Blacksmith 5th march 2013 - and conclude

The machinations behind and in the fore. Extraordinary. Yet more intrigue in this piece but always gives a sense of being sated. Thank you BB.

I only found him very recently and he really is quite something. :)

I do find his blog very interesting although it can be rather obtuse at times. Blacksmith is not to everyone's taste on here but often he is bang on the money. Average person it's worth looking through the back catalogue as it were, interesting stuff! Welcome to the forum both of you.

Thank you very much EJW.

Quote:


There would be nothing of value from the media, that was for sure. The belief that if pressure was kept up for long enough the media would do the famous "turn", pull out their hidden dossiers and destroy the McCanns was, I was sorry to say, as unjustified as the belief in hidden protection. Whatever finally appeared in the media would only do so when the facts had been established elsewhere.

Blacksmith I assume is saying the press have not got stacks of boxes of dirt on the McCanns, but also that the McCanns are not being protected by powerful people!

If that is the case, how on earth has this farce gone on for so many years?

EJW wrote:I do find his blog very interesting although it can be rather obtuse at times. Blacksmith is not to everyone's taste on here but often he is bang on the money. Average person it's worth looking through the back catalogue as it were, interesting stuff! Welcome to the forum both of you.

Will do and thanks for the welcome. :)

No problem
The BBC 's 2007 written commitment...I would not be at all surprised given the recent goings on at the beeb

Dear John,

After my last declaration of adherence, some of the forum suggested I shut up and pmd you instead.

How?

Never mind. I was educated by someone shrapnelled at the Dardanelles with no left cheek to speak of. And Cambridge.

You told me -together with many others- to get out and look elsewhere for fun & games.

I'm still here.

We will see this to the end.

Are you, by any chance, dear Desmond himself? That would be nice. And it would not surprise me at all.

Good hunting!

I must confess, the Blacksmith has got me completely baffled this time. Has Amaral settled or is the trial going ahead?

After that last piece "I'll begin..." which was a self aggrandizement piece about me me me what I had done and how connected I am to sources from both camp....only to come up with this conclusion that doesnt say much .....hmmm.....not sure what point BS is making any more.

I thought he made this point in his piece "sitting pretty'. Then he gave us three more pieces expanding the same point? What?

Miraflores wrote:I must confess, the Blacksmith has got me completely baffled this time. Has Amaral settled or is the trial going ahead?

Hi Miraflores, fwiw, how I read that piece was that the conclusion was its the McCanns who feel in trouble over all this, and Amaral most certainly hasn't settled. Just my take

I have always found Blacksmith interesting reading somtimes having to read it more than once, he certainly gives you food for thought. Somtimes I wonder if he knows a lot more than he says and just drip feeds info but nothing concrete, he seems to put a different spin on things we already know.

I have always thought that the media are sitting on vital information on the McCanns then when the truth is out there they will all claim exclusives.

Cherry Blossom wrote:........................... then when the truth is out there they will all claim exclusives.

Most definitely. They would have a real bonanza and sell shed loads of extra copies.

rainbow-fairy wrote:

Miraflores wrote:I must confess, the Blacksmith has got me completely baffled this time. Has Amaral settled or is the trial going ahead?

Hi Miraflores, fwiw, how I read that piece was that the conclusion was its the McCanns who feel in trouble over all this, and Amaral most certainly hasn't settled. Just my take

My take too that he's confirming that it was the Mccanns who asked to settle with Amaral.
Hasn't it been reported on the other site that no settlement was reached, and the case goes back to Court awaiting trial date.

aiyoyo wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:

Miraflores wrote:I must confess, the Blacksmith has got me completely baffled this time. Has Amaral settled or is the trial going ahead?

Hi Miraflores, fwiw, how I read that piece was that the conclusion was its the McCanns who feel in trouble over all this, and Amaral most certainly hasn't settled. Just my take

My take too that he's confirming that it was the Mccanns who asked to settle with Amaral.
Hasn't it been reported on the other site that no settlement was reached, and the case goes back to Court awaiting trial date.

It was confirmed in the newspapers here in Portugal that no settlement had been reached and the case goes to court.
Personally, I enjoy Blacksmith's postings and even the ones that upset me earlier at the time of the injunction did prove to be on the spot. I don't care whether anyone thinks that he likes to make himself look important or whatever, he does get out a lot of information, especially about the McCanns wanting to settle. I had found out the day before his post and I said to myself that this news will be out on the internet the next day and it was. I have no idea who his source was but he had it right.

Who said we have a free and democratic press in the UK. If they can report in Portugal what is happening why is there a media blackout in the UK? Why are the media not allowed to report even just the 'news' of what has happened or is happening? Its only whether a settlement has been agreed or not so why the media blackout?

From the Blacksmith article, I interpret this as Blacksmith saying that both sides have reached an agreement, an agreement on GA's terms and it is over and finished...No trial

The important part of this article which Blacksmith wants to say is in red which when joined together says " I'm checking with Kate on this one...Unfounded and not based on fact"...I interpret this in 2 ways

1) The obvious direct - Rumours of a settlement are not true, thereby a court date will be set
2) In context of the article as a whole, Blacksmith is saying that when the mccanns want to be silent but are forced to say something then they will lie, as he quoted from kate mccanns book. The last 3 FB messages he quoted to FM campaign, the 3rd one is the one that is lying. Also, GA at the end of the article saying after he had won his appeal "...he said nothing, absolutely nothing...." It is with the whole article in mind that I think Blacksmith is saying a settlement has been agreed and both parties are being silent about it, for reasons which he has demonstrated

I have no idea who Blacksmith is, he has been seen to change like the wind, attacked genuine people on the same level as the likes of muratfan, yet at times has proven to be correct with his informations, he also admits in this article that he likes to say things in a certain way to get reactions from people 'just for his fun'....Only time will tell if he is correct what he is saying in this article, he does seem to be sure in himself that he is. As we have a totally government controlled media in the UK we will never find out this way, perhaps we might via Portugal, but only time will tell us whether Blacksmith is correct and this will probably mean having to wait another 4 months until the 6 month period has passed. If there still no news on the trial by then, one can assume a settlement was reached and both sides are being silent about it. Blacksmith has also been a bit clever with this article as a whole by covering both scenarios with what he highlights in red, but the article is clearly saying the mccanns do lie when they wish to be silent and are pushed into a corner. I also question why he can't just write it straight what he says he knows has happened, but maybe he likes the fun of the riddles and/or maybe taking into consideration both the mccanns and GA are being silent this is his only away of getting the information across. The same as Paulo Cristovão's book....Only time will tell

Portia wrote:Dear John,

After my last declaration of adherence, some of the forum suggested I shut up and pmd you instead.

How?

Never mind. I was educated by someone shrapnelled at the Dardanelles with no left cheek to speak of. And Cambridge.

You told me -together with many others- to get out and look elsewhere for fun & games.

I'm still here.

We will see this to the end.

Are you, by any chance, dear Desmond himself? That would be nice. And it would not surprise me at all.

Good hunting!

portia,is this something private between you and blacksmith, if not can you tell us what you mean as your posts are quite puzzling but they sound interesting

jd wrote:Who said we have a free and democratic press in the UK. If they can report in Portugal what is happening why is there a media blackout in the UK? Why are the media not allowed to report even just the 'news' of what has happened or is happening? Its only whether a settlement has been agreed or not so why the media blackout?

From the Blacksmith article, I interpret this as Blacksmith saying that both sides have reached an agreement, an agreement on GA's terms and it is over and finished...No trial

The important part of this article which Blacksmith wants to say is in red which when joined together says " I'm checking with Kate on this one...Unfounded and not based on fact"...I interpret this in 2 ways

1) The obvious direct - Rumours of a settlement are not true, thereby a court date will be set
2) In context of the article as a whole, Blacksmith is saying that when the mccanns want to be silent but are forced to say something then they will lie, as he quoted from kate mccanns book. The last 3 FB messages he quoted to FM campaign, the 3rd one is the one that is lying. Also, GA at the end of the article saying after he had won his appeal "...he said nothing, absolutely nothing...." It is with the whole article in mind that I think Blacksmith is saying a settlement has been agreed and both parties are being silent about it, for reasons which he has demonstrated

I have no idea who Blacksmith is, he has been seen to change like the wind, attacked genuine people on the same level as the likes of muratfan, yet at times has proven to be correct with his informations, he also admits in this article that he likes to say things in a certain way to get reactions from people 'just for his fun'....Only time will tell if he is correct what he is saying in this article, he does seem to be sure in himself that he is. As we have a totally government controlled media in the UK we will never find out this way, perhaps we might via Portugal, but only time will tell us whether Blacksmith is correct and this will probably mean having to wait another 4 months until the 6 month period has passed. If there still no news on the trial by then, one can assume a settlement was reached and both sides are being silent about it. Blacksmith has also been a bit clever with this article as a whole by covering both scenarios with what he highlights in red, but the article is clearly saying the mccanns do lie when they wish to be silent and are pushed into a corner. I also question why he can't just write it straight what he says he knows has happened, but maybe he likes the fun of the riddles and/or maybe taking into consideration both the mccanns and GA are being silent this is his only away of getting the information across. The same as Paulo Cristovão's book....Only time will tell

BS is just tolling with people's emotion.
He's beating round the bush with all these superfluous words to get to one point which is yet to be proven right or wrong.
Never has so many words been wasted just to make one point, and not a v. clear one at that.

Nevertheless he has entertainment value. Let's see how long he keeps this up.....and to what end?

aiyoyo wrote:
BS is just tolling with people's emotion.
He's beating round the bush with all these superfluous words to get to one point which is yet to be proven right or wrong.
Never has so many words been wasted just to make one point, and not a v. clear one at that.

Nevertheless he has entertainment value. Let's see how long he keeps this up.....and to what end?

I have no idea what he is really up to. I only made my observations on what I thought he was trying to say, though I could have just as easily misunderstood them. He has admitted he likes to have his fun, but it also makes sense to say things in riddles if it is true that both the mccanns and GA are being silent. He has set his stall now with this article and only time will tell his credibility

I enjoy Blacksmith's posts very much, even the ones I can't understand.
In this latest article he states that the press do not have drawers full of McCann related stories ready to unleash when needed. But then he says he was approached by a couple of journalists from different newspapers wanting information on the proposed settlement.
My question is why? If the papers aren't keeping info on the McCanns and don't ever print anything of a derogatory nature then why would they exert themselves in an effort to find out if the McCanns' had folded?
If they find that the McCanns' have fell on their sword then they won't print and apparently don't store it so why bother?

From his superfluous words what came across is that that Mccanns asked for the settlement, none was reached, the trial is going ahead, mccanns are facing comprehensive defeat; and BS feels sorry for them, no eyes to watch their boat sink to the bottom of the sea, so won't comment further on them.

In other words, he's saying his little bureau is retiring once the mccanns comprehensive list of defeats emerge from Court, and BS will walk away from it all. Then maybe he will reveal his true identity at that point, and may turn out to be a journalist with the rag.

He's certainly enjoys a cat and mouse game with his audience.

Casey5 wrote:I enjoy Blacksmith's posts very much, even the ones I can't understand.
In this latest article he states that the press do not have drawers full of McCann related stories ready to unleash when needed. But then he says he was approached by a couple of journalists from different newspapers wanting information on the proposed settlement.
My question is why? If the papers aren't keeping info on the McCanns and don't ever print anything of a derogatory nature then why would they exert themselves in an effort to find out if the McCanns' had folded?
If they find that the McCanns' have fell on their sword then they won't print and apparently don't store it so why bother?

I interpreted this as a convoluted way of saying the press are being kept silent...which clearly they are if they are not even going to be able to print basic information on whether a settlement has or not been agreed between both parties

aiyoyo wrote:
He's certainly enjoys a cat and mouse game with his audience.

Yes I think so most definately

Super injunction ? If bs is an affiliated member of the press he can't comment

I may be totally mistaken, but it looks like he might want to be sued ...

Châtelaine wrote:I may be totally mistaken, but it looks like he might want to be sued ...

Interesting thought. If the Leveson gets attached to the new libel reform bill, then it would be risky. If Gerry gets his way, with the likes of Huge Grant, then Leveson will fix it for freedom of expres​sion(NOT) for ever.
But better actors, writers, doctors, scientists etc. are now writing to his royal Cameronship to get the old Libel reform bill re-instated.
I don't know yet if a new petition will be called for, but I will definitely sign it if and when it does.
Article in the guardian here:-

Authors call on party leaders to save libel reform
Open letter from writers including Stephen Fry says defamation bill is in danger of being killed off by Leveson row
• The Guardian, Wednesday 6 March 2013 18.00 GMT

Stephen Fry, one of the writers who signed the letter along with Salman Rushdie, Julian Barnes, David Hare, Ali Smith and others. Photograph: Gavin Rodgers/Rex Features
Some of the Britain's most acclaimed authors and playwrights including Stephen Fry, Sir Tom Stoppard, William Boyd, Margaret Drabble, Ian McEwan and Salman Rushdie have called on the main party leaders to honour their pledge and implement a defamation bill aimed at transforming 170-year-old laws they say have silenced scientists and authors as well as journalists and activists.
In an open letter the authors tell David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband they were "deeply concerned" that the bill was going to be killed off after three years going through the legislative process simply because it had become entangled in a political row over the Leveson report on press regulation in the past month.
They said it was "entirely inappropriate, and even reckless, for libel reform to be sacrificed to the current political stalemate" in the letter, organised by the writers' lobby group English Pen.
Current British libel laws, the authors argue, have not changed substantially since 1843, have made London the libel capital of the world and are "not just a national disgrace" but an international concern. In 2010 the US president, Barack Obama, introduced laws in America to protect US citizens from British courts.
The signatories, who also include Julian Barnes, Claire Tomalin, Ali Smith, Dame Antonia Fraser, Sir David Hare, Susie Orbach and Michael Frayn, are concerned that improved libel laws are on the verge of collapse because of amendments inserted by Lord Puttnam into the bill in the past month during its final stage in the House of Lords.
The bill has been three years in the making and was included in the Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem manifestos. It did not touch on press regulation until last month, when a group of peers, frustrated by the lack of progress on the Leveson report among the political parties, won overwhelming support in the Lords to add sections to the bill covering a newspaper watchdog's activities.
Writer Gillian Slovo, daughter of the anti-apartheid leader Joe Slovo, told the Guardian: "It would be a terrible thing if the bill was killed, not because it isn't supported by all three parties, because it is, but because it became entangled in Leveson. It would be a great loss."
She said that "one of the great strengths of Britain was freedom of speech but its achilles heel is the libel laws which are mostly used to silence the less well-off".
Libel reform campaigners including Lord Lester, believe it can be salvaged but only if it gets on to Commons business by the middle of March. Political sources have confirmed it is not currently slated for discussion and will not be while Leveson talks continue, raising fears the bill is already dead.
Boyd, vice-president of English Pen, said Puttnam's amendments had "nothing to do with the principle of libel reforms, whose validity had already been established" through consultation and debate in three parliamentary committees.
The amendments include proposals for a new arbitration unit to resolve disputes with newspapers and an incentive system that would mean publishers who did not sign up to the new press regulator could face punitive damages and costs in high court libel actions.
The authors say that in the past three years a number of scientists have faced "ruinous libel suits simply for blowing the whistle on dangerous medical practices". If the defamation bill became law, the risk of libel action would be lessened because of a new public interest defence. Big corporations such as drugs companies would also have to prove serious financial harm before they could take action.
"If the law is not reformed, bullies will continue to be able to prevent the publication of stories that are often not only in the public interest, but a matter of public health and safety," the letter says.
Other signatories are Lisa Appignanesi, Jake Arnott, Amanda Craig, Victoria Glendinning, Mark Haddon, Ronald Harwood, Michael Holroyd, Howard Jacobson, Hisham Matar, Philippe Sands, Will Self, Kamila Shamsie and Raleigh Trevelyan.
Downing Street said it supported the bill but said it was stymied as long as the Puttnam amendments remained. "The government is strongly behind the objectives of the original defamation bill. The government does not support the Puttnam amendments and is clear the Puttnam amendments will not make it onto statute," said a spokesman for Number 10.
A Labour spokesperson said: "Labour's commitment to modernising our outdated defamation laws can be seen in the sheer effort we've put into knocking into shape an original set of proposals that really weren't up to the mark. It would be an outrage if the government prevented parliament from having its say given how much work has gone into proposals that give our defamation laws a much-need updating."
Full text of the open letter
We are writing to urge you to fulfil your commitment to libel reform and ensure that the defamation bill is passed.
All three parties made a pledge in their manifestos and this was restated in the government's coalition agreement.
We are deeply concerned that the bill is currently under threat, following the insertion of a new clause, late in the legislative process, which introduced aspects of Lord Justice Leveson's recommendations. The defamation bill is not a suitable vehicle for the wider proposals of press regulation – as Lord Justice Leveson himself noted, libel did not form part of his terms of reference. It is therefore entirely inappropriate, and even reckless, for libel reform to be sacrificed to the current political stalemate. The bill offers an opportunity for reform that we cannot afford to miss.
This is a citizens' bill that has the support of scientists, consumer groups, lawyers, doctors, journalists, writers and bloggers – more than 60,000 individuals have signed the Libel Reform Campaign's petition for reform. This rare consensus across society springs from the knowledge that the libel laws of England and Wales may chill the speech of anyone who has the courage to speak out in the public interest.
Since the campaign for libel reform began three years ago, you will be aware of the many cases of scientists who have faced ruinous libel suits simply for blowing the whistle on dangerous medical practices, of writers whose investigations in the public interest cannot be published in the UK for fear of an action and consumer forums who face threatening letters from claimant lawyers for exposing poor practice. If the law is not reformed, bullies will continue to be able to prevent the publication of stories that are often not only in the public interest, but a matter of public health and safety.
Our libel laws are not just a national disgrace, but an international concern. The UN human rights committee singled the UK out for the impact of libel on freedom of expression; the USA has introduced legislation to protect its citizens from our libel courts.
The defamation bill promises to bring libel law into the 21st century by providing effective defences for online publication, it will stop corporations from bullying individuals into silence, put an end to trivial and vexatious claims, and introduce a long overdue public interest defence.
This is an historic moment for free speech in this country. As writers and members of English Pen, we ask you to honour your commitment and ensure that the bill completes its passage by the end of this session of parliament.
Lisa Appignanesi, Jake Arnott, Julian Barnes, William Boyd, Amanda Craig, Margaret Drabble, Antonia Fraser, Michael Frayn, Stephen Fry, Victoria Glendinning, Mark Haddon, David Hare, Ronald Harwood, Michael Holroyd, Howard Jacobson, Hisham Matar, Ian McEwan, Susie Orbach, Salman Rushdie, Philippe Sands, Will Self, Kamila Shamsie, Gillian Slovo, Ali Smith, Tom Stoppard, Claire Tomalin, Raleigh Trevelyan

We're in the thousands. It would be flooding the gates. Would they want to sue each and everyone, who holds a critical view of what may have happened? It's a case of their very own making. Their inconsistencies, their turnabouts ... why wouldn't one be allowed to doubt the veracity? Apart from that: would they want to take on posters outside the U.K.?

Châtelaine wrote:We're in the thousands. It would be flooding the gates. Would they want to sue each and everyone, who holds a critical view of what may have happened? It's a case of their very own making. Their inconsistencies, their turnabouts ... why wouldn't one be allowed to doubt the veracity? Apart from that: would they want to take on posters outside the U.K.?

I agree, there were some 60,000 signed that last petition, but the situation is still unequal. Just look at Tony and Goncalo, their books banned in the UK and UK citizens at risk of losing all and being imprisoned for exercising their freedom of speech. I know Tony signed papers, but he was forced to, such again is the unequal situation where the rich have ordinary people by the 'thingies'.
However, UN and ECHR are agreed that freedom of expression is a right and that the current UK libel laws are wrong, so an appeal could be made on those grounds, but of course Mme. Mai is talking of taking UK out of the ECHR. What will follow that, taking us out of UN.
The only thing is, as you say, numbers. The UK populace will take just so much before apathy becomes discomfort, then anger, then an overturn. Maybe it won't need to get to a repetition of the American civil war, or a new French type revolution, but once people are pushed enough, the push backwards is not a pretty thing and politicians can get spilled in the stampede too. Some politicians are mindful of this, others, so arrogant and self-believing may miss the cues, but at their peril. "The peasants are revolting, sir" "yes I know, no finesse at all"
Head in sand means bottom sticking out. Beware, head-in-sanders.

Casey5 wrote:I enjoy Blacksmith's posts very much, even the ones I can't understand.
In this latest article he states that the press do not have drawers full of McCann related stories ready to unleash when needed. But then he says he was approached by a couple of journalists from different newspapers wanting information on the proposed settlement.
My question is why? If the papers aren't keeping info on the McCanns and don't ever print anything of a derogatory nature then why would they exert themselves in an effort to find out if the McCanns' had folded?
If they find that the McCanns' have fell on their sword then they won't print and apparently don't store it so why bother?

I agree - but Blacksmith qualified this statement about dossiers with the following sentence:

"Whatever finally appeared in the media would only do so when the facts had been established elsewhere."

Maybe they await the facts from officials sources first.