Friday, 26 April 2013

A Relevant and Known Fleet Street Story?


Neil Wallis was informed in February 2013 that he was not being charged with any offences in relation to the phone hacking investigation.

Wallis previously had a contract to provide  Scotland Yard with "communication, advice and support"

We don't know what the unravelling saga in the middle of the Leveson Inquiry relates to.

What we do know is that when Leveson was set up, it was said that its recommendations should pass "The McCann Test", whatever that might be.

We can also assume that mainstream media cannot be relied upon to publish important and relevant disclosures.

Steve Hewlett interviews Neil Wallis on Radio 4 - 12.7.12

Steve Hewlett (SH) - It was 168 years old, Britain’s biggest selling newspaper and the cornerstone of Rupert Murdoch’s media business in the UK, but almost exactly a year ago, engulfed by the phone hacking scandal of its own making and amidst the unmistakeable whiff of corporate cover-up and corruption, the company abruptly closed it and the rest, as they say, is history.

200 people lost their jobs, scores have been arrested, with most still waiting to find out if they will face criminal charges and the government set up the Leveson Inquiry. But is Britain better off without its regular News of the Screws, as it used to be known?

Neil Wallis has a long career in tabloid newspapers, culminating in a spell as deputy editor of The News of the World.

I spoke to him a little earlier today and I should just make it clear he is currently on police bail as part of the phone hacking investigation, which explains why we couldn’t discuss any of these matters in detail.

I started by asking him if the NoW could have stayed open.

Neil Wallis (NH) - I think it would have been very bumpy and I think it would have taken a man of Rupert Murdoch’s deep pockets and determination, but the wrong suggestion that the voice mails had been deleted was beyond the pale and I think that they panicked.

SH - He has said since, just not long ago, that he wished he’d closed it sooner.

NH - Yes, I was disappointed that he said that and I was disappointed on hundreds of newspaper people who lost their jobs and whose careers had been wrapped up in it and I don’t believe he really meant it.

SH - Do you think we’ve missed it?

NH - Enormously. There is a huge human cost, which is that 200 terrific journalists lost their jobs and a great institution closed down and, yes, I absolutely understand that there have been issues that have tarnished the name of NoW, but let’s remember, that NoW is.... was nearly 200 years old. NoW was breaking enormous stories and setting the agenda and changing governments, long before the invention of the mobile phone.

SH - You say that, but most people’s recollections of NoW was, you know, vicars, knickers and what you might call tittle-tattle and a guilty pleasure at best maybe, but not, generally speaking, what you might call important stuff.

NH - That might be a Radio 4 interpretation of the memory, with respect to you Steve and it might be the chattering classes and the Whitehall village, but that’s you not understanding what the Great British Public are and what they like and the great skill, not only of NoW, which was the past master of it, but also the tabloid industry, which has been so damaged in the past year, actually understand them more than they care about what you think.

SH - So what do you think Britain has lost then?

NH - It’s going to do incalculable damage to every part of journalism in this country, unless you’re the BBC which is paid for by everybody else.

SH - Why is all journalism damaged? You could take the opposite view and say, well, as a result of NoW you could say…

NH - You could say but I wouldn’t agree with it...

SH - We have the Leveson Inquiry and finally, finally, the press’s dirty secrets are being turned over, aired and maybe some good will come..

NH - I can hear that view and it’s a view that is proposed primarily by the BBC, The Guardian, whose sales are plunging towards £200 thousand.. currently losing in the region of £50 million a year... The Independent, which loses a fortune. And the Great British Public don’t give a damn about what those people think.

SH - All I’m saying is what NoW and other newspapers have done on occasion, some of what they have done may be wholly laudable and very good, other things they have done weren’t very good and Leveson has at least exposed it.

NH - I think the British public has a pretty good idea of what they were buying into and what they bought. I think that there’s a number of things that have come out in Leveson I have sat there and winced at, without question, but any lawyer who has managed to pass his exams will tell you that single incidents don’t make good law. And I have no doubt at all, as my former colleague Neville Thurlbeck wrote in a blog the other day, that since the demise of NoW and since the Leveson law, came into effect, because that’s what we already have.. .

SH - You mean because people are reacting to the fact the Leveson exists?

NH - Newspapers are terrified of running stories

SH - So you think that the Leveson Inquiry in and of itself has what they describe as a chilling effect?

NH - What Michael Gove said is absolutely true. I know of at least three instances of astonishing stories which are widely known around Fleet Street that ought to have been aired, which haven’t been aired because newspapers are too scared of Leveson. I know a columnist who at least three times has had items removed from their column because they were asking questions to do with the Leveson Inquiry and the issues it raised and all of these issues..

SH - So, even stories critical of Leveson himself and his Inquiry are being pulled, you say?

NH - Absolutely they are. There’s an absolute classic Fleet Street story right in the middle of the Leveson Inquiry. Everyone knows about it, nobody is writing. It’s relevant to know how the whole saga has unravelled and let me say this...

SH - You don’t want to tell us what it is, I suppose?

NH - No, I don’t.

Friday, 19 April 2013


An unpublished comment received that, for obvious reasons, was censored:

“Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "TheClub of 4":

You really f****d up this time, you dozy cow. The book is crap, and they all know it

Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at Apr 12, 2013, 10:56:00 PM”

Oddly enough, sometimes we’re in total agreement with Insane, like when s/he said that s/he had witnessed a crime in PdL. We agreed fully then.

Now we find ourselves again fully agreeing with what Insane has said above.

We agree fully only with the second sentence, that is. About the first one, as usual, we’ll leave it up to our readers to make up their minds.

Let us start by saying that we think Danny Collins is the worst possible stereotype that Britain is able to produce.

The typical arrogant, self-centered, morally hypocritical and abusively xenophobic bloke down the road that is fed and feeds the tabloid culture, an exclusive British product.

He appears to be one of those Empire-addicted people who divide the world’s population into a classical three-class cast system. The first cast are the Brits or the masters, the second cast, the servants or all those who should treat the Brits as Sahib or something of the sort and the third and final cast, the unclean or all those who are just simply too ignorant to be servants to the Brits.

In terms of content, “Vanished”, is so factually imprecise that one is almost afraid to open its pages for fear of having it fall completely apart and physically crumble in one’s hand.

To avoid stooping to the language used by Insane, let’s just say that the book is ridiculous.

The only missing characteristics to complete the above description of Mr Collin’s worst-possible-British-stereotype would be for him to also be the drinking, loudmouth and troublemaking Brit who is easily identifiable in the many touristic resorts around southern Europe.

But if one judges Mr Collin’s ability to create fantasist scenarios as well as his capability to contradict himself, sometimes even in the same paragraph, one can only assume he was under the influence of some psychotropic or hallucinogenic substance when writing the book.

The book is indeed absolutely and utterly ridiculous, to say the least.

But why would anyone allow an author to accuse them of lying if they weren't, particularly the McCanns? In a radio interview, this very April, with Joan Lea, Mr Collins says the McCanns have read the manuscript and in the book says he spoke to Clarence Mitchell about contents - so why no contradictions from any of them?

Kate’s book only dismisses wandered off theory without any reference to “Vanished”. Very far from the assertiveness expected to refute a public “plausible” theory based exclusively on calling the McCanns liars.

That makes one ask what author would submit his allegations to those he was writing about and calling them liars? What would he do if they had objected?

Amazingly they didn’t.

"Vanished" is, as we've already said, absolutely and utterly ridiculous.

However, do you remember when we also used the adjective “ridiculous” about something here in the blog?

It was when we said: “If I were to elect the most ridiculous of all statements in the PJ Files, I would have to pick Derek Flack’s

Ridiculous doesn’t necessarily mean worthless.

On the contrary, as Flack’s statements have demonstrated, the ridiculous sometimes prove to be of crucial importance.

In the case of “Vanished”, an overlooked treasure as we’ve called it.

Flack’s statements prove the direct involvement in the cover-up went beyond the Tapas 9. That this direct involvement went also beyond the Ocean Club and the Guests as Flack didn’t belong to any of the referred groups.

Much in the same way, “Vanished” proves the direct involvement in the cover-up of people from within the PJ.

That’s how important the book is and that’s not all of its importance as you’ll see.

A very, very important book indeed. It's not about what Mr Collins says but about what Mr Collins says when he's saying what he's saying and when he's saying it.

Let’s contextualize this literary whatever. Mr Collins, twice I believe, refers in the book that the McCanns still had their arguido status and that it wasn’t foreseeable when that would be changed.

We know that the McCann’s arguido status was lifted in July 2008, which means that the book was written before then.

That, in turn, means it was written before the PJ Files were released.

Now go back and read the book and ask yourself how it is possible for a Spanish-based British journalist to be able to know information that you now know but only because you’ve read the files.

It’s said that he copied and pasted information from the tabloids. If that is so, could please someone tell me in which tabloid, or any other media agent, published, before July 2008, that Dr. Oldfield convenientky "repolished" his initial statement, or as Mr Collins says on page 4: "Matthew Oldfield had told the police that he merely listened at the rear of the apartment for any sound but now he reorganised his statement and claimed he walked into the apartment through the unlocked patio doors and listened at the half-open bedroom door"?

Please name one newspaper, tabloid or other, that, prior to July 2008, speaks of Dr. Oldfield’s convenient remembrance, on May 10th, 2007, of a second check on the McCann's kids that he had simply forgot to mention just a few days before on his first statement, with the detail with which Mr Collins describes, not only on page 4 as throughout the book.

One could say that it was the Brit Police that was feeding the man.

We’re certain, by reading the book, that Mr Collins was fed information by the British Police but to say that it was his sole source is to overlook an important detail about the details which populate Mr Collin’s book: the PJ Files were written in Portuguese.

That means that Mr. Collins was fed information by someone close to the Portuguese investigation.

Any PJ files of an ongoing investigation are not shared. Only those with direct relationship with the investigation have access to them.

The files are only sent to the higher echelon once a final or intercalary report is written.

In the case of the Maddie’s PJ Files, only a final report was written and it was dispatched, as we know, for the process to be archived. But that was in July 2008.

So from who did Mr. Collins get the information pertaining Maddie that was written in Portuguese?

Mr. Collins in his generous acknowledgments does recognize the help from Portuguese police members: “I include a whispered muito obrigado to those more simpatico members of the Portuguese Guarda Nacional Republicana (GNR) and Judicial Police who opened their minds to me regarding the progress of the investigation. Thank you guys, for your expert observations and comments. Honour bound, I won’t tell if you don’t! (pag xii)

The GNR had no access to such sensitive information that is in the book.

It seems then that Mr Amaral is quite right in thinking that he was back-stabbed by his own because indeed he was.

I would like to remind all those within the PJ that have betrayed their nation in favour of a foreign power, of Miguel de Vasconcelos e Brito who was defenestrated back in December 1st, 1640.

We’re not supportive of any sort of physical violence, either by citizens or by state, so let us make it perfectly clear that we’re not advocating any sort physical harm to these traitors, only hoping they will feel the shame they deserve to feel.

But we did say that “Vanished” was much more important than the fact that it proved that Mr Amaral was literally next to his worst enemies.

It’s important because it’s symptomatic.

It reveals what the BHs felt in that first period of the Great Maddie War, from September 2007 to July 2008.

During that time, uncertainty reined within the BHs ranks. UK had told Portugal to play along but until everything was black on white, as the Portuguese say, with the archiving dispatch, all was an open game.

However unlikely, but the obedient Portuguese could, for some strange reason, decide not to comply.

That’s the reason this book was written. To react preemptively to the scenario of the parents being charged by badmouthing them to make sure that attention remained on them and in no way would digress in the direction of the guests.

No abduction? Then the idea would then be to convey that the parents lied to hide the fact that Maddie had wandered off thus continuing to contain the events within the T9.

The absence of a reaction on the part of the McCanns about the book is ample proof that the couple had little or nothing to say about their own fate.

The BHs were setting the McCanns up in a scenario they had to accept as the lies about a break in had become too obvious

This was a job paid for to an absolutely soulless individual to do and he did it. He isn't another lunatic putting another absurd theory out there.

About that, there aren't as many lunatics on this subject as it's made to believe there are. Yes, they do put out absolutely absurd theories but they're far from being people who suffer from any sort of lunacy.

They're "lunatics" not lunatics.

But the fact that he did it, now allows us to analyse its content with the same objectiveness we asked you to have when looking at the Paraiso pictures back in 2010, when the Big Round Table and the T9 Watersports began to be debunked.

Sift through the ridiculousness of the ridiculous. Read it with the serious, objective mindset the subject deserves.

For example, when walking down a road you come to a bifurcation and there stands a person, who you mistrust completely, telling you to take the road to the right, do ask yourself what are the reasons for that person not wanting you to know where the left road may lead to.

When reading, do keep in mind that never in Mr. Collins' wildest dreams at the time, nor in those of those who "ordered" this work, occurred that soon after the book's publication the PJ Files would be publicly released and that Mr Amaral would write a book.

This meant that Mr Collins wrote this book thinking he could get away with saying anything. A common mistake made by many that left physical registry of their "opinion" prior to July 2008.

Like this "Manuela" who "forgot" that she had already said that she wasn't at Tapas that night, "forgot" that another woman had already stated she was the cook that night, "forgot" that the menu had already been detailed and "forgot" that the creche next to Tapas wasn't the one that Maddie went to:

"Forgot" or didn't know or wasn't told.

Not all were fed information the way Mr. Collins was.

About calling me a cow, by looking at how much Humanity should respect this animal as it owes it an enormous chunk of its nutrition, both in meat and dairy products, I can only take it as a compliment.


"That around 9.05pm, the interviewee went to the area of the apartments. Notably to the area near the windows of all the children's bedrooms. That he did not hear any noise. That he considered that all the children were sleeping. That all the children's bedroom windows were closed, notably the windows that gave access to the bedroom occupied by Madeleine.

That after this check, he returned to the restaurant, saying that all the children were asleep. However, Gerry, Madeleine's father, went to the area of the apartments to check for himself if the children were asleep. That Gerry would have entered  into his apartment and that he checked to make sure that Madeleine and the twins were sleeping in their bedroom, where it was quite dark. The bedroom door was left open. That five minutes later, Gerry came back to the group in the restaurant." 

Dr Oldfield's second statement: 

"Benefiting from meeting them next to the residences, he adds that, on his own initiative, he made a 'listening check' at the bedroom window of MBM and the twins at 21h05. That he limited himself to approach the bedroom window on the outside of the apartment to check if the children were crying or awake.

He adds to have not heard any noise nor perceived anything out of the ordinary. He went on to do the same check at the bedroom windows of his daughter and ROB's daughters.


Some minutes later, at 21h25, the deponent went to his apartment to do a further check, he having done that together with ROB who intended to do the same with his two girls.

At that time he offered [made himself available] to perform a check in the bedroom of MBM.

Questioned about his motives for such a check, going against the prevailing/established procedure, or - why would two people have gone to check the three apartments (in this case the witness and ROB going to check their own apartments and that of GM), the deponent explained that both [men] had suggested that KM remain in the restaurant [they] assuming the responsibility of verifying the children.

Nonetheless, and the question asked, he relates not being able to state exactly if the suggestion was made by himself or by ROB, adding not being able to clarify why it was done, but, in the case of it having been he [MO] to make such a suggestion it would have been due to, having spent days on holiday together, [there already being] a very close friendship with the couple [allowing him] to enter their apartment.

That, on that occasion, ROB and he went to their own residences, to check on their own children. After leaving his apartment he went to that of ROB who opted to stay there to calm his daughter who was crying, that done with the deponent went alone to the McCann apartment. He clarifies that ROB's daughter was ill, with vomiting.

To this end, he took the quickest route between ROB's apartment and the side garden gate entrance to the rear patio of the McCann residence, to which he gained access through the glass sliding door into the apartment lounge. The door was closed but not locked as KM had said it would be.

That he did not enter the bedroom where MBM and the twins were sleeping. He recalls that the bedroom door was half open, making an angle of 50 degrees. He does not know how far away he was from the bedroom door. He recalls having the perception that the window curtains - green in colour - were drawn closed but could not determine if the window was closed or open. Concerning the external blinds he clarifies that he did not see if it was closed or open. He recalls having thought that in that bedroom there was more brightness than there was in his daughter's room (where the external blinds were always fully closed), adding to have had the feeling that that light was coming from the outside - making the point that both were turned in the same direction.

Consequently, he admits the possibility of the light he was perceiving was owing to the blinds being raised, denying however that he was capable of assessing the height at which it may have been.

The question asked, he was sure that, at the time of his first being in the vicinity of MBM's bedroom, reported as 21h05 in the course of which he had approached the the window of that bedroom from the outside for the purpose of an auditory check, the blinds were, in his view, fully closed.

Consequently, he is convinced that at the time of the second check the blinds were more open than on the first check, given that he considers that the light inside the bedroom, undoubtedly coming from the outside, could not have been coming through it [the blinds] if they had been fully closed.

Following on, convinced that everything was within normality, given that he perceived no noise to make him think otherwise, and further, due to, in his mind, having managed to glimpse the two twins inside their cots, the deponent returned to the restaurant to finish dinner.

Asked, he clarifies to not have seen MBM lying on the bed in the bedroom because from where he was during the check he had no sight of that bed.

The question asked, he relates that he thinks he returned to Tapas between 21h25 and 21h30, telling the others in the group that he found everything within normality in the residential block."

Friday, 12 April 2013

The Club of 4

“There are basically four kinds of Enablers in the Maddie Affair: Diplomatic, Judicial, Police and Media ones.

Some would say that a fifth group should be considered.”

“Which is?”

“The Disrupters. They’re paid hands and couldn’t care less if the tide is ebbing or flowing as long as the checks keep coming.

That differentiates them from all the other 4 groups who, although just being indirect stakeholders, they are still stakeholders and that makes them very interested in the out come of things even if they have little or no say about it.

Disrupters are only worried who will be the next to pay for their talent for gratuitous violence.

So we don’t see Disrupters as Enablers. Much too much detachment and cold-heartedness, the pure Disrupters that is.”


“Yes, we believe that many do have their hearts set on this as they have to protect those who protect them and their dark little secrets but that’s us reading between the lines while reading between the lines…”

Things best left unsaid?”

“Exactly. Let’s now detail each of the other groups of Enablers.

About the Diplomatic Enablers little can be said. Their presence is compromising enough, both to their Country as well as to themselves. That’s why we’ve never heard of them again after the disastrous intervention by the British Ambassador at the time.

They continue to cooperate in the process, as Wikileaks showed, guaranteeing that the official version is the only one and ensuring that everywhere in the world everyone sings from the same official hymn sheet.

Their safeguard clause is to keep the issue in lowest possible profile and whenever it’s mentioned, it’s to keep their role to the lowest possible profile.

They hope and pray that when the dam breaks no one will remember them and not get any mention in the press, which is what is most likely to happen.

The very few mentioned will use the “I was just following orders.” the oldest excuse for a criminal act.

“Which isn’t devoid of reason or truth…”

“No, in fact it isn’t.

The Judicial Enablers have the most difficult life of all. You see, their participation is not only in written form as it has to be precise, thus not minimally ambiguous in any manner, but has to produce the desired effect.

For example, whoever determined that the McCanns could fly home because there was no more interest being interrogated in Portugal just a couple of days after they were officially declared arguidos or persons of interest to the case, cannot “unsay” it now.

Nor can the person who wrote in the archiving dispatch that there was no evidence to prosecute the McCanns can “unwrite” it now.

Nor can the person who determined Maddie a Ward-of-Court, “undetermine” it now.

Their safeguard clause is only the hope that when the flood comes they’ll remain dry or only get their clothes wet from spraying droplets.

The Police Enablers, I’m sure are the angriest ones. Their job has been totally ridiculed, their personal and professional pride simply stripped away. And I’m not just referring to both Leicester Constabulary and Scotland Yard but also to the PJ. I’m sure that many in this Portuguese police force cooperated actively in the farce.

One cannot inflict such humiliation on others and remain unscathed. And you can’t promote all those involved. There will always be those left behind and there will always be those who will have some dignity and leave, taking the secrets with them.

Their safety clause is the fact that they were the baking staff when the dough was being made. They’re the ones who know all the facts. Both about what happened on May 3rd as well as what happened afterwards.

The honest ones are just waiting for the right opportunity to spill the beans. They know they did their job well and its not their fault that others kept sticking rods in cogs to stop them from working.

Another important aspect is that to disregard camaraderie between operatives of the same business is being dangerously naïve and that is certainly not a characteristic one could use to describe those involved. That’s why Mr Amaral may never see his day in Court.

The last but not least, the Media Enablers. Let me divide them into two kinds.

The first, the “Ferrari” or “Porsche” kind, are those who work for the “serious” Media like, in terms of TV, BBC and SKY in the UK and RTP, SIC and TVI in Portugal and the equivalent in newspapers in both Countries.

These people are masters in “herd control”. Their techniques rely basically on two very simple principles: shamelessness and short memory.

Shamelessness in the sense that what has been said today can be contradicted with the same conviction tomorrow. All that is required is to say, if even anything is required to be said, that their sources fooled them.

To change opinion they only have to disregard, shamelessly, what was their previous absolute certainty. They will say one thing today independently if it’s the exact opposite of what was stated yesterday. The excuse? They were fooled. Poor, poor souls.

Short memory of masses. Daily problems afflict everyone, so who is going to remember what worried one last week? Especially when those responsible to “reveal” the new problems society has to worry about are the journalists themselves?

The principle is that what is said today will be forgotten by tomorrow. Bury the old information with new one.

Take the blog for example. How many posts with compromising evidence has the blog posted and how many are remembered today? The human mind tends to simplify information and Textusa has become known to support that there was swinging during that fateful week.

The facts that Mrs Fenn lied, that Mr Brunt altered the image of the Tapas dinner tables, that there were no Tapas dinners, that the Tapas sheets are proof of the active participation of both the Guests and the Ocean Club staff in the cover-up, that Derek Flack, JW and TS lied (we don't believe TS decided to do that by herself and we believe that she had no idea why she was asked to do it or the possible consequences), that the UK Police withheld statements in Britain, that the Stroller was no other than Gerry, that the whole body disposal at the beach/church was nothing but clutter may be vaguely remembered but that’s just about it.

Vaguely is the key.

But on the other hand, the blog proves the opposite. People may remember vaguely the details of the facts I just listed, but they are in the blog be seen when researched.

That’s why it is very strange that some people who’ve dedicated some time and work to research the issue, suddenly delete it all just because they lost interest in the case. But that is something we will speak of when we speak about the Riff-Raff.

The second class of Journalists Enablers is the “Trabant” or “Lazzeri” kind, or those who work for tabloids with the job of exploiting to the maximum the most basic human emotions in defense of what is to be protected.

I will not waste any more words on waste. They may influence many Brits but the world is not exactly made up only of Britain no matter how the BHs are trying to convince people otherwise.

The safeguard clause of these Enablers is their work. Note that in the vast majority of the reports it’s emphatically highlighted that the McCanns abandoned their children in an apartment.

An article may be convincingly supportive of the couple but there is that damning paragraph “Maddie who disappeared from Praia da Luz in the Algarve after being left alone with her twin siblings in an apartment not very far away from where the parents were having dinner. It may not be these words but this is the idea.

Notice that they fall back on the negligence theory. What they haven’t safeguarded is the case that the dam breaks completely and it’s not only the parents who will be locked away in the Tower of London.

It’s a risk they’ve taken and that might well come back to haunt them in the future, or near future.

They completely trust the Deciders not to allow things to go that way. However the word trust is only to be used, as they’ve seen, either in private jokes or to write fictional work…

I left these Enablers, the journalists, for last because they have proved to be quintessential to provide us with solid evidence.

Mr Brunt and his team did it with his Tapas dinner table video. Channel 4 did it with their documentary “The Cutting Edge”, commonly and widely known as the Mockumentary.

But the most precious piece of hard evidence is a book. Written by a Journalist, or so he says he is. So it’s not Mr Amaral's book nor Mrs McCann’s.

I’m obviously talking about “Vanished” written by Danny Collins, an investigative journalist.

A treasure that many have overlooked over the years.

If I had to define it in one word, you know what it would be?”


Insightful. Very insightful.”

“Must read it then.”

Friday, 5 April 2013

The Enablers

“So what BH group are we going to speak about today?”

“We’re going to speak about the Enablers, the toaster and bread for toast.”


“You need a slice of bread and a toaster to make a toast. The Deciders may decide they want toast but without Enablers that toast just won’t happen.

The Enablers are the ones who turn into reality all the decisions made by the Deciders.”

“Pretty important people, then…”

“No, not exactly. Unfortunately for them they’re the only ones that walk in the humiliating side of darkness as they’re unable to have their own opinion.”

“Why? Because they’re left out of the loop?”

“No, it’s not in the sense that they don’t have enough information to formulate an opinion because they do have all the information they need and I’m sure that they do have a personal opinion about what is going on.

They’re only totally unable to express it.”


“They’re just the parrots that they are. When a parrot repeats the sounds taught, it’s not exactly the expression of a “parrot’s opinion” is it?


“The reason behind this lack of opinion speech may be voluntary and self-assumed in nature, out of pure career-greed, or it may have been forced on the Enabler whereby the person was dragged into the mess and accepted just out of pure career-survival.

In the last instance, it’s applicable the mob-style “bribed-by-a-penny-bribed-by-a-million” principle.”

“The what?”

“You know, when one is bribed, more relevant than the fact that one is getting paid or how much one is receiving, it’s the fact that one is being sucked irreparably into something that will forever haunt one’s existence.

Once committed, always committed. Once compromised, compromised forever. Once dirty, forever dirty.

From that moment on one becomes a true stakeholder independently of the selling price being a penny or a million.

That’s why if one is to ever decide to walk on the “wild side” one should put into real consideration the initial price that one is to put on one’s soul, because after that first time one simply loses all negotiation capability.

Although, as I said, there were many that their price was to be able to continue to work.

The Enablers, by accepting to be part of the scam, sold their souls to a cause they knew to be criminal, not because of Maddie’s unfortunate demise but of the evident obstruction of justice with which they started to be complicit with.

Only they know the price asked but I think many got a really awful deal.

And by doing this they forfeited their own opinion. Now, they’re no longer able, or even allowed, to express publicly what their personal opinion is, which, by the way, is something that instantaneously became void of any interest.”

“So they don’t speak about it, is that it?”

“On the contrary, dear. on the contrary. They must and do express publicly their opinion. However these particular public opinions must be within the boundaries determined by those who’ve reaped their souls, the Deciders.”

“So they can speak but they can’t decide, is that it?”

“On the contrary, dear. on the contrary. They do make important decisions.”

“Make sense, woman!”

“Let me exemplify, imagine that the Deciders decide that as of today blue is yellow.

That is the framework decision.

Now it’s up to the Enablers to decide, in the exact same way and manner as the monkeys did in the monkey experiment.

“Explain, please…”

“It wasn’t the monkeys’ decision that the ladder wasn’t to be used. They were conditioned for that by a framework decision made by the scientists.

However, the decision on how to stop the new monkey going up the ladder was totally theirs.

It was up to them if they used either their hands or their teeth or both to make sure the new monkey understood that the ladder wasn’t to be used.

As monkeys, they knew best how to stop another monkey.

The same happens with the Enablers. They are the subject experts in their different areas.

They know best how to make the guilty look innocent.

They know best how to describe the sea is a deliciously yellow custard pie, as per framework decision, and not only how it is, but how it always was and how it will always be in the future.

The Enablers decide best how to express all the interesting variances of yellow’s most diverse tonalities regardless of the evidence that it isn’t yellow but blue.

They’re expected to make any and all decisions as long as they are within the framework and achieve what is decided by the Deciders.

As I said before, it’s completely up to the Enablers to make things happen… and not happen.”

Not happen?”

“As the subject experts they are also those who know best how to instill fear in all those that dare question their lies.”

“Oh, yes, I see…”

“The biggest problem that the Enablers face is the pigmentation dilemma.”

“What? No, I won’t even ask…”

“Continuing with our example, the Deciders decided that blue was yellow not out of any sort of colour preference but because it best suited their interests.

And when that stops being so, so does blue stop being yellow and begin to be another different colour altogether.

And once the Deciders decide that it’s no longer yellow but from now on it is to be red then the Enablers have to switch and change all previous colour “policies & opinions” and have to start, at once, to exult all the qualities of red

But the Enablers are before a real dilemma.”

“Which is?”

“To know exactly what the Deciders have decided when they decided from now it is to be red.”

“Well, they decided that now it is to be red didn't they? It seems pretty simple to me…”

“But is it that simple? Have the Deciders decided that blue, the pretence yellow, is now red or have they decided only that it is the yellow that is now to be red?

In the first instance, yellow returns to its original pigmentation and what is blue is to be treated as red like it was yellow when it was supposed to be yellow and not blue, while in the latter none of the three, yellow, blue and red, are what they really are. Blue is yellow, yellow is red and red doesn’t exist.

That’s why people mistake Enablers’ change of opinion with the lack of having one.

They never stopped having their conditioned opinion, only now they don’t know what exactly are the new conditions so they don’t know what their new opinion is!

The opinions that they’re allowed to have and express are absolutely conditioned by the direction from which the wind is blowing at an exact moment in time, which might be a completely different direction from which it blew just moments before

That’s why they seem to be as fickle as a cork floating on water but the problem is not their fickleness but that of the pigmentation.

So whenever the Deciders change their colour code, the Enablers are lost for a while, not knowing exactly what to defend until they grasp the full meaning and implication of the new decision.

Really confusing, and it’s worsened by the fact that it’s a repeating process every single time the Deciders decide to change colours to suit their interests.

And that happens more often than you think.”

“It does?”

“Oh yes, it does.

We saw a colour option being taken on May 3rd, 2007, the abduction theory.

Then it was decided a different one during that Summer of 2007, the “McCann Hunting Party 07”.

Another change on September 17th of the same year, the Great Maddie War.

And another on May 12th, 2011, the “McCann Hunting Party 11”.

And we’re currently under a change of colours.”

“We are?”

“Yes, only this time it’s taking quite a while to decide on the exact pigmentation and this is, as expected it would, driving the Enablers crazy.”


“It’s currently being decided what was the role of the tabloids in the Maddie Affair.”

“Everyone knows that their role was to support the farce! Wasn’t it?”

“You’re not listening to me, are you?”


“When I said that blue is yellow I was obviously aware that you know the difference between the colours.

But the point was that it was absolutely irrelevant whether you could tell colours apart if I, the Decider, decided that blue was yellow. It was yellow, end of discussion.

The same way, what is being decided is not what the role of the tabloids was but what the officially perceived role of the tabloids was.

It has nothing to do with reality. One is the Truth and the other the Official Truth and only, as you know, the latter matters to the Deciders.

Reality is inconveniently bothersome.”

“What roles then can the tabloids have?”

“To be good or bad guys.”

“I should have expected that. Do go on.”

“If the tabloids are to continue to be good guys to the BH cause, then the current status quo is maintained.

But if they are to be the bad guys, as it seems that the Establishment is trying to do, then the BHs are indeed in a pickle.”

“Just because of the tabloids? I mean, the rest of the media cooperated with the farce… the tabloids only used a more basic and vitriolic language…”

“Why do you keep seeing things at face value?

The current fight is using the tabloids as lab rats. What the Establishment is really doing is facing up to the Media but without touching the “serious media”, thus the isolated attack on the tabloids.

What are the consequences to the Maddie Affair? If the Establishment is able to succeed in this battle it’s openly and clearly changing its relationship with the BHs.

It will be a clear statement that the dam is to break entirely and not on a few chosen parts of it.

And this lack of definition is going on from the moment it was perceived that the SY Review was a huge mistake. That was in the Summer of 2011, so you can see how this is really confusing for all Enablers.

“All this mess about the Leveson Inquiry?”

“Yes. And until this is decided, the BHs live in a permanent state of suspense.

We believe that this decision is to come soon. The farce is reaching two decision points.

The first is the McCann vs Mr Amaral legal situation. They apparently can’t convince the man and they can’t afford to have the McCanns face him publicly.

There’s just no way to glamorize or even camouflage the implications of a McCann withdrawal.

So a decision must be made before then. It’s only our opinion and it’s worth what it’s worth.

The second is consequence of the erosion caused by the cumulative anniversary that early May represents. It’s the 6th anniversary of Maddie's disappearance, the 10th of Maddie and the 3rd of Kate’s Book/SY Review.

The Establishment is clearly showing signs of exhaustion on this issue. "Maddie May" has become a very uncomfortable time of the year for the UK.

And one asks why and the answers that one gets are starting to seem more ridiculous with each passing day.

We’ve noticed there is less and less information available and BHs are struggling to find anything to say. They are in a very difficult position as they can’t close every BH/”WH” site or stop commenting as that would be the final nail in the McCann support coffin.

The paid BHs are starting to wonder for how long they will get paid now that things are looking bleak. We're sure that the family and friends will keep blogging but others may stop if they don't get paid for their services..

Also, three of BH tactics are no longer credible. The first, slandering GA was emptied in content this week, the second, the false sightings are now greeted with ridicule and the third, the hoaxes like Birch are dismissed with the same ridicule.

The tension from all BH areas can be felt and David Cameron must be feeling quite worried at what is going on in his Country as it’s becoming so transparent.

So why not just put a full stop to all this? Why not put an end to this ongoing misery?”

“Because they’re all up to their necks is this mess?”



“Yes, you’re absolutely wrong and that, my dear, is the very crux of this question at this moment in time.”

“Explain please.”

“You have to ask yourself the following two questions:

Who is able put an end to this?

And what has, whomever is able to put an end to this, to fear from the truth?

The answers to these questions are very simple… to the first, David Cameron is the only one that can put an end to this, to the second, absolutely nothing.”


“Do think dear. The two biggest Deciders at the moment are David Cameron and Rupert Murdoch and they’re fiercely fighting each other.

Neither, as I’ll explain, are directly involved in the Maddie Affair.”

“They aren’t?!?”

“No, they're not and yes, I know it seems confusing but it really isn’t.

Let’s start with David Cameron. What is his involvement in the case? Only in having set up the SY Review. All other things were inherited from the past.

So, if the SY Review turns out to be "successful", what has he to lose? Nothing but he has much to gain.

Yes, it would have taken two years for the smart and formerly highly regarded Met to understand what is perfectly evident in a few minutes but that is a perfectly overlookable detail.

This is an important factor to take into consideration about the urgency in coming to a decision as the longer the SY takes to be "successful" the more is Cameron compromising himself with the issue. 

If two years is a ridiculous time to solve this “mystery” then with any more time then it becomes as absolutely incomprehensible as absolutely inexplicable especially after more than year has passed after the absolutely amazing 195 new leads were found and have produced absolutely no results.

Very soon the no-return point is surpassed .

The only thing that is apparently stopping having a decision already taken is UK’s useless efforts in “keeping up appearances”.

But if this same “appearance” is more hindered than benefitted by this farce, as it is, then logic dictates that it’s best to stop it once and for all.

Besides, Cameron has a lot to gain in doing just that when it comes to the power-struggle between himself and Murdoch.”


Murdoch is a very special Enabler. He holds so much power that he should be considered as a Decider. But he’ll always be an Enabler nonetheless, and that is what really bothers the BHs.”


“Because as an Enabler he is not a direct stakeholder, he’s an indirect one. The truth affects his power but doesn’t affect his reputation.

Just like Cameron can say that the fault for the two years that SY would have taken to solve the case was within that police force so Murdoch can just say that his reporters were fooled and apologise to readers while slamming away those who fooled his naive professionals, which are none other than the BHs!

But the Maddie Affair is something that Murdoch can hold against Cameron as was shown in the “6-cleaner” episode in the best “I know what you did last summer” style, an undertaking made out of pure despair. In fact, as we all know, Cameron didn't do anything about Maddie that particular "summer".

If Cameron comes clean with the Maddie Affair what will Murdoch have left to “bargain” with the Prime-Minister? Nothing.

Plus, this would make even more fragile Murdoch’s position as people aren’t stupid and know perfectly well that the tabloids weren’t fooled and Cameron could sit back to enjoy the apology to readers.

It wouldn't be the first humiliation that Murdoch would have suffered on this subject.

“It wouldn't?”

“Not after the McCanns "abandoned" Murdoch with the Hacked Off thing after all he, or his tabloids, did for them. 

They have now sided, as if they had a choice, with Cameron. I'm sure they're hoping for some sort of clemency just like is a mouse that after being caught by a cat, lays really, really still in the hope that fate isn't sealed. Unfortunately for the mouse, it is.  

To sum up, Cameron would win and Murdoch would lose but neither have anything to fear from the truth as this win/loss would be within their bitter struggle.

Fear of the truth is exclusive to the BHs, whose fate is completely in Cameron's hands, who after the launching of the SY Review became the sole Decider, and what is to be his next move.

It really feels as if something is in the air and about to explode. The pot must be boiling fiercely and the lid clattering about on the top allowing spits and dribbles to escape and a few people are desperately trying not to let the pot boil over.

A decision has to be made and has to be made soon, Very, very soon. Otherwise Cameron risks also falling definitely into that pot. Having the possibility to choose is something not many had and those that did have it now regret the choice made.

Mind you, we're not making any prediction. We're just calling it as we see it. As we've said many times before we don't have any inside information and who says otherwise is lying. Nor do we work with any group of privileged people in Portugal, in the UK or any other country. 

There will be a huge sense of relief for many once the contents are released and the fire underneath dies down and goes out. All these years of stress and suffering when it could have all been over long ago if some people had taken the responsibility they should have done.

But until then, as I just said, the BHs live in a permanent state of terrifying suspense and the Enablers live in a permanent state of uncertainty.”

“Go on.”

“Well, this happens because unlike the Deciders and the Riff-Raff are direct stakeholders while the Enablers are, as I just said, indirect ones.

They, like the Riff-Raff, have little or no say about their own fate but unlike them they aren’t directly implicated in the matter. The Enablers just answered, voluntarily or not, to a call about something that they had absolutely nothing to do with.

This indirectness not only obstructs the objectiveness of their analysis of the situation but enhances their importance which is none.

They exist to be used and serve a purpose that is not theirs.

All this is aggravated with the disaggregation of the Deciders. When winds blow simultaneously in more than one direction, which is one to follow when one is not allowed to decide to where to turn?” 

“Quite a pickle…”

“This indirectness also triggers two things.

The first is what I call the safeguard clause.

As they know they’re wrongdoing in a business that is not theirs, they will try to leave all options open. All possible options, that is. Some, as you’ll see, have no such luxury.

For them, their compliance to orders has left them no room to protect themselves from the flood when the dam breaks, so they’re left with no other option but to ensure, now out of self-interest, that the dam is to never break, irrelevant of justice, logic or both, the lie must be perpetuated.

Unfortunately for them, it’s not a decision for their taking. The best they can do is put some sort of pressure on the Deciders but that’s about all as pleading won’t get them very far.

The second is a sentiment of revolt.

They were not asked but told to misrepresent their profession. They have since distorted all possible honour codes that their profession may have for the sake of abiding by other peoples’ will, and let me remind you that this will is of criminal nature and they know it.

The effect of this on their conscience triggers two kinds of response: a public one which is to further commit themselves to the “cause”, showing resolution that is to appear as a conviction simply impossible to deter, and a private one, which is anger, towards themselves, towards those who forced them into it and towards all those who by questioning threaten to unveil their dark secret.”

They have all to lose and nowhere to turn for help.”

“Sad fate, I must say. Tell me, who are the Enablers?”

“We’ll leave that for tomorrow.”