Tabloid Bingo: McCann, Matthews, McGuckin And More…
ANORAK’S’ Tabloid Bingo: With Lorraine Kelly…
The Aim of The Game: To combine the names McCann, Fritzl, Matthews, McGuckin and McKeown in one column. Can the Sun’s Lorraine do it? Eyes down…
WHY do many parents leave their common sense behind as soon as they step on the plane and go off on holiday?
A promising start from Kelly, who has set a scene which should enable her to use all five names, possibly in a single paragraph.
Parents who would not leave their children in the front garden to play on their own happily dump them in the hotel room or villa while they go for a meal. The poor McCanns will never forgive themselves for their tragic error of judgment which led to the disappearance of Maddie.
Tick!
What about the Irish bank chief and his wife who had their children taken into protective custody when on holiday in the Algarve?
You mean the mortgage advisor, Lorraine?
Eamon McGuckin was said to be so drunk that he collapsed and fell through a sofa, while his wife Antoinette threw up in their hotel reception area.
Tick!
Damn those flimsy Portuguese sofas.
Without becoming paranoid and wrapping your children in cotton wool, you have to be aware they can be in MORE danger on holiday than at home. Child molesters haunt holiday camps, theme parks and family resorts. You need to be on your guard.
The danger is all around us. It could be you.
Parents have to remind themselves about what they would do if they were in their own house. They WOULDN’T leave their children home alone without a babysitter, and they WOULDN’T get so stinking drunk they vomit and black out.
Shannon Matthews? Noooo! Karen Matthews?? Noooooo!! Lorraine misses a sitter. Come, on Loraine, up your game.
More Tabloid Bingo soon…
May 10th, 2008 at 11:47 am
A news paper in Belfast said yesterday or today that the process is about to be shelved.
Nobody in Portugal heard about this news.
Alipio Ribeiro left the PJ not because of the McCanns but for very many other reasons.
He declared he is tired about being the director and he has the right to be.
There are other crimes in Portugal besides Maddie’s one.
May 10th, 2008 at 11:48 am
The best bet is lock them safely in the cellar - sorry bunker (tick!)
May 10th, 2008 at 11:57 am
And Lorraine has omitted the alpha male going bonkers card; a bit of an outsider still, I grant you, but it’s definitely coming up on the rails…
May 10th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
In the animal world the Alphas produce the young, but leave it to others to bring them up, while the Alpha male go hunting,and the Alpha female breeds (she also kills the young of lesser ranks with the aid of the next lower rank).
Its a rite of passage to achieve Alpha state, and has to be defended frequently in the early days, but is usually yielded easily to next rank when fertility drops.
Strange thing with humans we don’t have to prove fertility just ability/intelligence, perhaps therein lies the difference? But handing over the nurture of the young seems to be a common trait.
Chenier , he is Alpha in his own family grouping, he’s not fareing too well outside of it, and he should if he is alpha socially too, what do you think? (large fish in v. small pond?)
May 10th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
June perhaps Gerry ate Madeleine?
May 10th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Ahh! Theory No 376 Meercat.
Already been chewed over and digested.
May 10th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Happy Birthday to Gloria’s daughter!
Maybe I could help you, chenier?
It would be criminal involvement if one or other parent, or both, had killed Madeleine, accidentally or deliberately and disposed of her body. Or if she had died accidentally and they had decided to cover up the death and dispose of her body.
It would aslo be criminal involvement if they knew that any of their friends in Portugal had been involved in any of the above.
It would be criminal if they knew what had happened to her but were keeping it quiet, having set up an abduction story in an effort to hide the truth, for whatever reason.
It would be criminal involvement if Madeleine had disappeared, they knew not how, but had decided to cash in anyway on this tragedy and set up a worldwide financial scam and pretend search campaign.
A financial scam and obtaining money fraudulently seems pretty criminal to me.
It would be criminal involvement if they had confessed any of the above crimes to a priest, relying on the seal of the confessional. (Admittedly, this is just about the daftest suggestion!)
It would be criminal involvement if, as the PJ reportedly suggested to K, she had killed Madeleine and G had helped her dispose of the body, possibly before the starters came on 3rd May, or earlier, of course.
It would be criminal involvement if they’d asked Tanner to lie.
It would be criminal involvement on HER part if Tanner had simply decided to lie in order to protect the Mcs (as you do for good friends!!) or to protect her own partner or others in the tapas group.
It would be further criminal involvement if there were some high-levl Govt or JW or Vatican conspiracy to cover up the fact that any of the above may be true and they were well aware of such a comspiracy.
By “criminal involvement” I mean any of the suggestions put forward on Anorak over the last year about their involvement, as well as those expressed in the press until the successful libel suits. I include suggestions which have possibly been very seriously considered by the police.
The police may well not have had any more precise idea than “criminal involvement” when they made them arguidos.
Of course, I don’t deny that there might be other ways in which they could be criminally involved, which nobody has yet suggested………..but it will come, it will come! Look at the Diana theories!! We haven’t yet, I think, had the D of E involved? (Just the Pope!) But maybe I missed that one.
But , for the moment, I think “criminal involvement” is a reasonable enough phrase to use. After all, I’m not giving evidence or court or attempting to prove a mathematical or scientific proposition.
I certainly am not referring to eating in the tapas bar having left the children asleep in the apartment. That might be negligence but I certainly don’t think it’s what their lawyer is referring to when he says there is no evidence against them? They admitted it, from day one. Of course, their checks may have been less frequent than they said, although the waiter’s reported evidence seemed to support them. However, I’m not talking about the negligence matter. That is a separate issue for which there is some evidence in the public domain and may well be more in the police files. If they are convicted of criminal neglience in leaving the children, but not of anything else, it still leaves the possibility that another criminal, who took Madeleine, is still out there.
Hope that helps.
Not wasting any more of my (or your!) time here, though. Good bye.
May 10th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Crumbs!
May 10th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Carmen it’s a spicey theory, just thought I’d bring it to the table.
May 10th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Oh! Forgot about {EDIT} it would be criminal if true - the selling of {EDIT} Madeleine (whom they hated, of course!) into slavery, all being involved in sinister medical experiments which went wrong, pretending- she’s- gone- but -knowing- all -along- she’s- OK- and -will- be -coming- home -soon, being involved in international child-trafficking, engaging in drugs and sex orgies while neglecting the children….. All pretty criminal, I think? {EDIT} If true
Must be others?!
Ah yes….pretending to be catholics but really being very bad ones (IVF).
And of course, let’s not forget …..making friends with anglicans, even praying their churches? Not sure how criminal that is, though! Just shows Mcs are generally nasty people, maybe??
Enjoy the crumbs…..birthday cake?
BUT…..whoosh…..clunk! ……gone! For good.
********************
MODS AND ADMIN
Maria, in your hurry to ‘whoosh, clunk’ you forgot to cover your eminent backside in your inimitable usual fashion! I have edited this post for you. Carmen