The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as many of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

Please note that when you register your username must be different from your email address!

Threatening Gestures by Dr. Martin Roberts

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Threatening Gestures by Dr. Martin Roberts

Post by Rise like lions on 04.12.16 3:47

My journey today, and all through the night, has taken me all over the place, spending a lot of that time here but also following links to blogs I didn't know existed.  I was pulled up short on this one though and wondered what you all thought of this article.  Dr. Martin Roberts begins his article by saying (in the second sentence) "No, I have not been "got at", which, as I have never heard of him before, implies (to me) that he's 'changed his tune' (?).  I guess you knowledgeable folk have come across him before? so (I imagine) will know better than I, what his prior beliefs were regarding the way the McCanns have been protected.  Anyway here is the article:  ***


I would be interested to hear your views on what you think of his understanding of the situation and what he said about it before coming to this conclusion.

Personally, whilst I think he makes a lot of sense, I feel there's a very telling gap which (ironically) covers up something that I believe is at the crux of this whole saga, that of child abuse (on a large scale).  Just my opinion of course.

*** I have just seen the notice (in red!! :-)) at the top of the page explaining that new members can't post external links - new sorry.  I've removed it, but I'm sure you can find the article.


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

Admin: Edited to add article for Rise like lions as new members can't post links for seven days:


McCann: Threatening Gestures by Dr.Martin Roberts.


Gerry McCann and Michael Caplan QC
EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com

By Dr Martin Roberts
16 July 2012

THREATENING GESTURES

Having followed the 'Maddie' case from the outset, and commented publicly upon it for a number of years, recent events have caused me to view the affair from an altogether different perspective. No, I have not been 'got at.' Of course I have been incensed by the blatant injustices on many fronts. I would not have devoted so much time to analyses of the case otherwise. But there is only so much to be learned, so much to be accomplished by continually patrolling the base of a pyramid. To really appreciate the significance of its dimensionality it is essential to adopt a different point of view. And I am not talking about succumbing to the idea of a swarthy abductor or cabal of unidentified child molesters.

I do not shrink from admitting that I too was initially astonished by the 'safeguarding of international relations' argument brought forth to justify the withholding of intelligence in the face of several FOI requests. There have been numerous astonishing developments over the years. However, those of us who throw up our hands in disbelief at officialdom's use of the phrase 'international security' or the like are perhaps guilty of a singular and significant oversight; namely, that the very disappearance of Madeleine McCann was itself an international incident, with potential consequences on several levels.

Self-preservation as a principle is a given among homo sapiens. But in any hierarchically organized society, 'looking after number one' is sometimes best accomplished by acting (or at the very least appearing to act) in the interests of others besides. The successful conduct of International Relations demands that players on the international stage see the bigger picture.

So what picture should we be looking at in the McCann case? I would suggest that the government then (and the government now) have acted in the ways they have, not despite 'early warning signs' that the parents of Madeleine McCann may have been involved themselves in a misdemeanour, but because of them.

Only the other evening I listened to a rather smart comedian who pointed up the absurdity of the concept 'War on Terror.' "What results from a declaration of war?" he asks of a hypothetical advocate for the Bush/Blair position. "Terror," they reply. "So you're waging war on the consequences of your own actions then?" Such humour immunises us against depressing acknowledgement that world leaders as often as not depend on the gullibility of the masses for their own survival. And if the masses cannot be misled they can be subdued. This is, I accept, a cynical point of view, but one has only to flip through the pages of history to see how deception via propaganda has a long track record. A tried-and-tested method for keeping one's place on the throne, as it were, is that of convincing those outside the palace that the other man is the enemy.

As society has evolved, so too has this 'threat,' becoming increasingly abstruse in the process. Hence post-war generations in the west have been warned against (among other things) 'communism,' 'alien invasion,' 'nuclear attack' and, of course, 'terror,' the last being a real 'doozy.' A-specific to a fault, it can be blamed on any disaffected minority whatsoever, and at any time. Thus it can never be neutralized.

Largely as a direct result of 'war debt' to our erstwhile transatlantic colony, the British Isles have long since become USS UK, an aircraft and cruise missile carrier permanently stationed in the North Atlantic. It doesn't matter much who gets to captain the ship, since they are never going to command the 'battle group' of which it is a member. In similarly subordinate fashion the Westminster government has been honour-bound to adopt the same cautionary attitudes toward the same perceived enemy as that determined by the White House. This state of affairs is reliably reflected in manifestations of the public consciousness (think Quatermass, The War Game, and the long-running Blair case for WMD).

But what has this to do with Madeleine McCann?

An explanation as to why those 'major threats' conceived across the pond have had a relatively short shelf-life on this side of the water until now would be a little tedious, as the reasons are pretty obvious (a visiting Martian would surely aim for a larger tract of land, for instance). So, if we may simply accept it to be the case, we can open up the need for others to come quickly off the substitute's bench. There's nothing like the threat of an epidemic, for instance, to get healthcare professionals excited. The pharmaceutical industry is wholly indifferent to whether it originates in birds, pigs or cattle, as long as the claim is made that the disorder can, and therefore will, cross the species divide. Mass vaccination is a real money-spinner.

Then there's the threat of global warming, and related environmental considerations. Nowadays the cost of a UK road fund licence is determined by the level of carbon di-oxide emissions from the vehicle in question (the lower, the cheaper). Is this really to encourage drivers to become environmentally conscious through their operation of smaller cars boasting lower levels of fuel consumption and associated emissions? Or is it to provide yet another boost to the automotive trade, by encouraging the widespread purchase of newer vehicles through financial coercion? Well, it seems to have worked, as the current government is now in not-quite-secret talks with motor manufacturers, in an attempt to establish how best to recoup the revenue loss consequent upon the widespread switching of owners to cars in lower tax categories.

I have deliberately saved the most relevant, Maddie-related threat for last.

Followers of the case will not need to be reminded of the frequency with which the spectre of paedophilia has been introduced into the media commentary. As threats go this one is by no means new (this particular deviance is chronicled as accompanying imperial decadence in ancient Rome), but the threat has grown in perceived importance down the years. In the more recent past, cases of fatal child abuse, such as those involving Myra Hindley and the Wests, have occasionally erupted into the public spotlight. But the eruptions have since become more frequent, including false-positives to help sustain levels of public attention.

Film makers profit from being alive to 'topicality.' Note therefore a remake of the film 'The Wicker Man' after a thirty-three year interval (the original was released in 1973). In-between we had the infamous 1991 Orkney child abuse scandal, characterized by its actually being a case of widespread non-abuse, i.e. normality (the scandalous element was the behaviour of the so-called welfare authorities). Needless to say, mere suspicion of the demon provoked a witch-hunt, just as it did in the case of Operation Ore, a turn-of-the-millennium persecution of suspected child pornographers, modelled on an American precedent (Operation Avalanche), and being both principal product and funding sponge of CEOP (you know, the Jim Gamble vehicle that justified his appearance in Praia da Luz alongside genuine investigators).

Yes, folks. In the absence of an imminent national catastrophe occasioned by a nuclear strike (the 2003 invasion of Iraq took care of that), or a widespread disease epidemic, child abuse is a serious threat to society; a threat which the British government not only acknowledged but demonstrated a willingness to deal with decades ago. Such moral guardianship is 'politically correct' in a big way; especially if you are New Labour, the resurgent broom promising to sweep society clean by being 'tough,' not just on crime but 'on the causes of crime.'

Fast-forward now to Praia da Luz, Portugal on May 3, 2007. A little girl is reported missing from her holiday apartment. Within hours the report is an international one of a little British girl abducted from an apartment in Portugal. In a demonstration of due diligence, ambassadorial staff are dispatched to the scene of the incident, in order to offer support to our distressed citizens overseas. UK police also arrive to assist. A good thing. Within just a few days however, reports come back of doubts attending the veracity of the parents' story. A bad thing. And suddenly there is a serious and altogether unexpected problem.

There will always be unfortunate individuals who fall victim to crime, whether at home or abroad. By and large, unless they invite the transgression, they are afforded sympathy. On learning of a child abduction, and with no grounds for other suspicion, it is entirely reasonable that people in general should be sympathetic toward the parents. They were in this case. So too was the government. For the vast majority of observers nothing will have changed for quite a period. Even we sceptics, long since allowed access to the Portuguese police files, can have had no idea at the time of the precise details of the investigation outside of the sometime contradictory accounts coursing through the various media channels. Damaged shutters or no, no one was privy to anything like the hard data sufficient to confirm any growing suspicions, even remotely, never mind absolutely. No one, that is, save for the investigating team, which included British police, and British government representatives.

All the while the culprit could be identified as an anonymous stranger, the stigma of his (or her) motive could be brandished in support of sympathy for the parents. But what if they themselves were involved in some way? That would make them accomplices at least to an act of aggression against a minor, child abuse if you will. And if there were no third-parties involved? Then, in the light of there being no abduction, the parents would have to be viewed as guilty of something altogether more serious. And early 'intel' pointed to exactly that. So what was at stake here?

The exposure of a homicidal doctor capable of doing away with their patients (or their wife!), while not conducive to good image-building, is something from which the NHS could always recover. Society has not lost its faith in general medicine on account of Harold Shipman, any more than it did in the wake of earlier cases (e.g. Palmer, Crippen, Buck Ruxton). But a doctor (or doctors) culpable in the demise of their own child? That one hadn't previously been tested. Furthermore this was not a 'domestic' incident, in the sense that neither it nor its ramifications were confined to the UK. It happened (and was developing) overseas, in the full glare of international publicity (the McCanns themselves had seen to that). In addition, those at the very centre of the investigation, the case being one of child abuse whether abduction was a feature or not, were esteemed professionals, not the sort of council estate refugees with whom one might more instinctively associate such a crime. Worse yet, a clutch of others just like them were quite possibly involved in some way. The equation: A handful of UK doctors = one dead child, if valid, could have an impact worldwide on the perception of the medical profession, British society and, by extrapolation, the government, analogous to e=mc2.

A morally upright government, ostensibly; one seriously concerned with combating the child abuse they had already identified as a threat to society, sponsoring the activities of CEOP and taking yet another lead from the USA, was looking at the enemy, the very threat the executive (police) were dealing with on our behalf, made manifest within the ranks of its very own professional classes (remember the declaration of 'war' on the consequences of one's own actions?). So when the un-named member of our ambassadorial staff questioned the wisdom of further government involvement in the case, he inadvertently placed the following options on the table:

1. Cut the parents adrift, let them take their chances and hope the investigation runs aground.

2. Support the parents to the hilt and ensure the investigation runs aground.

Now which of these alternatives, do we suppose, offers a guaranteed outcome?

The McCanns and their media allies have kept the case in public view for a long time. Had the Portuguese pursued their investigation to the point of prosecution, the McCanns, unlike the international media, would probably not have been quite so keen to advertise the 'situation' they would have 'found themselves in.' As we have seen since, Portuguese justice is slow moving. A criminal case brought against the McCanns, with the prospect of exposing an evil canker deeply embedded in British society, the very threat against which the British public were being warned and 'protected,' and at considerable cost, would itself go on for an uncomfortably long time. Such exposure would be blatant, widespread, and international.

Shortly after the McCanns' return from Portugal, the world learnt that they held certain legal insurance, in the form of the available services of extradition lawyer Michael Caplan Q.C. Caplan had previously gained an international reputation through his successful contribution to the legal arguments that forestalled extradition, from the UK, of General Augusto Pinochet, erstwhile dictator of Chile. Ironically, it is this very case to which one may turn for a paradigmatic explanation of the British government's treatment of the McCanns.

Under the auspices of a Labour government, Pinochet was arrested and held, pending extradition, in accordance with an international arrest warrant issued in Spain. As things turned out, upholding the letter of international law did the government no favours politically (Pinochet had been a US 'transplant' originally and latterly a confidante of Margaret Thatcher. Despite its declared neutrality, Chile played a positive, albeit subtle role in the Falklands conflict, on Britain's behalf). Following extensive legal wrangling in the House of Lords (the prisoner was under 'house arrest' but not on trial as such), Pinochet was not extradited to Spain after all. Instead, in March 2000, he was allowed by Home Secretary Jack Straw to return to Chile, having been diagnosed as suffering from Alzheimer's disease, a condition from which he appeared to recover appreciably once his plane had touched down.

Less than a decade later the young democracy of Portugal found itself upholding the letter of the law within its own land, investigating and proceeding toward the prosecution of two members from a coven of British doctors. The Labour government, having previously learned an important lesson about law, even international law, versus international relations, could not fail to see this as 'not a good development.' There followed protracted negotiations (cf. 'legal arguments'). The Portuguese, no doubt reminded of the Pinochet case, as it was ignited by their immediate neighbours, Spain, took the hint. Eventually the suspect status of the McCanns was rescinded, the case shelved and the oh-so-nearly-accused doctors allowed to return to the UK, with little or no prospect of their emerging subsequently from the bunker.

So now where are we?

Unless or until a clear case is made in a criminal court somewhere, the McCanns are legally not guilty of involvement in their daughter's disappearance (it's been said often enough). There is no case for them to answer, and certainly not outside of a court of law. Whatever they might say to the media, or however they choose to appear before them, there is no risk of a conspicuous slur against the medical profession, NHS appointments criteria, the more affluent echelons of society or the government itself.

The only snag for a government sponsoring the McCanns' liberty is that, like victims of their own blackmail, they would now have to maintain the new status quo. In short, the McCanns would have to be kept out of court, at least for the duration of the administration, if not for the duration - period. The Serious Fraud Office won't be knocking on their door any time soon therefore.

So, as 'the Fund' slowly atrophies to the point where it is finally acknowledged that Madeleine is dead and the 'search' need not continue, Kate McCann is found a 'role,' at a level appropriate to the replacement of her GP status, while Gerry can devote time - a lot of time - to writing up the results of his many publicly funded studies. And the Portuguese? Well, if they really must bow to internal pressure and re-open their investigation, then there are hundreds of 'investigative opportunities' they can occupy themselves with for the foreseeable future.

Such is the legacy of a Labour government. But that party is now on the other side of the House. Does this mean the new administration will 'do the right thing' by all those who believe Madeleine McCann was not abducted, not to mention the Portuguese, scoring party political brownie points in the process? Unfortunately no. Any accommodation previously arrived at between the two governments will have been by negotiation and agreement, and since the Portuguese will have been equally party to it (even if the terms were unequal) they would not appreciate this being brought out into the open, as undoubtedly it would be. Also, international relations transcend party politics. The 'special relationship,' so-called, between Britain and the USA, for example, is maintained, and generally workable, whatever combination of Democrat-Republican-Conservative-Labour forearms engages in the diplomatic hand-shaking. And that gives rise to a testable hypothesis:

If the Metropolitan Police should exercise the investigative option contained within their Operation Grange remit (as clearly they ought to), then we may be sure that the current government in Westminster is genuinely (and properly) distanced from the McCanns. If, on the other hand, they conclude their review with nothing more to show for it than a 'to do' list intended for the Portuguese, then we can be just as certain that the Coalition Government is continuing a policy toward the McCanns that was inaugurated by their predecessors, as whatever deals may have been struck with the Portuguese were struck before the Coalition took office.

Personally, I won't be holding my breath
avatar
Rise like lions

Posts : 23
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2016-12-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Threatening Gestures by Dr. Martin Roberts

Post by Rise like lions on 04.12.16 14:30

Thank you Tony!  Quite a lot of homework then............!

May I ask what you thought of this article?
avatar
Rise like lions

Posts : 23
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2016-12-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Threatening Gestures by Dr. Martin Roberts

Post by Tony Cadogan on 04.12.16 14:49

@Rise like lions wrote:Thank you Tony!  Quite a lot of homework then............!

May I ask what you thought of this article?

Very positive. Cannot reply at any length at the moment. Very sorry. Please read, and then we might exchange our views if I can find the time. No disrespect..

Good luck!

Tony Cadogan

Posts : 49
Reputation : 26
Join date : 2016-07-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Threatening Gestures by Dr. Martin Roberts

Post by Rise like lions on 04.12.16 16:24

@Tony Cadogan wrote:
@Rise like lions wrote:Thank you Tony!  Quite a lot of homework then............!

May I ask what you thought of this article?

Very positive.  Cannot reply at any length at the moment.  Very sorry.  Please read, and then we might exchange our views if I can find the time.  No disrespect..

Good luck!
None taken!  Thanks again.
avatar
Rise like lions

Posts : 23
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2016-12-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Threatening Gestures by Dr. Martin Roberts

Post by Tony Cadogan on 05.12.16 14:45

@Rise like lions wrote:
@Tony Cadogan wrote:
@Rise like lions wrote:Thank you Tony!  Quite a lot of homework then............!

May I ask what you thought of this article?

Very positive.  Cannot reply at any length at the moment.  Very sorry.  Please read, and then we might exchange our views if I can find the time.  No disrespect..

Good luck!
None taken!  Thanks again.

More of Dr Martin Roberts’ articles with many of his posts.

https://onlyinamericablogging.blogspot.fr/search/label/Martin%20Roberts?updated-max=2014-12-09T15:20:00Z&max-results=20&start=15&by-date=false

https://onlyinamericablogging.blogspot.fr/search/label/Martin%20Roberts?updated-max=2015-08-19T15:40:00%2B01:00&max-results=20&start=7&by-date=false

https://onlyinamericablogging.blogspot.fr/search/label/Martin%20Roberts


Tony Cadogan

Posts : 49
Reputation : 26
Join date : 2016-07-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Threatening Gestures by Dr. Martin Roberts

Post by Rise like lions on 05.12.16 15:07

Appreciated Tony.  I'm working my way through the first links.  No disrespect to Peter Hyatt, but why are we all excited about his 'Embedded Confessions' when Dr Martin Roberts explained all this years ago?  Apologies for my ignorance, but I'd never heard of Dr Martin Roberts and yet he's so brilliant along with many of you other investigative journalists.  Because, unlike the woeful, cowardly lot, the 'presstitutes', who clearly have no integrity or self respect but who we are lumbered with on a daily basis, that name truly applies to you.

Along with his accurate analysis, Dr Roberts is making me laugh with his super, ironic humour. 

Would someone please tell me though, who is 'himself' in the 'onlyinamerica' blog?  And why are these blogs at an end - I'm late to the table and, having just discovered them, really want to feel that they will continue.
avatar
Rise like lions

Posts : 23
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2016-12-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Threatening Gestures by Dr. Martin Roberts

Post by Get'emGonçalo on 05.12.16 16:10

@Rise like lions wrote:Appreciated Tony.  I'm working my way through the first links.  No disrespect to Peter Hyatt, but why are we all excited about his 'Embedded Confessions' when Dr Martin Roberts explained all this years ago?  Apologies for my ignorance, but I'd never heard of Dr Martin Roberts and yet he's so brilliant along with many of you other investigative journalists.  Because, unlike the woeful, cowardly lot, the 'presstitutes', who clearly have no integrity or self respect but who we are lumbered with on a daily basis, that name truly applies to you.

Along with his accurate analysis, Dr Roberts is making me laugh with his super, ironic humour. 

Would someone please tell me though, who is 'himself' in the 'onlyinamerica' blog?  And why are these blogs at an end - I'm late to the table and, having just discovered them, really want to feel that they will continue.

'Himself' is Teddy Shepherd on twitter https://twitter.com/TeddyShepherd

He's also the author of the McCann Gallery blog http://themccanngallery.blogspot.com/ 

I think Himself is just a bit fed up with this case (the cover up) but I'm still hoping he'll go back to blogging. He's been known to give up for a while before....
avatar
Get'emGonçalo


Posts : 10759
Reputation : 5282
Join date : 2009-11-25
Location : parallel universe

View user profile http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: Threatening Gestures by Dr. Martin Roberts

Post by Tony Cadogan on 05.12.16 17:52

@Rise like lions wrote:Appreciated Tony.  I'm working my way through the first links.  No disrespect to Peter Hyatt, but why are we all excited about his 'Embedded Confessions' when Dr Martin Roberts explained all this years ago?  Apologies for my ignorance, but I'd never heard of Dr Martin Roberts and yet he's so brilliant along with many of you other investigative journalists.  Because, unlike the woeful, cowardly lot, the 'presstitutes', who clearly have no integrity or self respect but who we are lumbered with on a daily basis, that name truly applies to you.

Along with his accurate analysis, Dr Roberts is making me laugh with his super, ironic humour. 

Would someone please tell me though, who is 'himself' in the 'onlyinamerica' blog?  And why are these blogs at an end - I'm late to the table and, having just discovered them, really want to feel that they will continue.

“…Dr Martin Roberts explained all this years ago..."

Over the years, Dr Martin Roberts has discovered and explained very much indeed.

“…I'd never heard of Dr Martin Roberts…”

You have now. LOL

“…he's so brilliant…”

Indeed!

“…Dr Roberts is making me laugh with his super, ironic humour.”

Yes, I know how it happens, he is a master of humour, irony and sarcasm among other things.

“…I'm late to the table…”

Enjoy the jorney!



‘Himself’, the owner of onlyinamerica blog, is an indefatigable fighter for justice for Madeline as well as a poet.

Tony Cadogan

Posts : 49
Reputation : 26
Join date : 2016-07-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Threatening Gestures by Dr. Martin Roberts

Post by plebgate on 05.12.16 21:33

@Rise like lions wrote:Appreciated Tony.  I'm working my way through the first links.  No disrespect to Peter Hyatt, but why are we all excited about his 'Embedded Confessions' when Dr Martin Roberts explained all this years ago?  Apologies for my ignorance, but I'd never heard of Dr Martin Roberts and yet he's so brilliant along with many of you other investigative journalists.  Because, unlike the woeful, cowardly lot, the 'presstitutes', who clearly have no integrity or self respect but who we are lumbered with on a daily basis, that name truly applies to you.

Along with his accurate analysis, Dr Roberts is making me laugh with his super, ironic humour. 

Would someone please tell me though, who is 'himself' in the 'onlyinamerica' blog?  And why are these blogs at an end - I'm late to the table and, having just discovered them, really want to feel that they will continue.
I can only speak for myself and would say that I have watched Peter Hyatt's statement analysis of Mr. & Mrs' Australian interview.

I found it to be very powerful and from a highly respected man who has been employed by police and also big businesses.   They have listened to him in the past and at the end of his Embedded confessions analysis he gives his clear statement of what he believes.  

He has put himself in front of a camera and gone through this interview with a fine tooth comb and came to those conclusions not because he seeks respect from unkown forum readers but because in his view something is being hidden.

It matters not that others have said the same in the past.   He has been prepared to give his very strong opinion on camera and it is being watched by huge numbers of people both now and in the future and that maybe is why people "are getting excited" (as you put it).

In his analysis Peter Hyatt mentioned lie detector tests, as others have in the past.  IMO this will continue to be brought up because as Peter Hyatt said, it helps the police with their enquiries and how they go about questioning people.

Respect from me to Peter Hyatt and Richard H. along with Dr. Martin Roberts and anyone else who keeps asking these questions - no matter they have been asked before.

____________________
Judge Judy to shifty  witnesses   -    LOOK AT ME  -   Um is not an answer.

If I forget to add it to a post everything is In My Opinion and I don't know anything for sure.
roll

plebgate

Posts : 6131
Reputation : 1805
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Threatening Gestures by Dr. Martin Roberts

Post by Rise like lions on 09.12.16 17:45

I speak for myself too, plebgate, hence my post. I am neither deriding Peter Hyatt nor agreeing with his findings. I only state that this has been covered before, however I am happy with anyone who investigates this case as it keeps it in the public consciousness, which is where it should be.

There seems some implied accusation in your post with words such as "not because he seeks respect from unknown forum readers' - I don't need to be told that thanks. However, as an unknown forum reader (and poster) I'm entitled to my views about anyone, anyone at all.
avatar
Rise like lions

Posts : 23
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2016-12-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Threatening Gestures by Dr. Martin Roberts

Post by plebgate on 10.12.16 10:28

So pleased to hear that you understand that people will continue to ask questions whether they have been asked before or not Rise like Lions.

Postively music to me ears.

____________________
Judge Judy to shifty  witnesses   -    LOOK AT ME  -   Um is not an answer.

If I forget to add it to a post everything is In My Opinion and I don't know anything for sure.
roll

plebgate

Posts : 6131
Reputation : 1805
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Threatening Gestures by Dr. Martin Roberts

Post by MayMuse on 26.02.17 0:10

@Rise like lions wrote:My journey today, and all through the night, has taken me all over the place, spending a lot of that time here but also following links to blogs I didn't know existed.  I was pulled up short on this one though and wondered what you all thought of this article.  Dr. Martin Roberts begins his article by saying (in the second sentence) "No, I have not been "got at", which, as I have never heard of him before, implies (to me) that he's 'changed his tune' (?).  I guess you knowledgeable folk have come across him before? so (I imagine) will know better than I, what his prior beliefs were regarding the way the McCanns have been protected.  Anyway here is the article:  ***


I would be interested to hear your views on what you think of his understanding of the situation and what he said about it before coming to this conclusion.

Personally, whilst I think he makes a lot of sense, I feel there's a very telling gap which (ironically) covers up something that I believe is at the crux of this whole saga, that of child abuse (on a large scale).  Just my opinion of course.

*** I have just seen the notice (in red!! :-)) at the top of the page explaining that new members can't post external links - new sorry.  I've removed it, but I'm sure you can find the article.


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

Admin: Edited to add article for Rise like lions as new members can't post links for seven days:


McCann: Threatening Gestures by Dr.Martin Roberts.




Gerry McCann and Michael Caplan QC
EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com

By Dr Martin Roberts
16 July 2012

THREATENING GESTURES

Having followed the 'Maddie' case from the outset, and commented publicly upon it for a number of years, recent events have caused me to view the affair from an altogether different perspective. No, I have not been 'got at.' Of course I have been incensed by the blatant injustices on many fronts. I would not have devoted so much time to analyses of the case otherwise. But there is only so much to be learned, so much to be accomplished by continually patrolling the base of a pyramid. To really appreciate the significance of its dimensionality it is essential to adopt a different point of view. And I am not talking about succumbing to the idea of a swarthy abductor or cabal of unidentified child molesters.

I do not shrink from admitting that I too was initially astonished by the 'safeguarding of international relations' argument brought forth to justify the withholding of intelligence in the face of several FOI requests. There have been numerous astonishing developments over the years. However, those of us who throw up our hands in disbelief at officialdom's use of the phrase 'international security' or the like are perhaps guilty of a singular and significant oversight; namely, that the very disappearance of Madeleine McCann was itself an international incident, with potential consequences on several levels.

Self-preservation as a principle is a given among homo sapiens. But in any hierarchically organized society, 'looking after number one' is sometimes best accomplished by acting (or at the very least appearing to act) in the interests of others besides. The successful conduct of International Relations demands that players on the international stage see the bigger picture.

So what picture should we be looking at in the McCann case? I would suggest that the government then (and the government now) have acted in the ways they have, not despite 'early warning signs' that the parents of Madeleine McCann may have been involved themselves in a misdemeanour, but because of them.

Only the other evening I listened to a rather smart comedian who pointed up the absurdity of the concept 'War on Terror.' "What results from a declaration of war?" he asks of a hypothetical advocate for the Bush/Blair position. "Terror," they reply. "So you're waging war on the consequences of your own actions then?" Such humour immunises us against depressing acknowledgement that world leaders as often as not depend on the gullibility of the masses for their own survival. And if the masses cannot be misled they can be subdued. This is, I accept, a cynical point of view, but one has only to flip through the pages of history to see how deception via propaganda has a long track record. A tried-and-tested method for keeping one's place on the throne, as it were, is that of convincing those outside the palace that the other man is the enemy.

As society has evolved, so too has this 'threat,' becoming increasingly abstruse in the process. Hence post-war generations in the west have been warned against (among other things) 'communism,' 'alien invasion,' 'nuclear attack' and, of course, 'terror,' the last being a real 'doozy.' A-specific to a fault, it can be blamed on any disaffected minority whatsoever, and at any time. Thus it can never be neutralized.

Largely as a direct result of 'war debt' to our erstwhile transatlantic colony, the British Isles have long since become USS UK, an aircraft and cruise missile carrier permanently stationed in the North Atlantic. It doesn't matter much who gets to captain the ship, since they are never going to command the 'battle group' of which it is a member. In similarly subordinate fashion the Westminster government has been honour-bound to adopt the same cautionary attitudes toward the same perceived enemy as that determined by the White House. This state of affairs is reliably reflected in manifestations of the public consciousness (think Quatermass, The War Game, and the long-running Blair case for WMD).

But what has this to do with Madeleine McCann?

An explanation as to why those 'major threats' conceived across the pond have had a relatively short shelf-life on this side of the water until now would be a little tedious, as the reasons are pretty obvious (a visiting Martian would surely aim for a larger tract of land, for instance). So, if we may simply accept it to be the case, we can open up the need for others to come quickly off the substitute's bench. There's nothing like the threat of an epidemic, for instance, to get healthcare professionals excited. The pharmaceutical industry is wholly indifferent to whether it originates in birds, pigs or cattle, as long as the claim is made that the disorder can, and therefore will, cross the species divide. Mass vaccination is a real money-spinner.

Then there's the threat of global warming, and related environmental considerations. Nowadays the cost of a UK road fund licence is determined by the level of carbon di-oxide emissions from the vehicle in question (the lower, the cheaper). Is this really to encourage drivers to become environmentally conscious through their operation of smaller cars boasting lower levels of fuel consumption and associated emissions? Or is it to provide yet another boost to the automotive trade, by encouraging the widespread purchase of newer vehicles through financial coercion? Well, it seems to have worked, as the current government is now in not-quite-secret talks with motor manufacturers, in an attempt to establish how best to recoup the revenue loss consequent upon the widespread switching of owners to cars in lower tax categories.

I have deliberately saved the most relevant, Maddie-related threat for last.

Followers of the case will not need to be reminded of the frequency with which the spectre of paedophilia has been introduced into the media commentary. As threats go this one is by no means new (this particular deviance is chronicled as accompanying imperial decadence in ancient Rome), but the threat has grown in perceived importance down the years. In the more recent past, cases of fatal child abuse, such as those involving Myra Hindley and the Wests, have occasionally erupted into the public spotlight. But the eruptions have since become more frequent, including false-positives to help sustain levels of public attention.

Film makers profit from being alive to 'topicality.' Note therefore a remake of the film 'The Wicker Man' after a thirty-three year interval (the original was released in 1973). In-between we had the infamous 1991 Orkney child abuse scandal, characterized by its actually being a case of widespread non-abuse, i.e. normality (the scandalous element was the behaviour of the so-called welfare authorities). Needless to say, mere suspicion of the demon provoked a witch-hunt, just as it did in the case of Operation Ore, a turn-of-the-millennium persecution of suspected child pornographers, modelled on an American precedent (Operation Avalanche), and being both principal product and funding sponge of CEOP (you know, the Jim Gamble vehicle that justified his appearance in Praia da Luz alongside genuine investigators).

Yes, folks. In the absence of an imminent national catastrophe occasioned by a nuclear strike (the 2003 invasion of Iraq took care of that), or a widespread disease epidemic, child abuse is a serious threat to society; a threat which the British government not only acknowledged but demonstrated a willingness to deal with decades ago. Such moral guardianship is 'politically correct' in a big way; especially if you are New Labour, the resurgent broom promising to sweep society clean by being 'tough,' not just on crime but 'on the causes of crime.'

Fast-forward now to Praia da Luz, Portugal on May 3, 2007. A little girl is reported missing from her holiday apartment. Within hours the report is an international one of a little British girl abducted from an apartment in Portugal. In a demonstration of due diligence, ambassadorial staff are dispatched to the scene of the incident, in order to offer support to our distressed citizens overseas. UK police also arrive to assist. A good thing. Within just a few days however, reports come back of doubts attending the veracity of the parents' story. A bad thing. And suddenly there is a serious and altogether unexpected problem.

There will always be unfortunate individuals who fall victim to crime, whether at home or abroad. By and large, unless they invite the transgression, they are afforded sympathy. On learning of a child abduction, and with no grounds for other suspicion, it is entirely reasonable that people in general should be sympathetic toward the parents. They were in this case. So too was the government. For the vast majority of observers nothing will have changed for quite a period. Even we sceptics, long since allowed access to the Portuguese police files, can have had no idea at the time of the precise details of the investigation outside of the sometime contradictory accounts coursing through the various media channels. Damaged shutters or no, no one was privy to anything like the hard data sufficient to confirm any growing suspicions, even remotely, never mind absolutely. No one, that is, save for the investigating team, which included British police, and British government representatives.

All the while the culprit could be identified as an anonymous stranger, the stigma of his (or her) motive could be brandished in support of sympathy for the parents. But what if they themselves were involved in some way? That would make them accomplices at least to an act of aggression against a minor, child abuse if you will. And if there were no third-parties involved? Then, in the light of there being no abduction, the parents would have to be viewed as guilty of something altogether more serious. And early 'intel' pointed to exactly that. So what was at stake here?

The exposure of a homicidal doctor capable of doing away with their patients (or their wife!), while not conducive to good image-building, is something from which the NHS could always recover. Society has not lost its faith in general medicine on account of Harold Shipman, any more than it did in the wake of earlier cases (e.g. Palmer, Crippen, Buck Ruxton). But a doctor (or doctors) culpable in the demise of their own child? That one hadn't previously been tested. Furthermore this was not a 'domestic' incident, in the sense that neither it nor its ramifications were confined to the UK. It happened (and was developing) overseas, in the full glare of international publicity (the McCanns themselves had seen to that). In addition, those at the very centre of the investigation, the case being one of child abuse whether abduction was a feature or not, were esteemed professionals, not the sort of council estate refugees with whom one might more instinctively associate such a crime. Worse yet, a clutch of others just like them were quite possibly involved in some way. The equation: A handful of UK doctors = one dead child, if valid, could have an impact worldwide on the perception of the medical profession, British society and, by extrapolation, the government, analogous to e=mc2.

A morally upright government, ostensibly; one seriously concerned with combating the child abuse they had already identified as a threat to society, sponsoring the activities of CEOP and taking yet another lead from the USA, was looking at the enemy, the very threat the executive (police) were dealing with on our behalf, made manifest within the ranks of its very own professional classes (remember the declaration of 'war' on the consequences of one's own actions?). So when the un-named member of our ambassadorial staff questioned the wisdom of further government involvement in the case, he inadvertently placed the following options on the table:

1. Cut the parents adrift, let them take their chances and hope the investigation runs aground.

2. Support the parents to the hilt and ensure the investigation runs aground.

Now which of these alternatives, do we suppose, offers a guaranteed outcome?

The McCanns and their media allies have kept the case in public view for a long time. Had the Portuguese pursued their investigation to the point of prosecution, the McCanns, unlike the international media, would probably not have been quite so keen to advertise the 'situation' they would have 'found themselves in.' As we have seen since, Portuguese justice is slow moving. A criminal case brought against the McCanns, with the prospect of exposing an evil canker deeply embedded in British society, the very threat against which the British public were being warned and 'protected,' and at considerable cost, would itself go on for an uncomfortably long time. Such exposure would be blatant, widespread, and international.

Shortly after the McCanns' return from Portugal, the world learnt that they held certain legal insurance, in the form of the available services of extradition lawyer Michael Caplan Q.C. Caplan had previously gained an international reputation through his successful contribution to the legal arguments that forestalled extradition, from the UK, of General Augusto Pinochet, erstwhile dictator of Chile. Ironically, it is this very case to which one may turn for a paradigmatic explanation of the British government's treatment of the McCanns.

Under the auspices of a Labour government, Pinochet was arrested and held, pending extradition, in accordance with an international arrest warrant issued in Spain. As things turned out, upholding the letter of international law did the government no favours politically (Pinochet had been a US 'transplant' originally and latterly a confidante of Margaret Thatcher. Despite its declared neutrality, Chile played a positive, albeit subtle role in the Falklands conflict, on Britain's behalf). Following extensive legal wrangling in the House of Lords (the prisoner was under 'house arrest' but not on trial as such), Pinochet was not extradited to Spain after all. Instead, in March 2000, he was allowed by Home Secretary Jack Straw to return to Chile, having been diagnosed as suffering from Alzheimer's disease, a condition from which he appeared to recover appreciably once his plane had touched down.

Less than a decade later the young democracy of Portugal found itself upholding the letter of the law within its own land, investigating and proceeding toward the prosecution of two members from a coven of British doctors. The Labour government, having previously learned an important lesson about law, even international law, versus international relations, could not fail to see this as 'not a good development.' There followed protracted negotiations (cf. 'legal arguments'). The Portuguese, no doubt reminded of the Pinochet case, as it was ignited by their immediate neighbours, Spain, took the hint. Eventually the suspect status of the McCanns was rescinded, the case shelved and the oh-so-nearly-accused doctors allowed to return to the UK, with little or no prospect of their emerging subsequently from the bunker.

So now where are we?

Unless or until a clear case is made in a criminal court somewhere, the McCanns are legally not guilty of involvement in their daughter's disappearance (it's been said often enough). There is no case for them to answer, and certainly not outside of a court of law. Whatever they might say to the media, or however they choose to appear before them, there is no risk of a conspicuous slur against the medical profession, NHS appointments criteria, the more affluent echelons of society or the government itself.

The only snag for a government sponsoring the McCanns' liberty is that, like victims of their own blackmail, they would now have to maintain the new status quo. In short, the McCanns would have to be kept out of court, at least for the duration of the administration, if not for the duration - period. The Serious Fraud Office won't be knocking on their door any time soon therefore.

So, as 'the Fund' slowly atrophies to the point where it is finally acknowledged that Madeleine is dead and the 'search' need not continue, Kate McCann is found a 'role,' at a level appropriate to the replacement of her GP status, while Gerry can devote time - a lot of time - to writing up the results of his many publicly funded studies. And the Portuguese? Well, if they really must bow to internal pressure and re-open their investigation, then there are hundreds of 'investigative opportunities' they can occupy themselves with for the foreseeable future.

Such is the legacy of a Labour government. But that party is now on the other side of the House. Does this mean the new administration will 'do the right thing' by all those who believe Madeleine McCann was not abducted, not to mention the Portuguese, scoring party political brownie points in the process? Unfortunately no. Any accommodation previously arrived at between the two governments will have been by negotiation and agreement, and since the Portuguese will have been equally party to it (even if the terms were unequal) they would not appreciate this being brought out into the open, as undoubtedly it would be. Also, international relations transcend party politics. The 'special relationship,' so-called, between Britain and the USA, for example, is maintained, and generally workable, whatever combination of Democrat-Republican-Conservative-Labour forearms engages in the diplomatic hand-shaking. And that gives rise to a testable hypothesis:

If the Metropolitan Police should exercise the investigative option contained within their Operation Grange remit (as clearly they ought to), then we may be sure that the current government in Westminster is genuinely (and properly) distanced from the McCanns. If, on the other hand, they conclude their review with nothing more to show for it than a 'to do' list intended for the Portuguese, then we can be just as certain that the Coalition Government is continuing a policy toward the McCanns that was inaugurated by their predecessors, as whatever deals may have been struck with the Portuguese were struck before the Coalition took office.

Personally, I won't be holding my breath
An excellent read, bumping for members  who havent had the pleasure m1264

____________________
“Basically, I’m just an ordinary, straightforward guy who’s the victim of the biggest f***-up on this planet – if you’ll excuse the language.” bingo

Robert Murat talking to David Jones, Daily Mail, 02 June 2007

MayMuse

Posts : 1826
Reputation : 1278
Join date : 2016-04-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Threatening Gestures by Dr. Martin Roberts

Post by Philip Anders on 26.02.17 11:33

Top job Tony, I've been trying to find The McCann Files ever since the www.mccannfiles.com link stopped working.

This is the link to The McCann Files home page.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160504233431/http://www.mccannfiles.com/index.html
avatar
Philip Anders

Posts : 121
Reputation : 105
Join date : 2017-02-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Threatening Gestures by Dr. Martin Roberts

Post by Verdi on 26.02.17 12:11

You will find the work of Dr. Martin Roberts here on this forum, indded where you are now..

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/f48-dr-martin-roberts-mccannfiles

Thanks to Pamalam who took great pains to salvage the mccannfiles, after the departure of Nigel Moore the forum owner, it's all here..

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/

This information has been widely publicized on this forum alone. 

You can also find here..

http://onlyinamericablogging.blogspot.com/search?q=Dr+Martin+Roberts

Enjoy!

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 7044
Reputation : 3620
Join date : 2015-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum