Madeleine McCann: No More Paedophiles, Six More Months And Clarence Mitchell Says
MADDYWATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann.
DAILY MAIL: “McCanns in six-month wait to find out why they are suspects”
Six more months of the McCanns
“Portuguese police files setting out the alleged evidence against them were due to be made public on January 3, but are now expected to be kept secret until as late as July, sources revealed yesterday”
Says the McCanns’ spokesman Clarence Mitchell: “Kate and Gerry feel it is a huge distraction and while police are looking at them they are not searching for Madeleine. The suggestion they were involved remains very upsetting to them”
So are the police doing anything, other than watching the parents?
Say the paper: “Meanwhile, the police investigation hit another dead end yesterday when it emerged detectives had traced and eliminated all British paedophiles known to have links to the Algarve”
Says Clarence Mitchell said: “If reports are correct, then we are pleased that police are doing their jobs properly. But there are also people who aren’t on any lists who need to be traced”
Such as?
Says the Mail: “One man who may not be on any list as he has never been convicted of an offence in Britain is part-time barman and disc jockey Christian Ridout. The Daily Mail told yesterday how the 32-year-old fled Praia da Luz after being accused of grooming a 12-yearold girl for sex. When he vanished two years ago he was working at an expats’ pub 200 yards from where Madeleine disappeared” – Two years ago…
THE SUN: “MADDIE BRIT IN THE CLEAR – Quizzed paedo has firm alibi”
It’s Christian Ridout, also known as DJ Shifty. He was accused of grooming a 12-year-old for sex. Nothing proven in any court of law. Paedo! He’s been questioned. And he is in the clear. Scratch his name off the list.
Any others?
DAILY EXPRESS: “Madeleine: new blow for the parents as suspect is cleared”
The “last of 52 British sex offenders who have links with the Algarve” has been tracked down and cleared of any involvement with Madeleine McCann’s disappearance
His name is not supplied.
DAILY STAR: “MADDIE: COPS CLEAR 52 BRIT PAEDOPHILES”
“Madeleine McCann was not snatched by a paedophile, police said last night”
Did they? The cops have checked the whereabouts of 52 “British child sex fiends known to have links with the Algarve”. They have also looked through pictures seized in a purge on paedos. But no sign of Madeleine. Which means she was not taken by a paedophile?
A police source says there is “no evidence” Madeleine was taken by a paedophile
DAILY MIRROR: “McCanns battle for secret file”
The Portugal police file on Kate and Gerry McCann will remain secret for longer
DAILY TELEGRAPH: “Madeleine McCann parents ‘left in the dark’”
“The parents of missing Madeleine McCann may have to wait a further six months before they discover why they were made suspects in their daughter’s disappearance, it was claimed last night. Kate and Gerry McCann were made arguidos or formal suspects on Sept 7, more than four months after their daughter vanished from their holiday apartment in Portugal”
The McCanns are “39-year-old doctors from Rothley, Leics” – Such are the facts
Madeleine McCann: The speculation and the sensation
Posted: 28th, December 2007 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (708) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- June on In Pictures: Herman Van Rompuy’s Pet Dalek Introduces President Iain Duncan Smith
- Cheryl on In Pictures: Herman Van Rompuy’s Pet Dalek Introduces President Iain Duncan Smith
- Cheryl on Sven Goran Eriksson: Then And Now
- Anorak on I’m A Celebrity: Naked Katie Price Becomes Kate And Jordan ‘Dies’
- Anorak on In Pictures: Herman Van Rompuy’s Pet Dalek Introduces President Iain Duncan Smith
December 30th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
711 Hideki Says: December 30th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
710 Peter O Says:
Edit…
+++++++++++
Hideki - You are a liar who has made unsubstantiated insinuations that a fellow poster is in some way connected to paedophilia. Having made those insinuations you refused the opportunity to ask for your lies to be removed. To date you haven’t had the good grace to admit your error.
December 30th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
710
Peter O Says:
“I am not prepared to allow Hideki to perpetuate the lie that they have not made dangerous and unsubstantiated claims against a fellow poster.”
You are the one lying.
“The unsubstantiated claims that this person has made against me are unacceptable. ”
What claims? Be very specific. I’ve only claimed that your posting is pro-McConn, camouflaged by pretending to agree with some criticisms. That is the truth as I see it.
“Further, the fact that this person shows no regret about making such claims”
I made no such claims.
“and attempts to pass the claims off as “satirical””
This is a lie too. I did not “pass off” claims as satirical. I said that I have made no such claims, and that post 699 is obviously a satire aimed at McCann nicknames.
“sets a dangerous precedent as to what this person, and others, may in future be allowed to claim about fellow posters.”
You , my friend, are a dangerous precedent that shows how completely full of shite a poster can be. Your pro-McConn agenda does not justify your incessant attacks upon me. Go jump in an acid lake, Pedro.
December 30th, 2007 at 9:00 am
709 Hideki Says: December 30th, 2007 at 6:25 am (Madeleine McCann: No More Paedophiles, Six More Months And Clarence Mitchell Says)
708 Peter O Says:
Edit…
What a pathetic creep and a liar you are. I made no such suggestion that the name Peter O is associated with paedophilia. Anyone who reads the post (699) can see I am being satirical about the nicknames given to the McCanns.
That’s what they are here for. They deleted a sentence which could be interpreted in an offensive way, especially with jerks like you on the forum, in a post that was obviously satirical. I’ve no problem with that.
Edit
+++++++++++++
Hideki - You are a liar who makes dangerous and unsubstantiated claims about your fellow posters. (See 699 Hideki Says: December 29th, 2007 at 5:53 am - Madeleine McCann: No More Paedophiles, Six More Months And Clarence Mitchell Says)
Hideki - You have claimed in a public forum that a fellow posters name is associated with paedophilia.
Hideki - Your remarks were deleted by Mods and Admin not because they were “satirical” but because to quote, they were “last sentance deleted as extremely offensive”.
Hideki - Making the sort of claims you have made could be ruinous to a persons reputation, livelihood, their wellbeing and would impact their family and friends.
Hideki - The fact that you make these claims on an internet forum where there is a degree of anonymity makes them no less acceptable.
Hideki - Having had the unacceptable nature of your remarks pointed out to you, you now continue to lie about their content and intent.
Hideki – You have on repeated occasions now attempted to label and vilify fellow posters. You are a dangerous individual whose claims cannot be allowed to go by without comment. Your latest implications re paedophilia are a sickening example of the depths you appear to be prepared to plumb.
Mods and Admin
I invite you to amend or delete any of my remarks that you deem unacceptable.
I am not prepared to allow Hideki to perpetuate the lie that they have not made dangerous and unsubstantiated claims against a fellow poster. The unsubstantiated claims that this person has made against me are unacceptable. Further, the fact that this person shows no regret about making such claims and attempts to pass the claims off as “satirical” sets a dangerous precedent as to what this person, and others, may in future be allowed to claim about fellow posters.
December 30th, 2007 at 6:25 am
708
Peter O Says:
“We both know that I am referring to your sickening post 699″
Sure, NOW I know what you are whining about. But the reference contained in your initial stupid complaint was to a different post. So there was no way I could know what “statement” you were referring to. (not that I cared anyway)
” in which you made a completely unsubstantiated suggestion that my name was in some way associated with paeodophilia.”
What a pathetic creep and a liar you are. I made no such suggestion that the name Peter O is associated with paedophilia. Anyone who reads the post (699) can see I am being satirical about the nicknames given to the McCanns.
“I gave you the opportunity to reconsider your post and ask the Mods and Admins to remove/amend your words.”
You didn’t even refer to that post, but to another (then 697, now 698) and so I thought you meant the question I asked of you, “You’re paid for overall management[of pro-McScum posting], and your posting is just on the side, eh?” Funny, how you did not answer that question. Instead , you whined about a whimsical and satirical remark.
“Sadly you were seemingly unable to admit your failings and Mods and Admin had to take independent action.”
That’s what they are here for. They deleted a sentence which could be interpreted in an offensive way, especially with jerks like you on the forum, in a post that was obviously satirical. I’ve no problem with that.
“Your inability to understand when you have crossed the line of unacceptable postings merely underlines to me …”
You have consistently been crossing the line by calling me a “liar” without the slightest substantiation. You claimed I twisted and perverted the meaning of your posts, but again, not the slightest substantiation.
“Hideki, you are a liar, and very probably a troll…”
PeterO, YOU are not only a LIAR, but worse, you are a goddamn bore. A pro-McConn boor.
Say hello to Clarence for me, Pedro.
December 29th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
699 Peter O Says:
704 Peter O Says:
“Sadly you were seemingly unable to admit your failings…”
If you say so, Pedro…
…but actually I had a different idea as to what you were talking about because your complaint was not specific enough and you had the wrong post number at the top.
+++++++++++++
We both know that I am referring to your sickening post 699 in which you made a completely unsubstantiated suggestion that my name was in some way associated with paeodophilia.
I gave you the opportunity to reconsider your post and ask the Mods and Admins to remove/amend your words.
Sadly you were seemingly unable to admit your failings and Mods and Admin had to take independent action. In doing so, they commented:
“last sentance deleted as extremely offensive”
Your inability to understand when you have crossed the line of unacceptable postings merely underlines to me that you have nothing to back up your repeated accusations against posters other than your own twisted perversion of their words. You haven’t exposed anybody other than yourself Hideki, you are a liar, and very probably a troll, who twists and misrepresents other posters words to suit your own agenda. Just my opinion of course.
December 29th, 2007 at 11:31 am
703
Hideki Says:
699
Peter O Says:
“As I often have to remind you of late… you are a liar, and very probably a troll…”
And yet you have stated just 3 posts earlier that you agree with “the main thrust of what Hideki posts. “(696) I was correct in my guess that you would nonetheless soon thereafter revert to your hysterical pro-McConn remarks and accusations, which are becoming quite tiresome and repetitious.
704
Peter O Says:
“Sadly you were seemingly unable to admit your failings…”
If you say so, Pedro…
…but actually I had a different idea as to what you were talking about because your complaint was not specific enough and you had the wrong post number at the top.
December 29th, 2007 at 10:02 am
36
Jez Says:
December 28th, 2007 at 10:05 am
Stevo Says:
December 27th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
596 Ade
**********
Somebody (Stevo?) previously posted a photo of the McCann-Healey crematorium business. Vey convenient.
—————-
Mods and Admin
Not that convenient, its in the US
December 29th, 2007 at 10:00 am
550,
blues
I wouldn’t want to guess about anyone’s guilt without evidence. There has been sufficient odd behaviour to arouse suspicions, but we see everything via the television and the tabloids - masters of distortion.
December 29th, 2007 at 9:39 am
703 Hideki Says: December 29th, 2007 at 9:14 am
699 Peter O Says:
“I’m sure the Mods and Admin will be only too happy to retract that last statement for you if upon reflection you concede you are unable to provide proof as to its accuracy.”
Edit…
+++++++++++++
Sadly you were seemingly unable to admit your failings and Mods and Admin had to take independent action.
Your inability to understand when you have crossed the line of unacceptable postings merely underlines to me that you have nothing to back up your repeated accusations against posters other than your own twisted perversion of their words. You haven’t exposed anybody other than yourself Hideki, you are a liar, and very probably a troll, who twists and misrepresents other posters words to suit your own agenda. Just my opinion of course.
December 29th, 2007 at 9:14 am
699
Peter O Says:
“I’m sure the Mods and Admin will be only too happy to retract that last statement for you if upon reflection you concede you are unable to provide proof as to its accuracy.”
You apparently are unable to distinguish between statements and questions, eh? I asked you a question.
“As I often have to remind you of late… you are a liar, and very probably a troll…”
And yet you have stated 3just 3 posts earlier that you agree with “the main thrust of what Hideki posts. “(696) I was correct in my guess that you would nonetheless soon thereafter revert to your hysterical remarks and accusations, which are becoming quite tiresome and repetitious.
December 29th, 2007 at 7:49 am
661 chenier Says: December 29th, 2007 at 1:18 am
652 Peter O Says: December 29th, 2007 at 1:12 am
637 Ian Says: December 29th, 2007 at 12:58 am
629 Peter O. Quite agree. People who talk and wind up others about a poster behind their backs are bullies - thats what a bully is.
Edit..
As someone posted, the best way to deal with these people is to simply ignore them. Edit…
+++++++++++++
Edit…
I don’t think it does any harm to let someone you disagree with know that they have overstepped a line. It shows other posters, I hope, that it is ok to disagree and hopefully stops any one individual, or a few, dominating the forum/blog.
—————————————————————————
That is the difficulty, is it not. One the one hand we aware that responding to such posts simply provides a platform for these sorts of posters.
On the other hand there are things we cannot pass over and still remain within the expectations of a civilsed human being.
I don’t have a magic fix for that one…
++++++++++++++++
I think it’s the price we have to pay for a fairly open public forum.
December 29th, 2007 at 7:43 am
697 Hideki Says: December 29th, 2007 at 5:53 am
Edit…..
++++++++++++++++++++
I’m sure the Mods and Admin will be only too happy to retract that last statement for you if upon reflection you concede you are unable to provide proof as to its accuracy.
As I often have to remind you of late, you have nothing to back up your repeated accusations against posters other than your own twisted perversion of their words. You haven’t exposed anybody other than yourself Hideki, you are a liar, and very probably a troll, who twists and misrepresents other posters words to suit your own agenda. Just my opinion of course.
December 29th, 2007 at 7:39 am
696 Hideki Says: December 29th, 2007 at 5:35 am
577 Patch Says:
Edit…
645Totje Says:
Edit…
629 Peter O
++++++++++++++++
You have nothing to back up your repeated accusations against posters other than your own twisted perversion of their words. You haven’t exposed anybody other than yourself Hideki, you are a liar, and very probably a troll, who twists and misrepresents other posters words to suit your own agenda. Just my opinion of course.
December 29th, 2007 at 5:53 am
TB: “To give an example, I have seen, on this and other forums, the McCanns called, e.g. the McLiars, the McCons, the McDidIts, the McKillers and so forth. I agree that people should exercise caution. ”
McLiars — it is a known fact that Gerry lied about visibility and distance from Tapas bar to the resaurant, in order to create false mitigation of child neglect. Kate has lied about having emotions.
McCons — this comes from them always trying to con people into believing that they are responsible parents who need sympathy and money.
McDidIts — nickname arises from Gerry’s habit of shouting “I did it!!!” when he is proud of something, like an ace serve in tennis.
McKillers — Gerry is widely known to be a handsome , dashing “lady killer”. This is NOT an accusation that he has killed ladies.
McCunts — this is a term of endearment used by relatives who have not yet received any money from the fund.
McPaedos — nickname arises because the McCanns are self-professed experts on paedophiles and abductions of little girls.
———————————-
Mods and Admin
last sentance deleted as extremely offensive
December 29th, 2007 at 5:35 am
577
Patch Says:
“Is that satirical debate or just plain nastiness?”
Neither and both. It was satirical nastiness.
645
Totje Says:
“I really appreciated in the past Hideki’s posts, now I skip them.”
I’m sorry to hear that you were once appreciating my posts, but relieved that you are now skipping them.
629
PeterO
“Hideki does raise very valid concerns regarding this case, specifically the possibility that paedophilia may be an aspect … I don’t actually take issue with the main thrust of what Hideki posts. I do however disagree the manner and wording of some of his/her posts.”
You are back to PRETENDING not to take issue, but before long you will be return to your hysteria, calling me a “liar” and”troll” for accurately quoting your posts, and commenting upon them, showing that you have a pro-McConn agenda.
PeterO, how much are you paid for managing and coordinating the proMcScam posters? That was cute when you claimed that you are not paid for posting. You’re paid for overall management, and your posting is just on the side, eh?
December 29th, 2007 at 5:23 am
Tony, I made a very serious left out typo in line below: I typed to you in my response (see below)
“I’m not talking leaving her there alone - that I would have done to my children but that is me ” I left out NOT …’that I would NOT have done to my children…”
Tony, I have stood back and been very objective in this case and put myself into their situation in my mind and asked myself every step of the way how I would react to every given situation above if I were innocent of her disappearance from the apartment. I’m not talking leaving her there alone - Tony, I have stood back and been very objective in this case and put myself into their situation in my mind and asked myself every step of the way how I would react to every given situation above if I were innocent of her disappearance from the apartment. I’m not talking leaving her there alone - that I would have done to my children but that is me - I’m talking about all that took place after finding her missing. I have also done the same as if I were guilty, Tony- I’m talking about all that took place after finding her missing. I have also done the same as if I were guilty, Tony
December 29th, 2007 at 5:10 am
579
Tony Bennett Says:
December 28th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
455 REPLY TO CHERYL PART 2
Unfortunately clicked the wrong part of the screen there, so submitted the posting half completed. So to carry on from where I left off:
——————————————————-
REPLY to Tony: I was wondering why the sudden cut-off and feared you were upset.. .
——————————————————
REPLY: You have a point there. There is concern, rightfully, that too much public discussion about a case in advance of it being brought to court could prejudice a fair trial. Once any person is charged, virtually all comment is prohibited until the trial, when the contents of the trial are reported. If a newspaper breaks this code, it could be classed as ‘contempt of court’ and the newspaper could be fined.
As there is a good chance the McCanns may be charged in the next few months with a serious criminal offence, to be absolutley fair to the newspapers it may be thay are conscious of this and reluctant to report the growing doubts about the McCanns version of events.
However, this is a truly exceptional case in many ways, and not least because criminal suspects have got a battery of lawyers and PR men/women working for them at a cost of well over £100,000 a year - maybe double or even treble that. Forums like this provide a degree of balance
++++++++++++++++++++
REPLY TO TONY: That I can’t begrudge them, Tony, to be honest. Over here in some high profile cases top defense can run half a milion or better. However, one can’t say or judge they are guilty because of the money spent on lawyers and PR persons.
—————————————————-
Cheryl: Tony, can we both agree on at least one fact we know - the McCanns can’t speak for themselves and thus why they have Clarence Mitchell.
REPLY: Other posters have partially answered this. The McCanns have said much for themselves in some carefully rehearsed and scripted TV interviews. There was a time in September and October when you couldn’t move for quotes from ‘a source close to the McCanns’ or ‘a McCann family spokesman’ or similar. Why do innocent people who are genuineley seeking their child need £75,000-a-year Clarence Mitchell? Remember Gerry and Kate McCann are his employers and he speaks the McCanns’ words for them. When Clarence Mitchell said on Irish TV back in October that it was a British cultural thing to put young kids to bed early and then enjoy yourselves he was relating the message that the McCanns wished to put out on their behalf
++++++++++++++++++++
————————–
REPLY TO TONY: Tony, they know - who can miss it - the tide of public opinion is moving against them. They can’t speak out directly in their own defense why not hire a high priced spokesman to say all the right words? I don’t know, Tony, the way I look at is I myself would not ‘go down’ without a fight!
—————————————————————————————-
Cheryl: “…they could have made a better selection for a spokesman?”
REPLY: There may well have been a prior connection between Clarence Mitchell and the McCanns. It is believed he was on the Algarve (Portuguese coast) the week prior to the McCanns being there, and some reports say he was actually there on May 2/3. He was drafted in very quickly and it may well have been Clarence Mitchell who was the unnamed ‘Foreign Office Spokesman’ quoted by the Daily Telegraph online edition at 00.01am on Friday 4 May - just two hours after Madeleine ‘disappeared’. In any case, the McCanns know what they are doing. Employing the ‘Control Risks Group’, ‘Metodo 3′ etc. - they don’t do these things by accident
———————————
REPLY TO TONY: He may well have been still on holiday there, Tony. I see nothing sinister in that to be honest. Now in all fairness, Tony, I read that group was referred to them by one of their ‘money’ friends, but forget which one it was ,who had used them. Whatever, I think they have been ‘had’ by that Metodo 3 Group.
————————————————-
+++++++++++++++++++++
Cheryl: Tony, I did not say they were libellous…
REPLY: Well, you used the word ’slanderous’. Slander is verbal; libel is in writing. So I gently corrected you
————————
REPLY TO TONY: Thank you for ‘gently correcting’ me.
———————————————
+++++++++++++++++++++
Cheryl…my feeling is, Tony, some of the statements made on here have come quite close to libel if not crossed the line to potentially be considered libellous.
REPLY: I think I would agree with you there. I have strong opinions on the case but never I hope accused anyone without any such accusatoion being founded on firm facts or reasoned argument. To give an example, I have seen, on this and other forums, the McCanns called, e.g. the McLiars, the McCons, the McDidIts, the McKillers and so forth. I agree that people should exercise caution.
I thought your warning to me was completley inappropriate, Cheryl, because you would have to concede that others have been much less restrained in their comments about the McCanns than I have been. If the McCanns came after me, I would have to say, why don’t you go after the hundreds, maybe thousands, who have said far worse? As for the ‘19 Reasons’ leaflet, that is based on facts and reasonable inference throughout. hat is not the same as ‘innuendo’.
————–
REPLY TO TONY: Then I apologize if you feel I was inappropriate, Tony. I don’t just concede other are much less constrained in their comments than you I totally agree! Think I would blame you for saying ‘why don’t you go after…’? I do have to give you credit,Tony, you don’t hide behind some phony and/or ridiculous poster name. Talking ill of others was never permitted in my home when growing up, Tony, and I have enforced the same rule with my boys and their friends. As my parents always said if you can’t stand in front of someone and say it to their face then you shouldn’t be saying it.
——————————————–
For example, you can’t deny that (a) the McCanns have completely changed their story about how the alleged abductor entered the property
——————-
REPLY TO TONY: I was thinking rather along the lines they were wildly guessing under high emotional stress how she could have been taken out of the apartment.
———————————
(b) that Jane Tanner has significantly changed her description of the alleged abductor
———————————————–
REPLY TO TONY: We often see what we want to see not necessarily what we really saw. Why eye witness testimony is being questioned these days if it is truly reliable in court.
————————————————-
(c) that the timelines do not match or (d) that the McCanns gave some pretty incredible explanations for things like the caadver dogs’ scenting the smell of death and the DNA findings e.g. ‘rotting meat’, ‘dirty nappies’, ‘working on six corpses in a few days’ etc. These by the way are FACTS, Cheryl.
——————————–
REPLY TO TONY: Once again high emotional reactions under a very stressful situation does anyone truly remember because of the stress all were under with child missing? Tony, I love dogs and they are my best friends and I trust them with my life and they sense danger and even fear far before we do in people they are around. However, I have always questioned in my mind the ability of those caadver dogs after a lengthy time. Dogs like people are not infallible. Was it death or high emotions they were reacting to? Once again, I’m not making excuses for them BUT if that were me and someone said those dogs smelled death on me and I had declared a patient or patients dead sometime in the near past then that would be my immediate reaction to myself and to them - omg, they sense those patients death on me.
————————-
The excuses given by the McCanns are FACTS. Their ever-changing stories are FACTS. There are many FACTS that we have in this case and many reasonable deductions can be made from these known FACTS. I think I shall scream if I hear someone else pontificate: “The only certain fact we know for sure in this case is that Madeleine is missing”
———————-
REPLY TO TONY: Were they excuses or them trying themselves to sort out everything in their minds even to the why the dogs sensed death? I shall not make you ’scream’ so I won’t say it!
++++++++++++++++++++
Cheryl: …If we were not talking back and forth on this open forum, I’d be up front with you and tell you some of what I’ve read on here but not posted by you which really caused me to gasp and have true concern for this site…somehow they got past the Mods.
REPLY: I am grateful to Mods and Admin for allowing robust debate but I agree it is too robust at times and there have been some extremely unpleasant exchanges. I continue to post here because among many posters there is good quality exchange of information and ideas.
++++++++++++++++++++
Cheryl: Tony, in all sincerity I fear that if the McCanns are not charged there is going to be ‘payback’ for all the true nastiness that has gone around not just on here but I’m sure other places, too.
REPLY: The McCanns will have tens of thousands of people to bring an action against. Anyway, if they are not charged with a serious criminal offence over Madeleine’s
‘disappearance’ it will not by any means be the end for those of us determined to uncover the truth about what happened to her on May 2 and 3.
—————————
REPLY: Tony, I understand everyone’s feelings and yours on this case. But no matter what any of you do nothing will punish them more than they will punish themselves. They will forever live with the guilt, even if it was just because of neglect, that young child is missing.
Tony, I have stood back and been very objective in this case and put myself into their situation in my mind and asked myself every step of the way how I would react to every given situation above if I were innocent of her disappearance from the apartment. I’m not talking leaving her there alone - that I would have done to my children but that is me - I’m talking about all that took place after finding her missing. I have also done the same as if I were guilty, Tony. I would have reacted more like they have been if I were innocent as you can read in my answers to you above. However, I will say that I would have found the most high powered lawyers I could afford to protect my rights innocent or guilty. And I would have contacted personal friends I knew had influence to help me if I were in a foreign country or even in my own country. But I would not have involved them if I were guilty.
Good news for you, Tony, you are getting a break from this ‘thorn in your side’ until New Years Day evening. Not sure how I’ll cope with the withdrawal pains from a computer but I shall find out.
Thus, Happy New Years early!
December 29th, 2007 at 2:21 am
Mods and Admin
Does that mean there are no multiple posters anymore and Dave isn’t Soothsayer?
I suppose I better apologise.
————————-
Mods and Admin
There are multiple posters, and you must not apologise
December 29th, 2007 at 2:15 am
I was going to say - it’s not at all obvious is it?
But I’ve been moderated.
That’ll teach me to have a joke at Dave’s expense.
December 29th, 2007 at 2:14 am
Annabel
I don’t know, she just is.
December 29th, 2007 at 2:13 am
Why is Karen so fabulous?
December 29th, 2007 at 2:02 am
Tot Morgen, Totje
December 29th, 2007 at 2:00 am
What does FFS!! mean?
December 29th, 2007 at 1:59 am
687
saul, so sorry not me! Can’t even play minigolf or tennis. I am afraid of balls.
And now I have to walk the puppy [in the garden] and off to get my beauty sleep.
Welterusten allemaal. Nite nite.
December 29th, 2007 at 1:57 am
Ian says 674:
“I am sure those who appear to only seek to defend and those who seek only the truth all really only just want the truth - regardless of what that truth is.”
Sorry, but I’ve read some crap in my time but what on earth does this mean FFS!!
December 29th, 2007 at 1:55 am
Any other Cricket insomniacs out there?
December 29th, 2007 at 1:48 am
Weltereusten
December 29th, 2007 at 1:46 am
682
saul Says:
December 29th, 2007 at 1:43 am
Goodnight all, and remember, always tell the truth. This removes the need to remember what you have said in the past.
—–
You took the words right out of my mouth …
December 29th, 2007 at 1:45 am
449
Ian Says:
December 27th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
444 lol, wanker.
+++++++++++++++++++
People who live in glass houses ?
December 29th, 2007 at 1:45 am
679
saul Says:
December 29th, 2007 at 1:37 am
675, apologies Milady, I assumed you would be familiar with jousting. Basically it means that it would be a very unfair and one sided contest. I am watching events at the MCG (cricket) in between posts and was looking for a bit of light hearted banter.
—-
Sir, I am a big fan of jousting and banter; just had to look up these words in the dictionary just now.
Until we meet again tomorrow, light-heartedly
I bid you good night.
And now, Totje too, off to the silken sheets, though I can sleep a little as house staff will take care of dear old Maman and live stock [dogs, chicken] early morning
December 29th, 2007 at 1:43 am
Goodnight all, and remember, always tell the truth. This removes the need to remember what you have said in the past.