Blacksmith : February 8th SOAP WATER ACTION!
Page 1 of 1 • Share
Blacksmith : February 8th SOAP WATER ACTION!
by russiandoll 09.02.13 14:30
God,
what an unpleasant week. Anyone got any soap? We stayed quiet to let Mr
Bennett have his further fifteen minutes of fame without interruption
but followed matters through a daily, detailed look at the forums and
Twitter, something we’ve never done so exhaustively before. It was like
having one’s head thrust repeatedly into a brown and stinking lavatory
bowl.
“The McCann
affair dirties and besmirches almost everyone and everything it comes
into contact with.” How many times have we written that?
So
we had a court case which posed a number of questions of principle –
important questions and not six year old ones either, not with the Great
Paedo Hunt and its associated matters all over Twitter. And Twitter
itself isn’t a tiny little room holding a few nutters, not when it
reaches up to the self-important dwarf who is speaker of the House of
Commons while his wife dishes out the innuendo.
Yes,
real questions about libel. How far, for example, should the libel
courts be used at all these days? Until twenty years ago libellous books
were pulped and overseas newspapers had chancy stories literally cut
out with scissors before distribution. With broadcasters taking their
cue from the print media the libel was stifled at birth. Not any longer.
And for those like Anna Racoon – yes, this week brought many fossils
out of the sludge –who think the law will gradually close in on net
comment, forget it. Those who have something worth saying will move
their sites to extra-judicial places (some are already doing so) and
continue just as before. M/S Racoon, by the way, is the entity that
gloated so knowledgably four years ago that "European Union law" was
about to end all this wicked free speech on the Net nonsense.
With
the old UK libel laws satisfying nobody what do we replace them with?
And in 2013 how do you balance individual reputations against “free”
speech? Hugh Grant and his celebrity circle (who are much more powerful
than the aged pasteboard targets like McAlpine and Murdoch that the
usual suspects waste their time attacking) want to censor the newspapers
directly instead and at this moment have a Leveson-inspired bill before
the House of Lords – call it the Safe Suckers Act, shall we?
Kate and Gerry Beckham McCann
appear to support their view, not surprisingly since they are pure
media creations themselves whose fate, like that of Grant and the rest,
has been and always will be tied to their media coverage, offline and
on. The whole crowd is led by those with the political nous to know how
much you can achieve in the UK by using sob and sentiment stories as a
cloak, hence the ruthless use they have made of the Bristol and Downer
crimes: nothing succeeds like schmaltz.
Another
one: when should a supposed whistle-blower or campaigner, however
apparently misguided, be listened to? Wouldn’t it have been better, for
instance, if someone had campaigned against Robert Maxwell, the
greatest thief in British history, who used litigation as aggressively
as the Suffering Duo ? Maxwell, like the McCanns, like so many others,
had plenty of onions in his pockets to aid him when necessary, bursting
into tears over the Auschwitz fate of family members at strategic
moments in the libel courts. Top that! If someone with a bee in their
bonnet, even a buffoon, had campaigned against him it might have stopped
him stealing the pensions of Mirror employees to buy yachts
with, though naturally someone like that has to see it through to the
end for it to work. But how do you know if it's a buffoon or a coward if
you can't hear what's said?
And
then there are questions about undertakings which, in this country, are
seen as immensely important. How do you distinguish between a genuine
gun-to-the-head argument and simple wriggling? Should the law give more
recognition to the fact that a modern UK libel case is a claim for
"cost-infliction" rather than damages? The law recognizes inequality of
resources, and therefore of bargaining power in the commercial arena –
shouldn't it be doing so in defamation cases?
These
questions of importance, of principle, hung invisibly above the High
Court committal proceedings this week. And what did we get? Something
between Alice in Wonderland and Reservoir Dogs, with
supporters of both sides deliberately unwilling to put out an objective
summary of the hearing – check for yourselves – because they were too
frightened or dishonest to do so, while they hurled revolting,
inaccurate and fantastical abuse at each other across the Net.* The
claims that were put out by both sides had nothing to do with a certain Madeleine McCann or questions of principle and everything
to do with their own playground cum vicious street gang emotions,
obsessional leadership loyalties and much more important, of course,
personal, spitting enmities. "Support" eh? Urgh!
Anyway,
once this thoroughly nasty and undignified sideshow without a single
redeeming feature has been forgotten, we can return to real life and the
muffled drumbeat of the Yard review and Goncalo Amaral’s next move.
Next up: May 3 2013. If, that is, the toast doesn’t start burning before
then. Now where’s that soap and water?
*We've
looked at what's there, a couple on the Bennet/Havern site, one on the
"Muratfan site." The former are quite extraordinarily short for a day
and a half hearing, the latter suffused with hatred. On both the sound
of axes being ground is deafening while anything that doesn't agree with
their own "side" is suppressed or elided. What sort of "cause" do
either of those two sides have that they can't even try to produce
something objective? To take just two examples of this cancerous
dishonesty: Muratfan highlighted the fact – one assumes— that Mr Bennett
had given a list of "other places" that had said the same things as him
without being proceeded against to the judge. He says that list covered
17 pages of A4.
Clearly
this leaves some very big questions which the reader can address for
themselves. As the writers of the court summary on the Havern/Bennet
forum were aware Muratfan has taken this as evidence that Mr Bennett is
snitching to take everyone down with him. Both they and other
contributors to Bennet/Havern's site have muffled the question of this
document in the most laughable way, the former mentioning it, in anodyne
terms, just once.
Then
Muratfan does the same thing with the evidence of Mike Gunnill who
apparently admitted repeated lying, deliberately reducing its impact.
So
we don't know what else they've deliberately corrupted. Some summaries!
I wouldn't trust this lot to give an accurate account of the time of
f****** day.
Added Friday evening February 8
– the angry site Stop the Myths, not a place that many people visit
regularly, has put up a lengthy summary. And a site called Little
Morsels has put up one of their own. Stop the Myths hate almost everyone
but their summary is far and away the best we've seen. The Little
Morsels skimpy piece suffers from the author's inability to separate
summary from propaganda so, like the others apart from STM, it is
virtually worthless. It does, however, have more on the Mike Gunnill
episode (well it would, wouldn't it?) to compare with Stop the Myths',
ahem, restraint on that matter.
what an unpleasant week. Anyone got any soap? We stayed quiet to let Mr
Bennett have his further fifteen minutes of fame without interruption
but followed matters through a daily, detailed look at the forums and
Twitter, something we’ve never done so exhaustively before. It was like
having one’s head thrust repeatedly into a brown and stinking lavatory
bowl.
“The McCann
affair dirties and besmirches almost everyone and everything it comes
into contact with.” How many times have we written that?
So
we had a court case which posed a number of questions of principle –
important questions and not six year old ones either, not with the Great
Paedo Hunt and its associated matters all over Twitter. And Twitter
itself isn’t a tiny little room holding a few nutters, not when it
reaches up to the self-important dwarf who is speaker of the House of
Commons while his wife dishes out the innuendo.
Yes,
real questions about libel. How far, for example, should the libel
courts be used at all these days? Until twenty years ago libellous books
were pulped and overseas newspapers had chancy stories literally cut
out with scissors before distribution. With broadcasters taking their
cue from the print media the libel was stifled at birth. Not any longer.
And for those like Anna Racoon – yes, this week brought many fossils
out of the sludge –who think the law will gradually close in on net
comment, forget it. Those who have something worth saying will move
their sites to extra-judicial places (some are already doing so) and
continue just as before. M/S Racoon, by the way, is the entity that
gloated so knowledgably four years ago that "European Union law" was
about to end all this wicked free speech on the Net nonsense.
With
the old UK libel laws satisfying nobody what do we replace them with?
And in 2013 how do you balance individual reputations against “free”
speech? Hugh Grant and his celebrity circle (who are much more powerful
than the aged pasteboard targets like McAlpine and Murdoch that the
usual suspects waste their time attacking) want to censor the newspapers
directly instead and at this moment have a Leveson-inspired bill before
the House of Lords – call it the Safe Suckers Act, shall we?
Kate and Gerry Beckham McCann
appear to support their view, not surprisingly since they are pure
media creations themselves whose fate, like that of Grant and the rest,
has been and always will be tied to their media coverage, offline and
on. The whole crowd is led by those with the political nous to know how
much you can achieve in the UK by using sob and sentiment stories as a
cloak, hence the ruthless use they have made of the Bristol and Downer
crimes: nothing succeeds like schmaltz.
Another
one: when should a supposed whistle-blower or campaigner, however
apparently misguided, be listened to? Wouldn’t it have been better, for
instance, if someone had campaigned against Robert Maxwell, the
greatest thief in British history, who used litigation as aggressively
as the Suffering Duo ? Maxwell, like the McCanns, like so many others,
had plenty of onions in his pockets to aid him when necessary, bursting
into tears over the Auschwitz fate of family members at strategic
moments in the libel courts. Top that! If someone with a bee in their
bonnet, even a buffoon, had campaigned against him it might have stopped
him stealing the pensions of Mirror employees to buy yachts
with, though naturally someone like that has to see it through to the
end for it to work. But how do you know if it's a buffoon or a coward if
you can't hear what's said?
And
then there are questions about undertakings which, in this country, are
seen as immensely important. How do you distinguish between a genuine
gun-to-the-head argument and simple wriggling? Should the law give more
recognition to the fact that a modern UK libel case is a claim for
"cost-infliction" rather than damages? The law recognizes inequality of
resources, and therefore of bargaining power in the commercial arena –
shouldn't it be doing so in defamation cases?
These
questions of importance, of principle, hung invisibly above the High
Court committal proceedings this week. And what did we get? Something
between Alice in Wonderland and Reservoir Dogs, with
supporters of both sides deliberately unwilling to put out an objective
summary of the hearing – check for yourselves – because they were too
frightened or dishonest to do so, while they hurled revolting,
inaccurate and fantastical abuse at each other across the Net.* The
claims that were put out by both sides had nothing to do with a certain Madeleine McCann or questions of principle and everything
to do with their own playground cum vicious street gang emotions,
obsessional leadership loyalties and much more important, of course,
personal, spitting enmities. "Support" eh? Urgh!
Anyway,
once this thoroughly nasty and undignified sideshow without a single
redeeming feature has been forgotten, we can return to real life and the
muffled drumbeat of the Yard review and Goncalo Amaral’s next move.
Next up: May 3 2013. If, that is, the toast doesn’t start burning before
then. Now where’s that soap and water?
*We've
looked at what's there, a couple on the Bennet/Havern site, one on the
"Muratfan site." The former are quite extraordinarily short for a day
and a half hearing, the latter suffused with hatred. On both the sound
of axes being ground is deafening while anything that doesn't agree with
their own "side" is suppressed or elided. What sort of "cause" do
either of those two sides have that they can't even try to produce
something objective? To take just two examples of this cancerous
dishonesty: Muratfan highlighted the fact – one assumes— that Mr Bennett
had given a list of "other places" that had said the same things as him
without being proceeded against to the judge. He says that list covered
17 pages of A4.
Clearly
this leaves some very big questions which the reader can address for
themselves. As the writers of the court summary on the Havern/Bennet
forum were aware Muratfan has taken this as evidence that Mr Bennett is
snitching to take everyone down with him. Both they and other
contributors to Bennet/Havern's site have muffled the question of this
document in the most laughable way, the former mentioning it, in anodyne
terms, just once.
Then
Muratfan does the same thing with the evidence of Mike Gunnill who
apparently admitted repeated lying, deliberately reducing its impact.
So
we don't know what else they've deliberately corrupted. Some summaries!
I wouldn't trust this lot to give an accurate account of the time of
f****** day.
Added Friday evening February 8
– the angry site Stop the Myths, not a place that many people visit
regularly, has put up a lengthy summary. And a site called Little
Morsels has put up one of their own. Stop the Myths hate almost everyone
but their summary is far and away the best we've seen. The Little
Morsels skimpy piece suffers from the author's inability to separate
summary from propaganda so, like the others apart from STM, it is
virtually worthless. It does, however, have more on the Mike Gunnill
episode (well it would, wouldn't it?) to compare with Stop the Myths',
ahem, restraint on that matter.
____________________
The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy
russiandoll- Posts : 3942
Activity : 4058
Likes received : 15
Join date : 2011-09-11
Re: Blacksmith : February 8th SOAP WATER ACTION!
by olipet 09.02.13 16:37
This re-post of Blacksmith Bureau blog made me look at the Court Reporting by some who belong to Stop the Myths. I would like to know if anyone else has read the various reports on their forum site?
olipet- Posts : 76
Activity : 84
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2013-01-31
Re: Blacksmith : February 8th SOAP WATER ACTION!
by Tony Bennett 09.02.13 21:40
'Blacksmith' wrote:
"To take just two examples of this cancerous dishonesty: Muratfan highlighted the fact - one assumes - that Mr Bennett had given a list of 'other places' that had said the same things as him without being proceeded against to the judge. He says that list covered 17 pages of A4. Clearly this leaves some very big questions which the reader can address for themselves. As the writers of the court summary on the Havern/Bennett forum were aware Muratfan has taken this as evidence that Mr Bennett is snitching to take everyone down with him".
Just to make this plain: This was indeed a list submitted by me to the Court - far from comprehensive - of known police officers, professionals, authors, editors, journalists or others who had published reports, books and articles setting out their reasons for questioning the McCanns' claim of abduction.
In addition, there were the names of literally dozens of websites, web-logs and internet forums where the McCann-sceptic view could also be found, plus references to Facebook groups, Twitter and many other places where similar views were publicly expressed. I also included a list of over 100 YouTube videos, some of them with hundreds of thousands of views, which were also McCann-sceptic, again very far from a complete list.
And it all runs to 17 pages of A4.
The matter was dealt with in cross-examination of Carter-Ruck's Ms Isabel Martorell, who openly conceded that the McCanns had only been able to deal effectively with 'one or two' of them.
This evidence was fully in line with Dr Kate McCann's evidence in her book, 'madeleine', p. 290, where she states:
"We have taken action against one or two websites, but it has proved almost impossible to get this stuff removed from some of them, particularly those hosted in the U.S.A..."
In his article, Blacksmith writes as he often does, in ridldes, posting this comment:
"[Mr Bennett's] list [of McCann-sceptic publications] covered 17 pages of A4. Clearly this leaves some very big questions which the reader can address for themselves".
I am far from sure what these 'very big questions' are supposed to be, but just for the written record, the names of all the authors of all printed and published reports, books and articles were submitted to Carter-Ruck a year ago, along with a list of URLs for the various websites, blogs and forums and for the YouTube videos.
I don't think that any of them has, as a result, had any libel letters or threats from Carter-Ruck.
Which rather reinforces the point I made during the hearing, and with which Dr Kate McCann agreed back in May 2011 in her book, that the McCanns are virtually powerless to restrain this level of dissent.
The recent article in The Examiner says exactly the same thing.
"To take just two examples of this cancerous dishonesty: Muratfan highlighted the fact - one assumes - that Mr Bennett had given a list of 'other places' that had said the same things as him without being proceeded against to the judge. He says that list covered 17 pages of A4. Clearly this leaves some very big questions which the reader can address for themselves. As the writers of the court summary on the Havern/Bennett forum were aware Muratfan has taken this as evidence that Mr Bennett is snitching to take everyone down with him".
Just to make this plain: This was indeed a list submitted by me to the Court - far from comprehensive - of known police officers, professionals, authors, editors, journalists or others who had published reports, books and articles setting out their reasons for questioning the McCanns' claim of abduction.
In addition, there were the names of literally dozens of websites, web-logs and internet forums where the McCann-sceptic view could also be found, plus references to Facebook groups, Twitter and many other places where similar views were publicly expressed. I also included a list of over 100 YouTube videos, some of them with hundreds of thousands of views, which were also McCann-sceptic, again very far from a complete list.
And it all runs to 17 pages of A4.
The matter was dealt with in cross-examination of Carter-Ruck's Ms Isabel Martorell, who openly conceded that the McCanns had only been able to deal effectively with 'one or two' of them.
This evidence was fully in line with Dr Kate McCann's evidence in her book, 'madeleine', p. 290, where she states:
"We have taken action against one or two websites, but it has proved almost impossible to get this stuff removed from some of them, particularly those hosted in the U.S.A..."
In his article, Blacksmith writes as he often does, in ridldes, posting this comment:
"[Mr Bennett's] list [of McCann-sceptic publications] covered 17 pages of A4. Clearly this leaves some very big questions which the reader can address for themselves".
I am far from sure what these 'very big questions' are supposed to be, but just for the written record, the names of all the authors of all printed and published reports, books and articles were submitted to Carter-Ruck a year ago, along with a list of URLs for the various websites, blogs and forums and for the YouTube videos.
I don't think that any of them has, as a result, had any libel letters or threats from Carter-Ruck.
Which rather reinforces the point I made during the hearing, and with which Dr Kate McCann agreed back in May 2011 in her book, that the McCanns are virtually powerless to restrain this level of dissent.
The recent article in The Examiner says exactly the same thing.
____________________
Dr Martin Roberts: "The evidence is that these are the pjyamas Madeleine wore on holiday in Praia da Luz. They were photographed and the photo handed to a press agency, who released it on 8 May, as the search for Madeleine continued. The McCanns held up these same pyjamas at two press conferences on 5 & 7June 2007. How could Madeleine have been abducted?"
Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".
Tony Bennett- Investigator
- Posts : 16926
Activity : 24792
Likes received : 3749
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 77
Location : Shropshire
Re: Blacksmith : February 8th SOAP WATER ACTION!
by olipet 09.02.13 22:14
Thank you Tony, for responding.
olipet- Posts : 76
Activity : 84
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2013-01-31
Re: Blacksmith : February 8th SOAP WATER ACTION!
by bobbin 09.02.13 22:17
Tony, Blacksmith has just blown himself out of the water.
I don't think you or anyone needs to waste any time on defending against his, well, I don't know how to describe it, fury?
Things have obviously not gone the way he was determined they should.
I don't think you or anyone needs to waste any time on defending against his, well, I don't know how to describe it, fury?
Things have obviously not gone the way he was determined they should.
bobbin- Posts : 2053
Activity : 2240
Likes received : 145
Join date : 2011-12-05
Re: Blacksmith : February 8th SOAP WATER ACTION!
by Mrs Beeton 09.02.13 22:29
I really take issue with Blacksmith's 'oh so superior' tone. He really is so far above all of us little people on the forums!
I'm not dismissing everything he says in his latest posts, : I have previously read on his website that the posts there are written by a team. Some of the blog entries on his site are really excellent, however to my mind his latest offerings are intended to destabilize this forum and to put people off contributing.
I'm not dismissing everything he says in his latest posts, : I have previously read on his website that the posts there are written by a team. Some of the blog entries on his site are really excellent, however to my mind his latest offerings are intended to destabilize this forum and to put people off contributing.
Mrs Beeton- Posts : 32
Activity : 38
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2013-01-25
Re: Blacksmith : February 8th SOAP WATER ACTION!
by happychick 09.02.13 22:36
Mrs Beeton wrote:..........however to my mind his latest offerings are intended to destabilize this forum and to put people off contributing.
Thing is how many people read his blog? How many people would be put off coming here to this forum after reading his blog? But of course if his blog posting are copied and pasted here and they are read here then I can see some people would be put off coming here.
Solution: Don't copy and paste his crud here.
(Not having a go at you Mrs Beeton)
____________________
happychick- Posts : 405
Activity : 503
Likes received : 40
Join date : 2011-06-14
Re: Blacksmith : February 8th SOAP WATER ACTION!
by olipet 09.02.13 23:03
I will put my neck out here. I read BB. And I do not feel guilty.
I have been a sceptic since day one but am careful to ensure that I educate myself on differing opinion to provide clarity and trust within my thought process. For me, this is the only way to reach fair, measured conclusions.
But consequently, I was a tad frustrated with the lack of detailed report in relation to the recent hearing and after reading BB blog this geed me on to take a trip to STM forum where there is quite substantial report - albeit for sure, biased.
I was not one bit concerned about this 17 page list but rather, wanted to know why those here who attended are reticent to report much.
Meanwhile to be clear, my stance remains unchanged.
I have been a sceptic since day one but am careful to ensure that I educate myself on differing opinion to provide clarity and trust within my thought process. For me, this is the only way to reach fair, measured conclusions.
But consequently, I was a tad frustrated with the lack of detailed report in relation to the recent hearing and after reading BB blog this geed me on to take a trip to STM forum where there is quite substantial report - albeit for sure, biased.
I was not one bit concerned about this 17 page list but rather, wanted to know why those here who attended are reticent to report much.
Meanwhile to be clear, my stance remains unchanged.
olipet- Posts : 76
Activity : 84
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2013-01-31
Re: Blacksmith : February 8th SOAP WATER ACTION!
by Inspectorfrost 10.02.13 1:30
What the shitbag lying muratfan was saying or insinuating was that Tony had passed personal posters on here details to carter ruck
Thats what cyber bullies liars and thugs do
Seems he was taught a lesson or two last day or so
Thats what cyber bullies liars and thugs do
Seems he was taught a lesson or two last day or so
Inspectorfrost- Posts : 841
Activity : 878
Likes received : 3
Join date : 2012-12-09
Re: Blacksmith : February 8th SOAP WATER ACTION!
by aiyoyo 10.02.13 3:04
olipet wrote:I will put my neck out here. I read BB. And I do not feel guilty.
I have been a sceptic since day one but am careful to ensure that I educate myself on differing opinion to provide clarity and trust within my thought process. For me, this is the only way to reach fair, measured conclusions.
But consequently, I was a tad frustrated with the lack of detailed report in relation to the recent hearing and after reading BB blog this geed me on to take a trip to STM forum where there is quite substantial report - albeit for sure, biased.
I was not one bit concerned about this 17 page list but rather, wanted to know why those here who attended are reticent to report much.
Meanwhile to be clear, my stance remains unchanged.
For one thing they are not obliged to for a start. What they posted was sufficient for me.
Moreover there are nutters in cyber-world waiting anxiously for snippets or report so that they can lay into it and rip it apart to suit their agenda,so it is wise of court attendees to be cautious IMO.
Littlemorsalsblogspot's site has a report of it FYI.
aiyoyo- Posts : 9610
Activity : 10084
Likes received : 326
Join date : 2009-11-28
Re: Blacksmith : February 8th SOAP WATER ACTION!
by aiyoyo 10.02.13 3:52
"To take just two examples of this cancerous dishonesty: Muratfan highlighted the fact - one assumes - that Mr Bennett had given a list of 'other places' that had said the same things as him without being proceeded against to the judge. He says that list covered 17 pages of A4. Clearly this leaves some very big questions which the reader can address for themselves. As the writers of the court summary on the Havern/Bennett forum were aware Muratfan has taken this as evidence that Mr Bennett is snitching to take everyone down with him".
BS has either lost his marbles, if not then he has lost himself his credibility and respectability by such uncalled for vile speculation.
Who would have thought BS would descend so low by poisoning TB against members and hence sowing discord among members and among fora. Any issue he may have had with TB is his private business, why the need to sow seeds of suspicion unnecessarily when he has not seen the 17-page A4.
What sort of respectable person hits below the belt? How can he sprout such drivel when he cannot or did not provide evidence to substantiate his accusation.
aiyoyo- Posts : 9610
Activity : 10084
Likes received : 326
Join date : 2009-11-28
Re: Blacksmith : February 8th SOAP WATER ACTION!
by tiny 10.02.13 7:02
having re read the 2 postings of blacksmith, do you think it is because Tony did so well in court?, like i said to before take blacksmith with a pinch of salt,it wouldnt supprise me if he wasnt on the maccans side, as it were.i think we should leave blacksmith to other forums who seem to think every thing he writes is pure goldaiyoyo wrote:"To take just two examples of this cancerous dishonesty: Muratfan highlighted the fact - one assumes - that Mr Bennett had given a list of 'other places' that had said the same things as him without being proceeded against to the judge. He says that list covered 17 pages of A4. Clearly this leaves some very big questions which the reader can address for themselves. As the writers of the court summary on the Havern/Bennett forum were aware Muratfan has taken this as evidence that Mr Bennett is snitching to take everyone down with him".
BS has either lost his marbles, if not then he has lost himself his credibility and respectability by such uncalled for vile speculation.
Who would have thought BS would descend so low by poisoning TB against members and hence sowing discord among members and among fora. Any issue he may have had with TB is his private business, why the need to sow seeds of suspicion unnecessarily when he has not seen the 17-page A4.
What sort of respectable person hits below the belt? How can he sprout such drivel when he cannot or did not provide evidence to substantiate his accusation.
tiny- Posts : 2274
Activity : 2311
Likes received : 4
Join date : 2010-02-03
Re: Blacksmith : February 8th SOAP WATER ACTION!
by russiandoll 10.02.13 12:05
Having read STM report of court last week, where the comments are as nasty and personal as those on JATYK2 I do not understand how BS can recommend this site because it is anything but unbiased. He used to be an interesting and intelligent read, but now things have become so personal with him I am bewildered as to where he stands on the Maddie case.
Has he ever posted what he believes happened to her or has he posted mainly what I have read, evidence that the parents and friends have lied?
Divide and conquer seems to be the name of the game. I thought it was useful to make the forum aware of these 2 posts re the court case.
The only thing valuable in these 2 pieces of writing is that we should always remember that Madeleine is at the centre of our debates and we should not become sidetracked into an us versus them issue re the McCann fan sites.
Has he ever posted what he believes happened to her or has he posted mainly what I have read, evidence that the parents and friends have lied?
Divide and conquer seems to be the name of the game. I thought it was useful to make the forum aware of these 2 posts re the court case.
The only thing valuable in these 2 pieces of writing is that we should always remember that Madeleine is at the centre of our debates and we should not become sidetracked into an us versus them issue re the McCann fan sites.
____________________
The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy
russiandoll- Posts : 3942
Activity : 4058
Likes received : 15
Join date : 2011-09-11
Re: Blacksmith : February 8th SOAP WATER ACTION!
by PeterMac 10.02.13 12:11
Sadly the fate of Madeleine Beth McCann is no longer in any of these people's thoughts.
Not Carter-Ruck, not any of these pro-sites, and now when we read the announcement of GMs statement re Leveson, obviously no longer in his.
Not Carter-Ruck, not any of these pro-sites, and now when we read the announcement of GMs statement re Leveson, obviously no longer in his.
PeterMac- Investigator
- Posts : 13956
Activity : 16959
Likes received : 2075
Join date : 2010-12-06 -
Re: Blacksmith : February 8th SOAP WATER ACTION!
by bobbin 10.02.13 12:16
russiandoll wrote:Having read STM report of court last week, where the comments are as nasty and personal as those on JATYK2 I do not understand how BS can recommend this site because it is anything but unbiased. He used to be an interesting and intelligent read, but now things have become so personal with him I am bewildered as to where he stands on the Maddie case.
Has he ever posted what he believes happened to her or has he posted mainly what I have read, evidence that the parents and friends have lied?
Divide and conquer seems to be the name of the game. I thought it was useful to make the forum aware of these 2 posts re the court case.
The only thing valuable in these 2 pieces of writing is that we should always remember that Madeleine is at the centre of our debates and we should not become sidetracked into an us versus them issue re the McCann fan sites.
Some while back I suggested that maybe BS was a long term plant and I only gave it a casual read.
I got an ear full from I think C. Edwards, followed closely by david_uk supporting C.Edwards.
It then appears in another more recent post that the bureau could be several people in the team.
If this is the case, it may explain 'inconsistency' in style.
I did often notice that if one of the supposed team seemed to be trapped by a poster's observation, there would be a disappearance of said team members, as if to go back for guidance, before the poster's suggestion would be hit.
This latest BS stuff (I don't mean BS as bu** s**t here, but it would be appropriate) is as patent a declaration as any that I have seen, that Tony's grit and determination to proceed has thwarted their long term plan.
I may of course be wrong, but this is my belief.
bobbin- Posts : 2053
Activity : 2240
Likes received : 145
Join date : 2011-12-05
Re: Blacksmith : February 8th SOAP WATER ACTION!
by Smokeandmirrors 10.02.13 12:20
russiandoll wrote:Having read STM report of court last week, where the comments are as nasty and personal as those on JATYK2 I do not understand how BS can recommend this site because it is anything but unbiased. He used to be an interesting and intelligent read, but now things have become so personal with him I am bewildered as to where he stands on the Maddie case.
Has he ever posted what he believes happened to her or has he posted mainly what I have read, evidence that the parents and friends have lied?
Divide and conquer seems to be the name of the game. I thought it was useful to make the forum aware of these 2 posts re the court case.
The only thing valuable in these 2 pieces of writing is that we should always remember that Madeleine is at the centre of our debates and we should not become sidetracked into an us versus them issue re the McCann fan sites.
This definitely seems to be true. There are people on this forum working away like trojans to find an explanation for the numerous anomalies and contradictions between the recorded facts and what is being spun.
Tony has put himself on the firing line, whether one agrees with him or not, that is a fact that cannot be disputed. He has made his personal contact details available regardless of the possibility of people abusing them. He never uses profanities in his writings. He will engage in dialogue directly with his critics. Those things considered, IMO, places his integrity and honour streets ahead of the vitriolic BS.
____________________
The truth will out.
Smokeandmirrors- Posts : 2458
Activity : 2685
Likes received : 25
Join date : 2011-07-31
Re: Blacksmith : February 8th SOAP WATER ACTION!
by aiyoyo 10.02.13 12:46
Some of his posts were erudite, while some of his other posts were just drivels full of diatribes and vitriolic.
One is left wondering whether he's bi-polar.
One is left wondering whether he's bi-polar.
aiyoyo- Posts : 9610
Activity : 10084
Likes received : 326
Join date : 2009-11-28
Re: Blacksmith : February 8th SOAP WATER ACTION!
by russiandoll 10.02.13 12:48
PeterMac wrote:Sadly the fate of Madeleine Beth McCann is no longer in any of these people's thoughts.
Not Carter-Ruck, not any of these pro-sites, and now when we read the announcement of GMs statement re Leveson, obviously no longer in his.
Well if any of them are reading here let me say this. Whilst I have never forgotten the day when I was unpacking a holiday suitcase with tv on in the background reporting "a young British girl going missing from a Portuguese hotel room ", and while I followed the unfolding tale with interest and a raised eyebrow at what I was seeing and hearing, and while I read some of the released files, it was not until I borrowed the book
" madeleine " written by KATE MCCANN that multiple red flags made me want to dig deeper. Yes, you read that right, the book by the mother of the missing girl.
I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT MADELEINE BETH MCCANN WAS ABDUCTED. THERE IS NOT ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE POINTING TO IT.
BUT THERE IS EVIDENCE OF DECEIT FROM THE ADULTS WHO WENT ON THAT HOLIDAY. I WANT TO KNOW THE REASONS FOR THIS DECEIT. AND I WANT TO KNOW WHY A LITTLE GIRL WAS TAKEN OUT OF THE U.K. BECAUSE OF A DECISION MADE BY HER PARENTS TO GO ON A FOREIGN HOLIDAY, AND WHY SHE NEVER RETURNED HOME WITH HER FAMILY.
____________________
The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy
russiandoll- Posts : 3942
Activity : 4058
Likes received : 15
Join date : 2011-09-11
Re: Blacksmith : February 8th SOAP WATER ACTION!
by PeterMac 10.02.13 13:27
I would hazard a guess the the 17 pages of A4 was simply a list from google of all the places where the facts are being discussed freely and without threat by C-R, or were Dr Amala's central thesis is availabvle, or something of that nature.
17 pages is not much, considering that google half a minute ago gave
"About 33,700 results (0.12 seconds)"
on the search for "Madeleine McCann."
Quite a search ! Rather more than the parents did.
17 pages is not much, considering that google half a minute ago gave
"About 33,700 results (0.12 seconds)"
on the search for "Madeleine McCann."
Quite a search ! Rather more than the parents did.
PeterMac- Investigator
- Posts : 13956
Activity : 16959
Likes received : 2075
Join date : 2010-12-06 -
Re: Blacksmith : February 8th SOAP WATER ACTION!
by ShuBob 10.02.13 17:02
tiny wrote:SNIP
having re read the 2 postings of blacksmith, do you think it is because Tony did so well in court?, like i said to before take blacksmith with a pinch of salt,it wouldnt supprise me if he wasnt on the maccans side, as it were.i think we should leave blacksmith to other forums who seem to think every thing he writes is pure gold
Exactly what I'm thinking.
ShuBob- Posts : 1896
Activity : 1983
Likes received : 67
Join date : 2012-02-07
Similar topics» Blacksmith : February 9th A WORTHLESS WEAPON
» BLACKSMITH February 15th 2013 : SUCKERS ! Such Fun !
» "The End is Near in the Madeleine McCann Case"
» SOLVED
» Remarkable children
» BLACKSMITH February 15th 2013 : SUCKERS ! Such Fun !
» "The End is Near in the Madeleine McCann Case"
» SOLVED
» Remarkable children
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
