'Blacksmith' - unmasking himself

I don't think I'd trust an unknown person on the Internet with my life!

Not too sure about most people I know in the real world either........

Just to make it clear, the following is a quotation, placed here by Juulcy, from 'John Blacksmith' himself, on his Blacksmith Bureau blog for 12 November 2012 (by admin):

QUOTE FROM BLACKSMITH

In the meantime, just so we understand each other:

We don't care what paedophiles do, we really don't – shocking isn't it? Just as we don't want readers who do care, and we particularly don't want readers who think they're victims being ruled by a vast conspiracy.

For f***'s sake get lost, go somewhere else.

UNQUOTE

Juulcy's comment: You can read this on the 12th of November entry on Blacksmith's blog. Is that also some kind of joke?

Juulcy wrote:In the meantime, just so we understand each other:

We don't care what paedophiles do, we really don't – shocking isn't it? Just as we don't want readers who do care, and we particularly don't want readers who think they're victims being ruled by a vast conspiracy.

For f***'s sake get lost, go somewhere else.

You can read this on the 12th of november entry on blacksmith's blog. Is that also some kind of joke?

Do you really think that level of abuse is appropriate in this forum? You might not agree with what has been said, but you do yourself no favours by stooping to such a level.

Bob, Juuicy is repeating comments from Blacksmith. They aren't her (?) views.

Jean wrote:Bob, Juuicy is repeating comments from Blacksmith. They aren't her (?) views.

She needs to edit her post to make it clear Jean if that is the case, because it currently reads like the comments are hers.

Having read some excellent stuff over the years by Blacksmith posted on forums and later on his own blog, I find the latest rendering perplexing to say the least and am wondering whether it is possible that the blog has been hacked or whether the writer has been 'got at' or is simply another Internet 'nutter' playing silly games? Whichever it is, I for one will not be influenced by it and continue to post on this and other fora, simply because my reasons for posting are as valid now as they were more than 5 years ago - or has the mystery of what happened to Madeleine McCann been solved in the meantime?

Bob Southgate wrote:

Jean wrote:Bob, Juuicy is repeating comments from Blacksmith. They aren't her (?) views.

She needs to edit her post to make it clear Jean if that is the case, because it currently reads like the comments are hers.

seconded
we all benefit from total clarity
and
confusion is not good, if we are looking for the truth.
IMHO

parapono

Lord McAlpine's now deleted Wikipedia entry about his eclectic art tastes set alarm bells ringing for me.

Maybe Blacksmith isn't aware of this?

I'm re-posting this from page 1 because it is the key point Blacksmith is making that causes alarm bells to ring in my head.
Why on earth connect this with the McCanns? Why suggest that it's either us or people like us who have started the 'slander' of McAlpine?

Blacksmith: "Quite how an internet movement which began by investigating the lies of Kate & Gerry McCann has become a sex and crime obsessed clique of self-righteous losers that thinks it’s acceptable to defame honourable men like McAlpine defeats me.
What a truly wicked thing to do! [...] I only regret that McAlpine is too gentle a man to make the Twitter users who’ve defamed him pay the appropriate price – personal ruin – for their behaviour, instead of settling with them, as he probably will.
I've been rude or satirical about McCann forum people lately to disassociate myself from what I consider is now a disgusting activity.
unquote

TB wrote: Now, if Lord McAlpine was wrongly named by Steve Messham, and then leaked by someone within the BBC Newsnight team, then clearly he has been libelled. But what 'blacksmith' does - knowingly - is to blame the leaking of his name on a group who began by discussing Kate and Gerry McCann. 'blacksmith' prides himself on 'providing evidence, hard facts' to the media worldwide. Where's the evidence to blame McCann discussion forum-members as a group for all the attacks on Lord McAlpine's reputation? unquote

Surely Blacksmith could have found a simpler method than rudeness or satire to dissociate (disassociate isn't the best word here JB) himself from the likes of us? Especially if he now considers the majority of 'us' to be engaged in 'disgusting activities'.

The language in defending LMcA is curiously non-Blacksmith. 'What a wicked thing to do' would fit an elderly aunt's profile. Next we have a statement that
'McAlpine is too gentle a man'. Very nice if he's your uncle, but we're straying into territory here and adjectives more suited to someone who has a personal interest, rather than that of an observer.

This gentle man, as I pointed out earlier, was and probably still is, a business man.

From the Oz 2000 interview:
‘McAlpine’s advice on dealing with the media?
Spread false defeat to gain public sympathy; or false accusation and then arrange for it to be exposed as such – so the accuser will forever be treated with suspicion.’ unquote
ref: http://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2012/11/17/lord-mcalpine-shock-new-question-from-australia/

This gentle man too, wrote a book on the New Machiavelli.

So why is Blacksmith presenting us with a gentle man, who is the victim of wicked people like us? Because we haven't said a thing about him before the media did.
'Paying the appropriate price - personal ruin' runs up a red flag with me. Personally I don't wish personal ruin on anyone, not even the McCanns.
Why should I? It would be bad for the twins and not profit us one bit, no way can justice be served this way.
But hidden in this remark is a threat: Blacksmith is suggesting that LMcA could inflict 'personal ruin' on each and every twitterer in the whole world who has used his name in vain. But hey, he's too nice to do that, so we're lucky to get away with paying a fiver.
Personal ruin for some 10.000 to 100.000 twitterers would damage the economy somewhat - so perhaps that's why he's letting us off.

Blacksmith protests too much imo and gives us very un-Blacksmith prose, containing words like gentle, wicked and disgusting. All of which I wouldn't be surprised to see in a passionate letter from say an octagenarian from Tunbridge Wells.

Tony Bennett wrote:

Me wrote:Oh and he is correct about Amaral.

Amaral should not be peddling theories that he cannot prove with actual evidence because this will come back to haunt him in his trial.

After all the McCanns' legal team will then use that statement to say "look we told you he made up stuff based from nothing! He's done it about this so called government cover up in the same way he tried to pin the blame on to our clients."

It weakens Amaral and that is what BS was getting at...Amaral has made mistakes and BS has highlighted those.

I would contend that 'blacksmith's determination to criticise Amaral for even hinting at a government-organised cover-up diverts us from examining what to many of us appears very obvious.

Not that Amaral actually dwells on that aspect very much in his book (though 'blacksmith' does).

IIRC Amaral documents these facts in his book:

* Involvement of significant numbers of advisers of one kind or another from the British police, including members of MI5, right from the early days of May 2007

* Interference from ambassadorial and consular staff

* Their (wrong) identification (by criminal profiling) of Robert Murat as someone who, more than any other, fitted the profile of Madeleine's abductor

* The 'phone calls between Gordon Brown and Gerry and Gordon Brown's interference e.g. calling for Jane Tanner's 'sighting' to be promoted

* Obstruction from officials e.g. getting no information on credit cards, medical histories etc.

* The nearly 6-month delay in getting the Gaspars' statements over to the PJ

* The delays in approving the rogatory interviews, and

* Gordon Brown being notified before he was of his removal from the case.

I think there were more examples.

Added to that, we are now aware of, for example:

* The full extent to which Clarence Mitchell moves in the highest circles

* The visits of Gordon Brown to (I think) both the FSS and Leicestershire Police

* The goverment agreeing to a Scotland Yard Review, employing 38 staff, of the Madeleine McCann case on the very day Dr Kate McCann published 'madeleine'

* A round of TV interviews arranged by D.C.I. Andy Redwood and others to coincide with Dr Kate McCann issuing her paperback version of her book in May this year

* Taxpayers' money spent on an age-progressed image of Madeleine looking 9.

Why is it that 'blacksmith' never investigates nor discusses these topics, except to repeatedly assert that there is 'absolutely no evidence' of any government involvement in helping the McCanns?

And where is the evidence that this was a "government-organised cover-up"?

Could it not simply have been a government response to the media frenzy that had been built up (principally by the McCann's) to show the public they were doing something?

It's a huge stretch to suggest definitely that any of these events amounted to a full scale cover up.

The ludicrousness of that leap weakens Amaral's and your own valid arguments about the case & the McCann's and that is what BS has highlighted.

Imo there was 'damage limitation' rather than organised cover-up.

But I question the unselfish interference of Gordon Brown for one. Why didn't he make use of the favourable publicity to win votes? But as far as I know, he never even met with them, which would be a logical outcome of the association at the time. After all, they'd already met the Pope, so how come they were never invited to tea and crumpets at nr. 10?

Most of all I want to know why Cameron instigated the SY review and the ridiculous performance of the officer in charge of an unfinished review for a documentary. Publicly stating that he worked in association with the McCanns. That too, is off the scale of normal procedure.
I don't believe the letter to the Sun and I don't believe the threat by Brooks made him accede to the review. Those reasons are just too weak imo.

I agree it's not an organised cover-up or a conspiracy, it's just too badly done. It leaks like a basket. But the stuff that has leaked points to obstruction at the very least. Therefore one wonders why.

tigger wrote:Imo there was 'damage limitation' rather than organised cover-up.

But I question the unselfish interference of Gordon Brown for one. Why didn't he make use of the favourable publicity to win votes? But as far as I know, he never even met with them, which would be a logical outcome of the association at the time. After all, they'd already met the Pope, so how come they were never invited to tea and crumpets at nr. 10?

Most of all I want to know why Cameron instigated the SY review and the ridiculous performance of the officer in charge of an unfinished review for a documentary. Publicly stating that he worked in association with the McCanns. That too, is off the scale of normal procedure.
I don't believe the letter to the Sun and I don't believe the threat by Brooks made him accede to the review. Those reasons are just too weak imo.

I agree it's not an organised cover-up or a conspiracy, it's just too badly done. It leaks like a basket. But the stuff that has leaked points to obstruction at the very least. Therefore one wonders why.

I also agree there are no signs of an organised cover up. There is certainly questionable involvement from people connected with the government and I still, to this day, have no clear understanding of why that would be the case for two apparently normal medical professionals from a small village near leicester. It seems an unprecedented level of support for what *may* have been, sadly, a simple child abduction - and that's certainly what it was being explained as in the early days.

On the subject, I also have to raise at least an eyebrow over the reports (via La Derniere Heure) about the concerns of the as-yet-unnamed-but-believed-to-be-John-Buck diplomat in Portugal expressed back to the foreign office and yet FOI requests to elaborate on the subject are met with excuses about any releases possibly damaging the relationship between the UK & Portugal, which in itself is surely a confirmation of a kind that there are things said that would cause a bit of a rumpus, should they be revealed. Again, no firm evidence, nothing that can be specifically used and frustratingly vague in origin (leaked letters and all that). Just another unproven, intangible piece of this whole jigsaw, it would appear.

Jean wrote:Bob, Juuicy is repeating comments from Blacksmith. They aren't her (?) views.

Definitely NOT my views!! Very sorry for the confusion, I don't post a lot, and I am not very good at the copy paste thing on my Ipad.



So my question remains. Is it sort of joke or sarcastic comment from Blacksmith or is it a genuine opinion. In that case I am highly concerned and surprised.

Juulcy wrote:

Jean wrote:Bob, Juuicy is repeating comments from Blacksmith. They aren't her (?) views.

Definitely NOT my views!! Very sorry for the confusion, I don't post a lot, and I am not very good at the copy paste thing on my Ipad.



So my question remains. Is it sort of joke or sarcastic comment from Blacksmith or is it a genuine opinion. In that case I am highly concerned and surprised.

Thanks for clarifying that Juulcy

Juulcy wrote:

Jean wrote:Bob, Juuicy is repeating comments from Blacksmith. They aren't her (?) views.

Definitely NOT my views!! Very sorry for the confusion, I don't post a lot, and I am not very good at the copy paste thing on my Ipad.

So my question remains. Is it sort of joke or sarcastic comment from Blacksmith or is it a genuine opinion. In that case I am highly concerned and surprised.

Juulcy has done us all a service here by sharing those appalling comments by Sharples = Blacksmith.

By the way, Juulcy missed out Blacksmith's parting shot, which can be read below the words Juulcy quoted from his 12 November article. They are (and they're still there):

Normal service will be resumed when the slobbering over other people's sex lives has stopped

Dated 12 November, this would appear to be Blacksmith's considered response to the storm re Lord McAlpine, but it also ought to be considered against (a) the revelation that (up to now) over 450 child victims of Jimmy Savile's abuse have been identified and that (b) whatever the rights and wrongs of what Steve Messham said, the fact remains that Messham was horrifically and repeatedly abused, and most of the perpetrators have never been punished for that abuse.

'tigger' has done a very effective 'red flag' analysis of Blacksmith's recent outburst, to which I would briefly add the following:

Note the contrast between what Blacksmith says about Lord McAlpine:

"gentle...warm...friendly...hospitable...honourable..."

and what he says about those whose offence was no more than to tweet or retweet what appeared to be an authorised leak from the BBC:

"[Lord McAlpine] should make the Twitter users who’ve defamed him pay the appropriate price - personal ruin - for their behaviour..."

and of course what Blacksmith wrote in his original, 12 November article:

In the meantime, just so we understand each other: We don't care what paedophiles do, we really don't – shocking isn't it? Just as we don't want readers who do care, and we particularly don't want readers who think they're victims being ruled by a vast conspiracy. For f***'s sake get lost, go somewhere else. Normal service will be resumed when the slobbering over other people's sex lives has stopped.

++++++++++++++++

So, to Juulcy... whilst it's often difficult to tell from Blacksmith's writings - they're so full of sarcasm, irony, spoofs and jokes - on this occasion, no, IMO this was no joke by Blacksmith. If I were a medical man (which I'm not), I would diagnose a very raw nerve somewhere having been touched

Another blog from Blacksmith. http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.co.uk/

This is definitely tongue-in-cheek.

The bit about the McCann family figurines is good - look at the postage needed for Philomena!

Jean wrote:Another blog from Blacksmith. http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.co.uk/

This is definitely tongue-in-cheek.

The bit about the McCann family figurines is good - look at the postage needed for Philomena!

***
I looked and laughed.
It looks like himself again.
Had a big laugh about other things too and some eyebrow-raising things ...
Will follow.

Châtelaine wrote:

Jean wrote:Another blog from Blacksmith. http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.co.uk/

This is definitely tongue-in-cheek.

The bit about the McCann family figurines is good - look at the postage needed for Philomena!

***
I looked and laughed.
It looks like himself again.
Had a big laugh about other things too and some eyebrow-raising things ...
Will follow.

Apparently I have lost my sense of humour. I think I will stick to my thoughts about Blacksmith. Cleverly crafted piece. But you can't compare an over imaginative conspiracy theory about illuminati to very legitimate fears for paedosexuals. Paedosexual acts do happen in all sorts of places, mostly where there are lots of children and not enough supervision. We recentely have had a big REAL case of appaling abuse of young children by daycare workers here in Holland. Proven. Not a witchhunt. My sister lives in Amsterdam and has two young children. Not in that centre, but it could have been..
I watch out for my children, and I screen who teaches them or who trains them at the sportclub.
And I am a levelheaded normal mum.

Those statements highlighted by Tony show clearly where Blacksmith is coming from and to me any amount of humour (which incidentally I don't find particularly funny) or irony can mask the fact imo.

Ribisl wrote:Those statements highlighted by Tony show clearly where Blacksmith is coming from and to me any amount of humour (which incidentally I don't find particularly funny) or irony can mask the fact imo.

Sorry, meant to say no amount of humour etc., of course...

Yes I agree. If Blacksmith is saying in all seriousness that it's nothing to do with anybody else if some people choose to have sex with children, then he has lost all credibility.

I just read it as the current furore isn't what he wants to write about, as he doesn't see it's connected to this case. And in 2007 I believe most people agreed with him that the media's obsession with paedophiles was probably aiding whoever was actually responsible for Madeleine's disappearance escape justice.

There was media hype in 2007 - which was attacked by forum members
There's media hype in 2012 - which some members seem to be joining in with

I think this is the point he's making (though I'm hesitant to put words into his mouth)

tcat wrote:I just read it as the current furore isn't what he wants to write about, as he doesn't see it's connected to this case. And in 2007 I believe most people agreed with him that the media's obsession with paedophiles was probably aiding whoever was actually responsible for Madeleine's disappearance escape justice.

There was media hype in 2007 - which was attacked by forum members
There's media hype in 2012 - which some members seem to be joining in with

I think this is the point he's making (though I'm hesitant to put words into his mouth)

Just for once one cannot blame the media if the parents themselves (Gerry at 11.00 pm. on the 3rd!) notify all and sundry that she'd been taken by a paedophile gang. Paedo gangs were apparently roaming the countryside and there is no law against paedophilia in Portugal. According to the parents themselves, from the horses' mouth so to speak.

tigger wrote:

tcat wrote:I just read it as the current furore isn't what he wants to write about, as he doesn't see it's connected to this case. And in 2007 I believe most people agreed with him that the media's obsession with paedophiles was probably aiding whoever was actually responsible for Madeleine's disappearance escape justice.

There was media hype in 2007 - which was attacked by forum members
There's media hype in 2012 - which some members seem to be joining in with

I think this is the point he's making (though I'm hesitant to put words into his mouth)

Just for once one cannot blame the media if the parents themselves (Gerry at 11.00 pm. on the 3rd!) notify all and sundry that she'd been taken by a paedophile gang. Paedo gangs were apparently roaming the countryside and there is no law against paedophilia in Portugal. According to the parents themselves, from the horses' mouth so to speak.

You know what I mean, tigger. I mean the hysteria of the broadcasters in PdL those first few days that led to Lori Campbell's mentioning of Soham and Huntley and her pointing the finger at Murat etc.

None of that would have happened if the broadcasters and papers had been responsible.

tcat wrote:

tigger wrote:

tcat wrote:I just read it as the current furore isn't what he wants to write about, as he doesn't see it's connected to this case. And in 2007 I believe most people agreed with him that the media's obsession with paedophiles was probably aiding whoever was actually responsible for Madeleine's disappearance escape justice.

There was media hype in 2007 - which was attacked by forum members
There's media hype in 2012 - which some members seem to be joining in with

I think this is the point he's making (though I'm hesitant to put words into his mouth)

Just for once one cannot blame the media if the parents themselves (Gerry at 11.00 pm. on the 3rd!) notify all and sundry that she'd been taken by a paedophile gang. Paedo gangs were apparently roaming the countryside and there is no law against paedophilia in Portugal. According to the parents themselves, from the horses' mouth so to speak.

You know what I mean, tigger. I mean the hysteria of the broadcasters in PdL those first few days that led to Lori Campbell's mentioning of Soham and Huntley and her pointing the finger at Murat etc.

None of that would have happened if the broadcasters and papers had been responsible.

A responsible press seems to have disappeared from the face of the earth, it wouldn't have happened otherwise, that's true. But they had the Soham recipe - so tried to fit events and people into that story. As far as I can gather, journalists mostly use ingredients from an event and construct a story that will sell and appeal to the masses. Nothing to do with the truth, they're not interested.

To Blacksmith

I suggest in your future articles maybe put some emoticons (a bit like
this :-7) to give those less able to understand you a bit of
help.

And congratulations on getting the"blue text treatment".

Although maybe not that much of an honour because even I have received it.

Juulcy wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:

Jean wrote:Another blog from Blacksmith. http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.co.uk/

This is definitely tongue-in-cheek.

The bit about the McCann family figurines is good - look at the postage needed for Philomena!

***
I looked and laughed.
It looks like himself again.
Had a big laugh about other things too and some eyebrow-raising things ...
Will follow.

Apparently I have lost my sense of humour. I think I will stick to my thoughts about Blacksmith. Cleverly crafted piece. But you can't compare an over imaginative conspiracy theory about illuminati to very legitimate fears for paedosexuals. Paedosexual acts do happen in all sorts of places, mostly where there are lots of children and not enough supervision. We recentely have had a big REAL case of appaling abuse of young children by daycare workers here in Holland. Proven. Not a witchhunt. My sister lives in Amsterdam and has two young children. Not in that centre, but it could have been..
I watch out for my children, and I screen who teaches them or who trains them at the sportclub.
And I am a levelheaded normal mum.

Blacksmith is having a real rant about people on forums in his latest pile of bile.

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

I tend to agree

parapono

Jean wrote:Blacksmith is having a real rant about people on forums in his latest pile of bile.

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

You yourself said something not very nice about him at the top of this very page, Jean.

It's passion, not bile. If he wasn't so passionate about the case, would he still be writing about it after all these years? It would be a sad day if he stopped.