Re: Rupert Murdoch - Oh dear!

by YNG 29.01.11 21:42

kimberley wrote:Hi, I arrived here via a person named Jasmine at another forum. Thanks for the invite.

I used to post on Madeleine forums but not so much these days as there appears to be so little in the media at the moment.

I would like to see the perps of M's disappearance to be caught once and for all, along with the next person, but I really fail to see how this thread (which is on the MM string) and its personalities are going to lead the way to a conviction of any wrong doer in this case. This forum wants to find justice, does that mean going to Portugal and starting from X marks the place and working outwards, or will delving into these personalities and companies bring any luck. One company in particular would be the Pharmaceutical one. How would the workings and finances of this company be relevant in the disappearance of M? Several other companies are mentioned in the M threads and I fail to see the relevance. All power to the elbow of the researchers because that must take a lot of time for no recompense whatsoever.
There are also other threads (the research) without discussion, copying and pasting what is already in the Portuguese files, but I cannot see the point the OP is making. Yes, I see the timelines, the residents, but what does it all mean? Why are residents other than the McCanns and the tapas friends of any use? Is it because once you have a name, somebody can track them down to ask for their account on the disappearance of M. There is such a lot of information but what is a poster supposed to do with it. Not discounting anything because everything can be tracked down, but who has the means to do that on a forum?

I'd be interested to know what you think happened to Madeleine kimberley ? howdy

by kimberley 29.01.11 22:00

Hi, YNG - I think she died in May 2007. I said so at the time, after the Golden 24 hours passed by. After 48 hours it was a certainty. But I am open-minded, if she does turn up alive, I would not be completely surprised.

by Judge Mental 29.01.11 22:35

kimberley wrote:Hi, I arrived here via a person named Jasmine at another forum. Thanks for the invite.

I used to post on Madeleine forums but not so much these days as there appears to be so little in the media at the moment.

I would like to see the perps of M's disappearance to be caught once and for all, along with the next person, but I really fail to see how this thread (which is on the MM string) and its personalities are going to lead the way to a conviction of any wrong doer in this case. This forum wants to find justice, does that mean going to Portugal and starting from X marks the place and working outwards, or will delving into these personalities and companies bring any luck. One company in particular would be the Pharmaceutical one. How would the workings and finances of this company be relevant in the disappearance of M? Several other companies are mentioned in the M threads and I fail to see the relevance. All power to the elbow of the researchers because that must take a lot of time for no recompense whatsoever.
There are also other threads (the research) without discussion, copying and pasting what is already in the Portuguese files, but I cannot see the point the OP is making. Yes, I see the timelines, the residents, but what does it all mean? Why are residents other than the McCanns and the tapas friends of any use? Is it because once you have a name, somebody can track them down to ask for their account on the disappearance of M. There is such a lot of information but what is a poster supposed to do with it. Not discounting anything because everything can be tracked down, but who has the means to do that on a forum?

kimberley.

There is a mass of information in the media at the moment! Surely you must have read the latest outpouring of bilge in The Algarve Resident? Surely you have heard about Gamble being invited into a Meyer grouping? Not that we have time for current news here though, because we have still not fully interpreted the very first McCann mutterings from May 2007. Surely you have not worked out what the McCanns meant when they said that the shutters had been smashed, and that Madeleine had been taken through the very tiny aperture at the bottom of the shutter? If you have worked this one out, you are not only a better man than I, but far better than all the sleuthing sleuthers we have yet come across.

When you say this, ''All power to the elbow of the researchers because that must take a lot of time for no recompense whatsoever.'' Please do not be fooled into thinking that investigating companies and their employees is ever without its compensations. You would be staggered if you could see what has been revealed. Especially around those people whose names would never have even come to light in a milion years, without the McCanns had declared that Madeleine had been abducted.

And with regard to your question about ''who would have the means to do that on a forum?'' Please allow one to say that people from all walks of life have found their way to this forum and its posters. Simply because they wish to see justice in Madeleine's case. Others because they have skills and information that will benefit us. Some people, seldom if ever post, but always keep us informed of their own progress and the information they have uncovered. There are some people here who do not care how they are personally perceived, so long as justice is seen to be done for a three years old child

Where would you like to go with this next, kimberley? big grin

What do you think really happened to Madeleine McCann? And please be careful how you answer, because people are watching very closely for libel. Nor would one like to be seen discussing one of those strange abduction theories on the board. Not unless you make it very amusing for us all to read. We have never heard of Madeleine being stolen by passing elephants as far as one can remember. So this is an area well worth exploring, just so that we can rule it out.

by Judge Mental 29.01.11 22:50

kimberley wrote:Hi, YNG - I think she died in May 2007. I said so at the time, after the Golden 24 hours passed by. After 48 hours it was a certainty. But I am open-minded, if she does turn up alive, I would not be completely surprised.

Eddie and Keela would be more than surprised though big grin

And Grime would probably think about getting himself a new job.

What makes you think she died, kimberley? Which evidence would you provide? Eddie and Keela's evidence? When you say died, do you mean that she died because there was something medically wrong with her? Because if she was stolen by a paedophile, the chances are that she may very well have been killled quite soon after she was allegedly abducted. But she would not have died, kimberley. She would have been killed.

Dying is a natural process. Being killed is not. So how do you think she died, kimberley?

by kimberley 29.01.11 23:05

Greetings, Judgemental, it is good to hear your point of view, but I think I have muddied the waters slightly as to my opinion. I do not really have an opinion that matters because I was not present in Portugal in May 2007. We only have the Police files to work with. Stories which appeared in the newspapers in 2007/8 cannot be relied upon - there is a financial motive, an M. story no matter what would have sold countless newspapers - M had six fingers and six toes would have worked as well as any other story as regards the newspapers. Word of mouth passed from person to person as in Chinese Whispers seemed to play a big part but they do not appear in the files.

I paid tribute to the researchers on this forum as they have been able to unearth much much more than appears in the files, which makes for sometimes confusing reading. Again, what can we do with such information? What ,if anything ,would be gained from further research into, say, Astra Zeneca as regards convicting the perp in the disappearance of M?

I was not present in Portugal in 07. One theory could be that M herself climbed on the bed and managed to get out of the window herself. The drop from her window was about 3 feet or so. The parents may have thought this to be impossible for a 3yr old, but there is always a first time for everything. The parents may have thought M would never go out without her shoes, but again there is always a first time for everything. But M. being smart, would not need to clamber out of the window - the sliding door was unlocked. The parents may argue that even if she had used the sliding door, it would not occur to her to shut it after her. There's always a first time.

by YNG 29.01.11 23:29

kimberley wrote:Greetings, Judgemental, it is good to hear your point of view, but I think I have muddied the waters slightly as to my opinion. I do not really have an opinion that matters because I was not present in Portugal in May 2007. We only have the Police files to work with. Stories which appeared in the newspapers in 2007/8 cannot be relied upon - there is a financial motive, an M. story no matter what would have sold countless newspapers - M had six fingers and six toes would have worked as well as any other story as regards the newspapers. Word of mouth passed from person to person as in Chinese Whispers seemed to play a big part but they do not appear in the files.

I paid tribute to the researchers on this forum as they have been able to unearth much much more than appears in the files, which makes for sometimes confusing reading. Again, what can we do with such information? What ,if anything ,would be gained from further research into, say, Astra Zeneca as regards convicting the perp in the disappearance of M?

I was not present in Portugal in 07. One theory could be that M herself climbed on the bed and managed to get out of the window herself. The drop from her window was about 3 feet or so. The parents may have thought this to be impossible for a 3yr old, but there is always a first time for everything. The parents may have thought M would never go out without her shoes, but again there is always a first time for everything. But M. being smart, would not need to clamber out of the window - the sliding door was unlocked. The parents may argue that even if she had used the sliding door, it would not occur to her to shut it after her. There's always a first time.

An accident off course is a strong possibility, though for some strange reason the McCann's themselves have dismissed the idea of her wandering out of the apartment by herself. Do you think this is how she met her fate and someone found her and brought her back to the apartment before disposing of the body ?

by mischief 29.01.11 23:29

Where Murdoch or even the media in general is concerned I think the topic is very relevant, and as relevant as any on the forum. What the media choose to report, what the media chooses not to report, and how it report's what it does report can be highly significant...where this case, and any other thing is concerned.

It can be the tinest of pieces in an almighty jigsaw that can lead someone to an assumption that something just ain't right and s capture their imagination to such an extent that they are driven to seek the answers for themself. In cases such as this it's what's reported ..and then as you become more familiar with a case to recognise more..how it is and then what's not reported, that makes the media a worthy topic.

by Judge Mental 30.01.11 0:01

@ kimberley. Mischief's post below will explain the importance of understanding the machinery behind names such as AstraZeneca.

mischief wrote: ''Where Murdoch or even the media in general is concerned I think the topic is very relevant, and as relevant as any on the forum. What the media choose to report, what the media chooses not to report, and how it report's what it does report can be highly significant...where this case, and any other thing is concerned.
It can be the tinest of pieces in an almighty jigsaw that can lead someone to an assumption that something just ain't right and s capture their imagination to such an extent that they are driven to seek the answers for themself. In cases such as this it's what's reported ..and then as you become more familiar with a case to recognise more..how it is and then what's not reported, that makes the media a worthy topic.''

And kimberley, this is a very important post of yours which one would also like to reiterate. One is most grateful for you bringing this up at this time, ''We only have the Police files to work with. Stories which appeared in the newspapers in 2007/8 cannot be relied upon - there is a financial motive, an M. story no matter what would have sold countless newspapers - M had six fingers and six toes would have worked as well as any other story as regards the newspapers. Word of mouth passed from person to person as in Chinese Whispers seemed to play a big part but they do not appear in the files.''

Have no concerns over this, kimberley, for our posters and readers know only too well that they must only come here armed with the police files. We will not allow newspaper stories from 2007/8 (or indeed any other period) to be used here as proof, without telephoning the email or journalist to verify it first. We prefer the words that fall from the Tapas 9s own lips in their televisions shows or on the news. Did you ever catch the McCanns being rude outside the court in Portugal? Really quite shocking behaviour, and no manners in sight. Goodness knows what the Portuguese people think of the British after the McCanns have brought such shame. Hopefully, the PJ will rectify the situation sooner rather than later. Meanwhile, please note that there is no room for conjecture here, and our posters never treat themselves to any gossip. Facts, the whole facts, and nothing but the facts is all that you will find here, kimberley. Apart from those occasions where superb theories are posed which grab our attention. However, even those have to be backed up with facts.

by Judge Mental 30.01.11 0:19

@ kimberley. Since this thread is supposed to be about Murdoch, one is wondering how to include you in the thread. If Murdoch owns, or were to own a yacht, what do you think it would be called? big grin

And this is nothing to do with Maxwell. big grin

by kimberley 30.01.11 0:23

Judgemental

“Apart from those occasions where superb theories are posed which grab our attention. However, even those have to be backed up with facts.”

This is all I have to offer (a theory or two) as I have not done any first hand research. I have only read the files and of course as you have done, I have watched the recorded interviews with various members of M’s family and friends. I had difficulty with the demenour of said members, but there is no rule book for such an occasion. I doubt if I could face a camera under such circumstances.

Much as I have tried otherwise, I can only view Rupert Murdock, Brian Kennedy, Astra Zeneca, and Prince Alwaleed as enormous great obstacles in finding evidence to convict the guilty party/ies in Madeleine’s disappearance. If she wandered out into the darkness on her own and came to grief then there is little or no evidence of that either until her body is found.

I assume The MW residents, Mr Berry family, Mackenzie family, Mr Handie family, Man family, Cox family, the Patel family et al were interviewed by the PJ and they saw/heard nothing. I recognise some of the names so they must have appeared in the files somewhere, but they were definitely not interviewed once they were back in the UK. This is probably an important omission.

I am also hoping the PJ will rectify the situation very soon, but I doubt it somehow - too much water has passed under the bridge.

by Guest 31.01.11 23:16

We must all hope the situation will be rectified soon and those responsible for Madeleine's disappearance be brought to account for what they have done together with those who have been complicit in covering up what has happened. Rupert Murdoch - Oh dear! - Page 2 160807

Rupert Murdoch - Oh dear! - Page 2 160807

by Nina 06.08.12 18:13

Tony Bennett wrote:Let's just run through a few points.

1. The McCanns' chief public relations spinner, Clarence Mitchell, when he left working for the McCanns full-time, got a job working for Matthew Freud, owner and boss of Freud Communications.

2. Matthew Freud is married to Elizabeth Murdoch, Rupert Murdoch's daughter.

3. Rupert Murdoch is arguably the most powerful media mogul in the world. In Britain, he owns SKY, The Times, The Sunday Times, The Sun and the News of the World. He owns vast other media interests world-wide.

4. Clarence Mitchell once worked as the Director of Labour's media spin machine, the Media Monitoring Unit. He once boasted that the job of him and his 40-strong team was, and I quote: 'To control what comes out in the media'.

5. In the summer of 2009, David cameron had a long meeting with Rupert Murdoch. Barely a week later, The Sun announced that it was switching its support from Labour to the Tories. It was widely rumoured that the deal was this: Murdoch: "I'll win you the General Election if you let me control BSkyB". Cameron: "Done".

6. During the General Election this year, Clarence Mitchell was appointed a 2nd-in-command to Andy Coulson, the Tories' Communcations Director. Coulson's previous job was Editor of the News of the World.

7. Murdoch now has 39% control of BSkyB. He needs British government permission to buy a further 61% stake to take his stake up to 100% if possible. This will cost him £7.8 billion, but will make him a still more powerful media player than he is already. IF he gets permission.

8. Up to today, that decision - whether to give Murdoch permission - was to have been made by Vincent Cable, the Liberal Democrat Business Secretary.

9. But Cable said a few indiscreet things e.g. about David Cameron to two 'Telegraph' journalists pretending to be LibDems. Perhaps more relevantly, he told these two pretend LibDems that 'Murdoch has too much powser already' (or words to that effect).

10. Cameron has punished him by removing Cable's responsibility for approving media mergers to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The Minister there is Jeremy Hunt.

11. If you go to Jeremy Hunt's blog, he proudly says this about Rupert Murdoch:

"Rather than worry about Rupert Murdoch owning another TV channel, what we should recognise is that he has probably done more to create variety and choice in British TV than any other single person because of his huge investment in setting up Sky TV which, at one point, was losing several million pounds a day. We would be the poorer and wouldn't be saying that British TV is the envy of the world if it hadn't been for him being prepared to take that commercial risk. We need to encourage that kind of investment."

No prizes for guessing which way Hunt's decision will go.

Murdoch could become even more powerful and dangerous than he is already.

Interesting photograph,

http://steelmagnolia-steelmagnolia.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/mccann-freemason-leveson-farce-leveson.html

by ProfessorPPlum 08.08.12 8:20

Kimberley said: " One theory could be that M herself climbed on the bed and managed to get out of the window herself" and repeated this again.

If that were the case you'd expect to find Madeleine's fingerprints on the window instead of Kate's.

Thle tone of your posts sound to me like a pro-McCann incursion: "we can't know, we weren't there, Madeleine could have..." The PJ were there and they could and DID know - and started with your 'Madeleine could have...' position as one of their (only) three starting possibilities. You would know this if you'd read Amaral's 'The Truth Of The Lie'. Begs the question why haven't you read the single most significant document in this case - the opinion of the individual closest to the investigation?

by **tigger** 08.08.12 8:37

ProfessorPPlum wrote:Kimberley said: " One theory could be that M herself climbed on the bed and managed to get out of the window herself" and repeated this again.

If that were the case you'd expect to find Madeleine's fingerprints on the window instead of Kate's.

Thle tone of your posts sound to me like a pro-McCann incursion: "we can't know, we weren't there, Madeleine could have..." The PJ were there and they could and DID know - and started with your 'Madeleine could have...' position as one of their (only) three starting possibilities. You would know this if you'd read Amaral's 'The Truth Of The Lie'. Begs the question why haven't you read the single most significant document in this case - the opinion of the individual closest to the investigation?

Prof. Plum: I think Kimberley is no longer with us as her posts are over 18 months ago.
But I'm interested to see her quoting names I've never heard before:
... I can only view Rupert Murdock, Brian Kennedy, Astra Zeneca, and Prince Alwaleed ???as enormous great obstacles in finding evidence to convict the guilty party/ies in Madeleine’s disappearance. unquote.

Re Murdoch: wonder how the new Sun on Sunday is doing? Murdoch has a grievance against the British still - calling him to account isn't going to help. He is a man who will just up the ante so to speak. I have some sympathy for his actions, the Murdoch empire is the easiest target but far from the only one.
Leveson inquiry is a total farce imo. Lumped with the McCanns and the SY review it takes a large chunk out of the budget of whichever department is paying for this pantomine.
I really don't care what Murdoch does or doesn't, it's only skimming the surface. It won't change a thing.

Reminds me of what Louis XIVth said about the Spanish war: 'Il n'y a plus de Pyrenees' (can't do the accents ecus).
At the end of the war everybody was ten years older, and the Pyrenees were just were they always were.

by Guest 08.08.12 10:32

AstraZeneca is the pharmaceutical company John McCann was/is working for.
Prince Alwaleed is a very rich and influential Saudi :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Waleed_bin_Talal

by **tigger** 08.08.12 11:52

Châtelaine wrote:AstraZeneca is the pharmaceutical company John McCann was/is working for.
Prince Alwaleed is a very rich and influential Saudi :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Waleed_bin_Talal

Thanks. Forgotten the pharmaceutics.

by **Tony Bennett** 08.08.12 22:34

Nina wrote:Interesting photograph,

http://steelmagnolia-steelmagnolia.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/mccann-freemason-leveson-farce-leveson.html

Yes, well done Steel Magnolia for bringing this to our attention, this is the 'Grip of Boaz', known to 'Enterered Apprentices':

SIGN OF AN ENTERED APPRENTICE

Rupert Murdoch - Oh dear! - Page 2 Easign

Rupert Murdoch - Oh dear! - Page 2 Easign

The sign of the Entered Apprentice alludes to the penalty of the Entered Apprentice's obligation. The sign is made by drawing the right hand rapidly across the neck as shown on the left. The penalty that the sign alludes to is, "having my throat cut across, my tongue torn out by its roots, and my body buried in the rough sands of the sea at low water mark, where the tide ebbs and flows twice in twenty-four hours, should I ever knowingly violate this my Entered Apprentice obligation."

Explanation of the Entered Apprentice sign: Draw the right hand rapidly across the neck as represented and drop the arm to the side. This action shows the penalty of having the throat cut and the tongue ripped out.

Rupert Murdoch - Oh dear! - Page 2 Red_line

"BOAZ"
GRIP OF AN ENTERED APPRENTICE
(HANDSHAKE)

The Grip of the Entered Apprentice is made by pressing the thumb against the top of the first knuckle-joint of the fellow Mason, the fellow Mason also presses his thumb against the first Mason's knuckle.

The name of this grip is "Boaz". When a candidate is imparted with this grip and its usage it is done in this manner."

First the Worshipful Master says to the candidate:
"I now present my right hand in token of friendship and brotherly love, and will invest you with the grip and word. As you are uninstructed, he who has hitherto answered for you, will do so at this time."

The Worshipful Master of the lodge then has this exchange with the Senior Deacon, who is standing next to the candidate, who is still kneeling at the altar, after have assumed the obligation of this degree:

Note: In the following discourse WM stands for Worshipful Master, and SD stands for Senior Deacon.
WM: Brother Senior Deacon.
SD: Worshipful Master.
WM: I hele.
SD: I conceal.
WM: What do you conceal?
SD: All the secrets of a Mason in Masonry, to which this token alludes.
(At this time, the candidate is shown the grip of an Entered Apprentice)
WM: What is that?
SD: A grip
WM. Of what?
SD: Of an Entered Apprentice.
WM. Has it a name?
SD: It has.
WM: Will you give it to me?
SD: I did not so receive it, neither will I so impart it.
WM: How will you dispose of it?
SD: Letter it or halve it.
WM: Letter it and begin.
SD: You begin.
WM: Begin you.
SD: A
WM: B
SD: O
WM: Z
WM: (Directing his words to the candidate): "Boaz, my Brother, is the name of this grip, and should always be given in the customary manner, by lettering or halving. When lettering, always commence with the letter, "A".

by ProfessorPPlum 08.08.12 23:01

tigger wrote: Prof. Plum: I think Kimberley is no longer with us as her posts are over 18 months ago.

I never pay much attention to the dates... I always read these damn threads as current. Thanks for pointing it out :)

BTW - with reference to the recent Hunt / Murdoch picture and the 'Masonic handshake' - I've looked at it closely and I don't think it is a Masonic handshake at all. Murdoch's thumb stretches all the way across Hunt's hand and knuckles as I would do shaking someone's hand.

by **PeterMac** 09.08.12 0:06

ProfessorPPlum wrote:BTW - with reference to the recent Hunt / Murdoch picture and the 'Masonic handshake' - I've looked at it closely and I don't think it is a Masonic handshake at all. Murdoch's thumb stretches all the way across Hunt's hand and knuckles as I would do shaking someone's hand.

The one shown is only for the "Entered Apprentice"
"Fellow craft" presses the gap between first and second knuckle and
For the "Master" the second knuckle is pressed.

Normally a person is entered into all three degrees, in the same ceremony, on the same night.
Boaz, Shibboleth, and Jachim. Whoosh. Done. And he buys the drinks.

You have to be much higher before you know the name of the Great Architect of the Universe. Arch, Mark, or even Rouge Pelican (I am not making this up !!!)

And I am not going to tell you , or I would have to kill you, and then myself.

Dyb Dyb Dyb! Weeee'lll Dob, Dob, Dob