If he plans to abandon Freemasonry for Catholicism, yes, of course, he can become Catholic. But if he intends to remain a Freemason after becoming a Catholic, to my knowledge, no, he cannot enter the Church. The Church has long stated that Catholics are prohibited from involvement in Freemasonry.

Now before the anti-Madeleines start jumping up and down with excitement, yes, I did find one blog that appeared to contradict these findings, with the author claiming to be both a Freemason and a minister in the Catholic church. But I can find no independent verification of this authors claims, and one swallow does not a summer make, therefore I will stick to what is quite clearly the church’s official stance.

So, though no doubt the con theorists will stick doggedly to their beliefs I hope that the casual reader will be more enlightened to the facts here. Unless and until proof is provided to the contrary, and by that I mean something that could stand up in a court of law, I can state that Gerry is NOT a Freemason, cannot BE a Freemason and there are NO non-existent, ritualistic masonic codes protecting him.