Letter from Madeleine Foundation to Clarence Mitchell

I see this letter is getting a favourable response on the MM forum.

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

This letter has been sent by the Madeleine Foundation to Clarence Mitchell today and may be reproduced.


The Madeleine Foundation
Asking the questions about what really happened to Madeleine McCann



Mr Clarence Mitchell Sunday 2 May 2010

Consultant, Crisis and Media Management

Freud Communications

55 Newman Street
LONDON W1T 3EB



Dear Mr Mitchell



re: New video produced by Jon Corner using images of Madeleine McCann with eye shadow and jewellery - now on YouTube



We write to express our concern about the images of Madeleine used by you, the McCanns and Jon Corner in the video message which was widely trailed in today’s newspapers and has already attracted several hundred views on YouTube. We understand that you as the McCanns’ chief public relations adviser must have approved the production and distribution of this video. Indeed, you are quoted in one of today’s newspapers as follows:



“McCann family spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: ‘The video is designed to remind people that the search for Madeleine is ongoing. Just because she’s not in the headlines every day doesn’t mean nothing is being done. Kate and Gerry are still devoting a large part of their daily lives to the search’.



The fact that your clients the McCanns explicitly approved the distribution of this video is clear from the following report of SKY News:

“Parents of Madeleine McCann, who went missing three years ago, have released a new video and photo of their missing daughter to mark the third anniversary of the girl's disappearance”.

The concern we have and that is being expressed by thousands of others is the use of clearly-posed photographs of a three-year-old wearing make-up, such as eye shadow, a necklace and lipstick.

You and your clients the McCanns have from the day Madeleine was reported missing claimed explicitly and on many occasions that Madeleine must have been abducted by a paedophile, or paedophiles, often described by you and your clients as ‘predatory’, ‘evil’, or ‘a monster’. Yet the images of Madeleine that you have allowed to be used in your campaign are of a child looking much older than her actual years - the very kinds of images that often appeal to paedophiles. Even former police detective, now leading criminologist and child protection expert Mark Williams-Thomas, who has often spoken with strong sympathy and understanding for your clients, has today commented adversely on the McCann Team’s use of these images of Madeleine on ‘Twitter’. He said, in five separate messages earlier today:

1) “On the eve of Madeleine's disappearance I agree with the release of a new photo but question the appropriateness of the photo chosen”

2) “Have not yet seen the new Madeleine video but the photograph is so inappropriate & damaging on so many levels - ill advised again”

3) “Am trying to find out now who gave advise [sic] to use the make up photo - so damaging - as I know what it will become”

4) Jon Corner may b able 2 answer ur question on who advised the McCanns to release THAT picture. He's friends with Esther McVey”

5) “No response yet re who advised of the use of recent photo of Madeleine - as soon as I get a response will let u know”.

There has also been questioning of the following statement in one of today’s newspapers:



“Kate and Gerry McCann have released a new picture of their daughter Madeleine as they prepare to commemorate tomorrow’s third anniversary of her disappearance. The photo shows her when she was three after a raid on the dressing-up box - she has a pink bow in her hair and a gold bead necklace and is wearing blue eyeshadow”.



The statement that the photograph shows her ‘after a raid on the dressing-up box’ implies that Madeleine made herself up but is open to serious question for at least the following reasons:



a) it is doubtful if Madeleine could have put on the necklace herself without adult help

b) similarly, the eyeshadow looks neatly put on in certain places around the eye, whereas a three-year-old attempting to put on eyeshadow would have probably made a mess of it

c) Madeleine appears to have no eyelashes. Photographic experts who have analysed the picture suggest that colour has been digitally added on, hiding they eyelashes

d) Madeleine’s eyebrows look quite different from other photos, possibly covered with some form of make-up

e) There appear to be two obvious brush tool traces above the eye on the right of the photo.



Thus, whatever the truth about the circumstances under which this picture was taken, there are very good grounds for believing that an adult has applied the make-up and also of course been there to take the photograph. Taken together with two of the other images of Madeleine shown in the film, it is perhaps not surprising that, for example, on sites like ‘Twitter’, ‘Facebook’ and other forums, comments like the following have been made:



“The picture of Madeleine reminds me of JonBenét Ramsey’s beauty pageant photos, that kind of images could entice sexual predators”.



“If CEOP endorse this type of public relations for a supposed missing child, then their role in child protection has to be questioned!”



“The latest photo the McCanns have released makes for very uncomfortable viewing. Alongside the Gaspars’ statements, something is very wrong here”.



The context here includes the ever-increasing sexualisation of young children, highlighted recently when a high street store, Primark, had to withdraw the marketing of padded bikini tops to 7-year-olds, following a storm of protest from parents. The dressing up of young children to look adult has been condemned by most child welfare organisations and with good reason. For example, a recent Home Office commissioned report stated: “The evidence gathered in the review suggests a clear link between consumption of sexualised images, a tendency to view women as objects and the acceptance of aggressive attitudes and behaviour as the norm”.

The circumstances in which that photograph of Madeleine was taken may have been wholly innocent, but as many people have been saying today, its use by your clients the McCanns in their attempts to locate a missing child possibly abducted by paedophiles is surely inappropriate. We would therefore ask you and your clients to remove the video from circulation and from YouTube.

Your clients obviously still want the whole world to look for Madeleine and not forget about Madeleine. The problem is that we do not know where to look nor who to look for. For example, fourteen different artists’ impressions have been published in British newspapers of people whom the McCanns claim are either the suspected abductor or ‘persons of interest’. Twelve of these are men and two are women.

As for where to look, the advice given by the McCanns’ private investigators suggests that despite using the services of many of them for nearly three years, there is not a single piece of useful information that you can give to the public which would enable us to know where to begin to look. Despite millions of pounds being spent on Metodo 3, Control Risks Group, Red Defence, Oakley International, senior ex-Metropolitan Police detectives, senior ex-MI5 security staff and now the team of ex-Detective Inspector Dave Edgar and ex-Detective Sergeant Arthur Cowley, we have not a jot of information on where to look.

Mr Edgar told newspapers last year that he was ‘convinced’ (his word) that Madeleine was being held ‘in a prison lair within 10 miles of Praia da Luz in the lawless hills around’. Subsequently you and Mr Edgar told a press conference that a conversation at 2.00am (which had been kept secret for two-and-a-half years) between a British banker who had been drinking round the bars of Barcelona and a woman looking like Victoria Beckham and with an Australian accent was ‘a strong lead’ and as a result a nationwide alert was put out in Australia. Prior to that, in December 2007, Mr Francisco Marco, the boss of the first major detective agency used by your clients, Metodo 3, told the British media that he ‘knew Madeleine was alive’, that ‘his men are closing in on where she is being kept’ and that ‘Madeleine will be home by Christmas’.

It would surely be much more helpful to the public to give out the best description of the abductor that the McCanns’ various detective agencies have, between them, been able to compile, so we know who to look for, and to give the public as much information as you are able to about what really happened to her. You have often been quoted in the newspapers as saying: “Our investigations are confidential…we cannot disclose the information our investigators have” etc. But this gives the public no help at all in knowing where to look for Madeleine.

I trust you will pass these comments on to your clients. At the same time we are raising with Mr Jim Gamble, Chief Executive of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP), and other organisations concerned with the welfare of children, whether they approve of appeals for a missing child being made using images of that child in a pose for the cameras and with a considerable degree of adult make-up.

Yours sincerely



Tony Bennett,
Secretary

Not so on Chaos Raptors:

Malty
Care to tell us who the photographic experts are Tony?|

2010-05-03 08:53:26 Mo
I do hope that drivel goes right in the bin where it belong with the rest of his inappropriate musings.

"Photographic experts who have analysed the picture .."

PMSL - does he mean the assorted mental cases at Haverns or the five hard-core nutters who are still members of his floundation?|

2010-05-03 09:26:46 Anonymous
You do give a terrific amount of column space to someone whose crazy ramblings you so clearly reject! I love the bit where tony quotes 'sky tv' as a credible source. Nobody can be that thick. Not someone who is so au fait with the press as tony. Either he's just your bog standard activist who'll say any old crap to score a hit or he is as poor an actor as Kate and Gerry who provide himself a convincing script. How about something on that bomb in new York? BW

|2010-05-03 10:09:22 Anonymous
As usual, this letter will be given the most cursory of glances before being either thrown in the bin or passed to their solicitors.

Bennett, I thought the choice of picture was unwise, but as usual you have taken what might have been a valid point and fulfilling your role as Head of Brain Damage (Rabies division), crapped on it from a height.

One more thing - I know you just adore the sound of your own voice, but did no-one ever teach you to keep a letter short, brief and to the point? Your letter is nonsensical, turgid and drool-splattered enough, without also having to be 28ft long.

|2010-05-03 10:47:22 The Hare
The Hare thought that Tony made some good points although I'm unsure what he hopes to achieve. The McCann's and CEOP are perfectly comfortable with this exploitation. Its a wider audience who need to become aware of the finer details of this case.

The Hare is still laughing at MWT described as a child protection expert, the guys another media whore making a living from the death of an innocent child, biting the hand thats been feeding him for these past 3 years. Times must be tough again.

|2010-05-03 10:49:58 vee8
Didn't take long to exploit the McCann's for your own selfish agenda, did it? When are you going to learn, bennett, you are long past the point of being irrelavent in this case. The only surprise is you didn't use your old catch-all phrase, 'The vast majority of the public thinks...'

|2010-05-03 10:58:44 anon
How predictable that the paedo protectors, child neglect supporters and child exploiters dont approve of the letter.

|2010-05-03 11:14:07 cata
Is this guy Bennet insane?
What the hell is he talking about?
thousands of people have expressed concern? Thousands? there surely isn't that many insane people out there? A worrying thought!
Bennet you will have a difficult job ahead of you,(but luckily for you , you are in your thousands!!) first job you have to protest outside every nursery school in the country all of them have a dressing up box with high heels long dresses and yes god forbid necklaces!, then you have to protest outside all the toy shops not only in the uk but the world they actually sell play make up can you imagine!! (beggers belief I know!)
Not only that but there are dress up clothes for boys too!!! OMG!!
May the force be with you!

anon
After reading the comments here from the McCann supporters, and having seen the inappropriate photographs and read the gaspar statements I am now convinced this case is about paedophilia and that the pro's are part of a paedophile ring being paid to help protect the McCanns.

When all this stuff comes out in the wash and the truth of what happened to Madeleine becomes known, I hope you can all live with your support of these two vile doctors who continue to exploit their own children for money.

|2010-05-03 12:22:06 eddie the Not Mole - hmmm.
Whilst I don't think Madeleine has been abducted by Paedos, I do think it somewhat inappropriate to have a little girl pose in make-up.......whatever the circumstances.

It is just yuk.!

|2010-05-03 10:49:58 vee8
Didn't take long to exploit the McCann's for your own selfish agenda, did it?



Nessling is quite happy for the McCanns to exploit Maddie and even the twins for their own selfish agenda though.

Those poor children.

Can't wait to read Tony's letter to Jim Gamble

Hurry up Tony! Type faster, faster, faster!

Jill, just had a look over on chaosraptors. I would say the pros are not having an easy time defending this photo.

*
anon
Those of you who think that photo is Madeleine looking impish and having a laugh are sick. You are clearly paedo protectors. That is not a normal photo of a 3 year old. No way did she put that make up on herself. There are other pics of her wearing make up too. Why don't you all wake up and realise that the allegations by the Gaspars regarding Payne and McCann may just have some substance and that Madeleine may have been the victim of abuse, even sexual abuse? Why are you all defending that? You pro's are all sick.

*
|2010-05-02 21:06:02 BW (again!)
In the context of the video I have say that the shot of the child in her mum's make-up isn't that shocking in retrospect (although my wife pointed out that Kate seldom seems to wear any make-up at all). I probably wouldn't have thought it that odd if it hadn't have been pointed out. But I suppose that's how stuff get's planted in people's minds (still a surprising choice, though).

I'm more intrigued by the style of the video. It has the syrupy feel of a TV show. Reminds me of those slo-mo, retrospective montages you get on shows like Flashforward - with the poignant, heavy soundtrack stuff on it. Kate and Gerry head in hands, staring at computer screens, walking with cuddle-cat in hand. Very stylised, contrived stuff. Seems more like the intent is to arouse sympathy for their own plight rather than their daughter's.

We have friends in Kos who remember Ben Needham's mum knocking door to door on houses on the island asking questions month in month out, year in, year out. They said she was just a shell of a woman and cut a lonely, wretched figure. She clearly wasn't making any progress but she just kept going round the same old houses - often forgetting that she'd already been.

I remember a man who lived on our street. I was on the same road when his 10-year daughter was killed in a car accident very close to where we lived. She'd been born with a hole in the heart but after surgery it looked liked she had a future. The parents been very protective but their friends had eventually persuaded them to let her go off with her playmates once in a while. And a little time later she was knocked down by a young man in his first car. Newly qualified and showing off. I still have the image of the child's father as he walked down our street everyday after work. When you've seen a truly broken man - or a broken woman - you know when someone is not broken - and this is not a broken couple. They are physically wrecked. Their body almost collapses under them as they walk.

There is something almost voyeuristic about the new film, like they derive somekind of pleasure in their 'suffering'. It's how I would expect inexperienced actors to play the part. Or someone with a martyr complex.

Quite surreal.

*
|2010-05-02 23:13:49 Mum21 to Anon
Anon..if you post up sick, evil dirty minded messages like this

(Quote)Those of you who think that photo is Madeleine looking impish and having a laugh are sick. You are clearly paedo protectors. That is not a normal photo of a 3 year old. No way did she put that make up on herself. There are other pics of her wearing make up too. Why don't you all wake up and realise that the allegations by the Gaspars regarding Payne and McCann may just have some substance and that Madeleine may have been the victim of abuse, even sexual abuse? Why are you all defending that? You pro's are all sick.(Unquote)

at least have the courage to put a name to your post.
You yellow bellied coward.

*
|2010-05-03 01:43:30 Mo
Quote:
Those of you who think that photo is Madeleine looking impish and having a laugh are sick. You are clearly paedo protectors. That is not a normal photo of a 3 year old. No way did she put that make up on herself.


Oh lordy, what an admission - were you unable to stop yourself revealing what thoughts enter your sick perverted mind when you see a picture of a little child playing with make up and dressing up?

And paedo protectors? No really, that would mean protecting people like YOU and I am quite sure nobody in their right mind would be willing to do that. Disgusting beyond words.

*
|2010-05-03 04:26:34 Anonymous
It's such a shame that people couldn't discuss this picture without it descending into name-calling

Like it or not, many people will have an instinctive, visceral reaction to this image. It is not for anyone else to tell them that reaction and/or their opinion, is wrong.

In particular, this post.....
Quote:
And have you ever considered the option that you have a very diseased mind, anon?
It is a picture of a little girl playing dress-up. If you choose to see anything else in it, then it is you who has the problem.


.........is very insulting.

My instinctive reaction to the picture was that it made me feel very uncomfortable. Maybe it has to do with context - we are, after all talking about a child whom has apparently been taken by a man, and presumably a paedophile. Like it or not, and unfortunate though it is, the image is one which portrays Madeleine in an adult pose, and looking far older than her three years.

The question that was posed for debate was whether the choice of photo was appropriate. My personal feeling is that it was inappropriate and unwise - but that is my personal opinion, which is what we were being asked for. Please don't try to turn it into a pro vs anti argument. And as for suggesting that the poster has a diseased mind - well that is a really shitty, low blow. I thought the image was inappropriate and I make no apology for that.

Are you going to tell me I have a diseased mind, too?

*
|2010-05-03 07:32:19 vee8
To express the opinion that the picture may be inapropriate is fine. We all have opinions, and we don't all agree. To say that this picture proves the McCann's are paedophiles is utterly sick, and comes from a deseased mind, and people who post crap like that need to be told, in no uncertain terms, that their thoughts are decidedly unhealthy. Two more points. The gaspar statement, was made by one half of a married couple. The other half strongly refuted every word. Secondly, if my wife ever put eye shadow on in such a slapdash, smudged and smeary manner I would nor be seen out in public with her. Madeleine slearly put that eye shadow on by herself, to suggest otherwise is lame and pathetic.

*
|2010-05-03 09:25:45 snoop
Quote:
do not use this open invitation to bash the McCanns


aw, don't be coy. its exactly that.

*
|2010-05-03 10:26:52 @vee8
So it's okay to express an opinion about the photo, is it?

This comment would suggest otherwise
Quote:
It is a picture of a little girl playing dress-up. If you choose to see anything else in it, then it is you who has the problem.


By the way, I have to correct you on a factual inaccuracy. The second Gaspar statement did not '' strongly refute every word'' of the first. Sorry, can't let you get away with that untruth

*
|2010-05-03 10:46:43 cata
A little girl playing dress up what's wrong with that?
If anyone sees anything bad in that photo I think you need to ask yourself what's wrong with you

*
|2010-05-03 12:28:13 eddie the NOT Mole - ?
Sorry, I don't care if she is just playing dress-up....it is total YUK to have a girl pose like that...ok for the house, and mum and dad to coo over, but not a picture to be made public.
I am also one of those people that find little kids singing big adult songs (think 'Britain's Got Talent') also very Yuk and puke-making.

Considering that the McCanns are saying that Madeleiene has been abducted by paedophiles - this seems a really, really STUPID thing to do!
Clarence Mitchell is a pretty dumb-ass PR man too. He should've seen this one coming.

*
|2010-05-03 12:57:50 Sabot
The only thing wrong with that photograph is the assumptions drawn by sick minded Antis, one of whom I seem to remember, actually doctored a photograph of Madeleine in a similar fashion. I don't remember any Antis complaining about that when the truth came to light. That was okay, was it?

*
|2010-05-03 13:34:09 The Hare
"The only thing wrong with that photograph is the assumptions drawn by sick minded Antis"

So Mark Williams Thomas ( a paid McCann mouthpiece) has suddenly become a sick minded anti ?

You cant have it both ways, you cant proclaim this guy to be a leading child protection expert when he's being paid to promote the abduction scenario, and then classify him as a sick twisted pervert when he offers an opinion that you disagree with.

Personally, I've always been pretty consistant, he's a sick media whore scratching out an existance of the back of dead child, and his actions and motives require very close scrutiny.

*
|2010-05-03 13:45:43 fft

Quote:
We have friends in Kos who remember Ben Needham's mum knocking door to door on houses on the island asking questions month in month out, year in, year out. They said she was just a shell of a woman and cut a lonely, wretched figure. She clearly wasn't making any progress but she just kept going round the same old houses - often forgetting that she'd already been.
--------------------------------

Just an aside, Kerry moved back to the uk two months after her child went missing.
Not that there is anything wrong with that, we all deal with loss and the unknown in our own way but it is unlikely she was the one doing the knocking on doors. Regardless of her actions or inactions I wish her good news or closure, she is a strong woman.

As for the image of Madeleine, I have seen haters hate the fact that too many images were released, just as I have seen them hate the fact that not enough were released, it is simply fact that for some people hating the McCann family has become a rather bizarre way of life, trying to analyse what led them to this odd existence is pointless and potentially depressing. It would also not really help either them, ourselves or the targets of their unhappiness. They will find other targets soon enough, probably equally baffling ones.

*
|2010-05-03 09:14:20 Anonymous
This photo shows for sure that Madeleine did have a neck, stick that up your arse Stevo. [DELETED]

*
|2010-05-03 14:24:41 sickos are disgusting
when in doubt, wheel out the Gaspar statement. that's the one where only the wife apparently has anything to say, is a translation of a translation, and I seem to recall it is not actually in the files.
And is contradicted by the husband anyway.
That is what the Hewlitt sympathizers base all their foul imaginings on. Oh, and a little girl playing dress-up.
so, why should everything the McCanns do have to pass some test by people who have very sick minds.
whatever they do is wrong anyway, so why should they or anyone else pay attention to a bunch of sickos?

*
|2010-05-03 14:51:52 The Hare
There is no contradiction in the Gaspers statements.

Even team McCann's own tame child protection expert is sticking the knife in again. We know why, but the public doesnt.. whoops

I don't know why they even bother to defend it when there is an allegation of a child molestor within that group of friends - so Goncalo Amaral said, publicly.

Surely with a case like this, and the allegations that surround it, it is no-ones place to defend those pictures, particularly when even Mark Williams-Thomas is against them? In fact, how dare anyone try to defend them when the truth is yet to be known about what happened to Maddie? It is possible that Maddie suffered something extremely horrible - especially if its true that she's dead - and for people to say she was having fun could well be a very big insult to her.

It's like saying Baby P was enjoying that bar of chocolate that was, in fact, covering up something far more sinister...before he died an agonising death alone in his cot.

I sent the Clarence Mitchell letter to one of our customers, an ex-teacher, who picked up before on Jane Tanner's rather careless and common references of sexual innuendo in her statements. Here's the exchange of correspondence between us today after he had seen the letter:

FROM [withheld]
Subject: Re: BBC E-mail: Madeleine parents thank helpers
To: "ANTHONY BENNETT" <ajsbennett@btinternet.com>
Date: Monday, 3 May, 2010, 21:13

Dear Tony,

My sentiments exactly...I was going to add observations akin to yours and others on the email I sent but there was no room to add it.

If you remember some months ago I made comment to you about Janes Tanner's comments (repeated sexual innuendo) in her interviews with Portuguise the police. I stated it was almost as though she had no concept that to constantly joke/repeat sexual innuendo whilst in a police interview on a possible child abduction was not normal...she had no sense that what she was saying would not sound 'good'. It was normal to her!!

Now the pictures of Madeleine in make up clearly put on for her at the age of three. The same can be suggested. That the parents found this behaviour 'normal' and hence saw no possible problems with releasing such images. It is normal to them!!

I would also suggest and in no way related to the McCanns...a paedophile's behaviour is normal to them!!!!

With grave, grave concerns.

[withheld]

REPLY

Dear [withheld]

I think that is a very perceptive analysis if I may say so and, yes, paedophiles do what they do because they have very little in the way of conscience and have a sense of entitlement about what they do.

I saw an amazing video film recently about the paedophile and pervert Alfred Kinsey - the bloke who wrote all those books on Sex and Human Behaviour in the 1940s/1950s. The film-maker interviewed those who had been associated with him, some of whom perpetrated truly appalling acts on very young children, disguised as part of their so-called 'research', and - just as you say - some of them (those prepared to be interviewed on tape, that is) could see little or nothing wrong with their behaviour.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts,

Tony

There is nothing abnormal about possesing an image of your child in make up. I have several of my daughter in fact at a similar age. Most little girls love to dress up and put on make up. What i do find bizarre is that two well educated individuals, who have repeatedly claimed that their daughter may have been targetted by an international paedophile ring or lone predator, deem it acceptable to release such images.

They have repeatedly claimed that the reason for not showing emotion is that they were advised not to - as the abductor might get off on it. Surely any normal and sane thinking person would apply the same logic when releasing images of their missing child.

[quote="kangdang"]They have repeatedly claimed that the reason for not showing emotion is that they were advised not to - as the abductor might get off on it. Surely any normal and sane thinking person would apply the same logic when releasing images of their missing child.[quote]
inthenews.co.uk - 5 May 2009, report of the McCanns on the Oprah Winfrey* show:

The couple also admitted they had been advised not to show any emotion while in front of the media, because any potential abductor may get a "kick out of it".

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

* Talking of whom:

14th April, 2010

Oprah Winfrey lied about childhood and sexual abuse

A new biography of Oprah revealed that she made up these stories to boost her reputation

Oprah Winfrey has repeatedly lied about her upbringing and made up stories about sexual abuse to boost her reputation, a new book claims.

The talk-show queen has always maintained that she grew up so poor in rural Mississippi that she never had any new dresses or dolls and could only keep cockroaches as pets.

However, a new biography has claimed that Winfrey was spoiled as a child. In the biography Oprah, author Kitty Kelley has claimed that Winfrey's tales have alienated her from much of her family.

"Where Oprah got that nonsense about growing up in filth and cockroaches I have no idea," the New York Post quoted Winfrey's cousin Katherine Carr Ester as saying in the book. "I''ve confronted her and asked; ''Why do you tell such lies?'' ... Oprah told me: ''That's what people want to hear - the truth is boring'," Katherine added.

Vernon Winfrey, the talk show host's adoptive father, reportedly told the author he felt ashamed about her lies.

"She may be admired by the world, but I know the truth; so does God and so does Oprah," he said.

[quote]"She may be admired by the world, but I know the truth; so does God and so does...," he said.[quote]

That's a thought the Drs should ponder.

[quote="kangdang"]There is nothing abnormal about possesing an image of your child in make up. I have several of my daughter in fact at a similar age. Most little girls love to dress up and put on make up. What i do find bizarre is that two well educated individuals, who have repeatedly claimed that their daughter may have been targetted by an international paedophile ring or lone predator, deem it acceptable to release such images.

They have repeatedly claimed that the reason for not showing emotion is that they were advised not to - as the abductor might get off on it. Surely any normal and sane thinking person would apply the same logic when releasing images of their missing child.[quote]

-------------
I see nothing provocative in that picture whatsoever and as you say all little girls do it,it is not the remotest bit sexual and I find it disturbing that some people think it is.Paedophiles prefer children to look like children and not mini adults.

What has the post about OW got to do with it??

Rainbow, paedophiles desires cannot and must not be generalised - it would be a grave mistake indeed to do so.

I agree that images taken a face value may not appear provocative to some (with the exception of the lollipop sucking one). But when they are compiled as an exclusive trio, in an appeal for a little girl where it has been suggested many times over that that child has been abducted by an international paedophile ring or lone paedophile, one has to question the rationality of those who deemed the photos suitable.

In the statements the way some of them describe Madeleine is imo the way you would refer to an adult and not a child. To release this photo which many find inappropriate and disturbing shows as has been said this was 'normal' to them, as I suspect was the conversation between DP and GM which was overheard by the Gaspars - that was 'normal' talk to them, there is also the comment made by GM about if she had been taken by paedophiles she would not come to any harm. Paedophiles do not believe they are causing harm to the child.

Rainbow wrote ................ 'Paedophiles prefer children to look like children and not mini adults.'

************************************************************

Best not to comment on subjects that one does not know enough about.

Paedophiles are unique individuals and have individual tastes, so please keep any ridiculous generalisations to yourself.

'nough said...

Terry Blacker in the "Independent" has broched the subject of "That" photo.

Laffin Sir, you really need to get out more, it is posted up here in several threads.

Mark Williams-Thomas is still twittering about the photos

Re Madeleine image i have had no response so will be speaking to someone else this afternoon- will update as soon as i know
about 2 hours ago via TweetDeck
However the new make up image of Madeleine which is highly inappropriate would not have been published without Gerry & Kate agreeing to it
about 2 hours ago via TweetDeck
Cannot see any reason how the 2 new images of Madeleine can be justified-given the scale of sexual exploitation of children & child erotica
about 1 hour ago via TweetDeck

[quote]CEOP derives its statutory powers from the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 and CEOP is therefore exempt from The Freedom of Information Act 2000. Nevertheless it is the policy of CEOP to be as open and transparent in our dealings with the public where possible and each request for information will be considered on a case by case basis.[quote]

Edited..should have read further down the thread where i pilfered....lol

Glad you posted the latest MWT twitter cos I was just about to.

Can you update the thread you started in the '3rd anniversary section' please?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[quote="Judge Mental"]Rainbow wrote ................ 'Paedophiles prefer children to look like children and not mini adults.'

************************************************************

Best not to comment on subjects that one does not know enough about.

Paedophiles are unique individuals and have individual tastes, so please keep any ridiculous generalisations to yourself.[quote]


It isn't a ridiculous generalisation.

I agree vaguely1. It is an uneducated generalisation.

'Rainbow wrote ................ 'Paedophiles prefer children to look like children and not mini adults.'


vaguely1 wrote .................... 'It isn't a ridiculous generalisation.'

*********************************************************

It is an utterly ridiculous and ludicrous generalisation about the preferences of paedophiles.

As Isaac Newton once said in berating Halley, 'Sir Halley, I have studied the matter, you have not!”

The police and experts on the heinous practice of paedophilia would also disagree. Therefore I would suggest you put up or shut up.

Your time, energy and argumentative capacity would be better spent in writing to Team McCann and asking them why they said Madeleine had been taken through the window when the said window and shutter had not been damaged or tampered with. Or ask them why they would not co-operate in re-creating their personal time-lines for the PJ. Perhaps you could ask them why have persisted in ignoring the evidences of the cadaver dog and his blood-scenting pal.

There are many people you could argue with over matters concerning this case without wasting our time here supporting unsupportable arguments.

Where did you study the matter?

And as a mod is there really any need for your overly aggressive and dismissive attitude?

vaguely1 wrote ................. 'And as a mod is there really any need for your overly aggressive and dismissive attitude?'

***********************************************************

This seems like another somewhat sweeping statement. I will refrain from answering lest we waste any more time. I have noted what you have stated and in future I will try my damnedest not to sound like Gerald McCann outside a court in Portugal.

But where did you study the matter?

I would like to say once again that Tony Bennett's letters have had an enormous impact this week.

Would you mind editing your post 2 above - you appear to have edited rather than quoted.

ty.