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

Gloria,

Here to brighten my little life, boy am I glad to see you!

The sporadic domestic efforts of a bewildered housewife are reported to have fallen to an all-time low.

Gloria Smudd (86), known to the local WI as an inept laundress and an appalling cook, is allowing her existing shoddy standards to plummet. With her household laundry-management in never-ending crisis, it appears she has now abandoned her feeble hoovering and dusting regime, plunging the Smudd family even further into grimey chaos.

“It’s chaos. And it’s all because of those dratted cats!” snapped neighbour Mrs Nellie D’Olliphant (63).

Those ‘dratted cats’ are ginger kittens Ronnie (12 weeks) and Reggie (12 weeks) who were recently plucked from an animal welfare centre and plunged into slumdom by Mrs Smudd (79) who claims that the noise of the vacuum might alarm them. “The noise of the vacuum might alarm them” she said. “Any noisy housework is out of the question. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ve got some little orange tummies to tickle” she added as she forced her way back into her crumb-strewn home.

Mr Smudd (32) was unavailable for comment but is understood to have been seen more than once gloomily waiting in line at the chip shop.

But surely they have been cleared several times already?

I shall be interested to see what happens on Monday, but I think the refusal of the Portuguese Court to allow access to the texts of the various messages has, for most practical purposes, ground the investigation to a halt.

In this country that sort of information is used regularly in investigations, particularly where a serious crime has taken place.

There is, of course, room for debate as to whether the Portuguese system has more safeguards for the civil liberties of its citizens, and those who visit that country, than we do…

———————————————

It would help if you could acquire some grasp of the English language.

What it says is:

‘We do so because we accept that a number of articles in the newspaper have suggested that the couple caused the death of their missing daughter Madeleine and then covered it up.
We acknowledge that there is no evidence whatsoever to support this theory and that Kate and Gerry are completely innocent of any involvement in their daughter’s disappearance.’

The theory is that ‘the couple caused the death of their missing daughter Madeleine and then covered it up’, and it is that theory which is addressed in that statement.

I appreciate that you would prefer the statement to say something other than it does, but it doesn’t.

The Express, under its apology.

The apology itself read:

‘The Daily Express today takes the unprecedented step of making a front-page apology to Kate and Gerry McCann.
We do so because we accept that a number of articles in the newspaper have suggested that the couple caused the death of their missing daughter Madeleine and then covered it up.
We acknowledge that there is no evidence whatsoever to support this theory and that Kate and Gerry are completely innocent of any involvement in their daughter’s disappearance.
We trust that the suspicion that has clouded their lives for many months will soon be lifted.
As an expression of its regret, the Daily Express has now paid a very substantial sum into the Madeleine Fund and we promise to do all in our power to help efforts to find her.
Kate and Gerry, we are truly sorry to have added to your distress.
We assure you that we hope Madeleine will one day be found alive and well and will be restored to her loving family.’

You will note that ’caused the death’ is the context in which the ‘completely innocent of any involvement’ arises…
———————————————–

Not even you can spin “Kate and Gerry are completely innocent of any involvement in their daughter’s disappearance” into meaning something other than what it says!!

You may claim the Express was mistaken in saying, in their apology, that the Mcs did not cause the death of their daughter and were not involved in her disappearance. But you can’t possibly try to claim that that was not precisely what the Express said! Well, not unless you’re going for a comedian’s job somewhere or hope to win “spinner of the year” competition. OR….wait…….could it be?……got it!….you hope to retrain from “investigator” to journalist! You’re just practising, maybe?!

Of course, if you wish to say quite clearly that you don’t think the Mcs either caused the death of their daughter or were involved in her disappearance, fine by me. (And of course, I mean other than by leaving the children alone in the apartment.)

Don’t bother with a ketchup butty now, chenier. I came back after lunch to be amused at your reply but have a 2.00pm meeting to get to.

Spin on my friend. You may be proved right on Monday anyway. I have always boringly said we can’t know the truth….we await the announcement of those who might. There might well be charges…neglect….or more.

CHERYL

Hi!

Exactly!

Most likely.

But we won’t really know until Monday.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r23cm7bL9E