quarta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2011

Qual é o teu problema com o jogo Cluedo ?


http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.com/2011/08/both-sides-or-none.html




WEDNESDAY, 24 AUGUST 2011

Both sides or none


John Blacksmith writes:


Sorry




First an apology. In The Question of Libel  the other day I used the phrase, “For the obtuse, the original claim by KM was that she should confess…”




The word obtuse was aimed at one or two critics who simply denied the facts as explained for their own reasons – and of course continue to do so – and not at any of  those honest students of the case who had been deceived by Kate McCann’s intentionally convoluted prose on page 243 of her book.


 I am sorry if the word gave offence: that was not my intention.




Haters?




Perhaps I could be forgiven for enlarging on my comments yesterday concerning my own attitude to the McCann couple.




 I quite accept that they have many supporters who are rightly shocked and disgusted by the various “theories” of what happened to Madeleine McCann and the way the pair have become a living Cluedo board for crime fans and recreational posters.




But, as the more honest of those supporters must know deep down, these are not at the core of the sceptical or anti-McCann movement: 


that core, in which I do not include myself for the moment,  consists of  numerous individuals working  hard and conscientiously simply to add to the truth. 




Where would we be now without the translators of the case papers which, I remind people, were released to the public, not to the McCanns? 




Answer: back in July 2008 when the parents’ spokesman span them so dishonestly to the UK press, confident in the knowledge that readers didn’t yet know the original Portuguese content. 




The translation costs to the McCanns are claimed to have run to six figures – without unpaid volunteers who would ever have financed an independent effort?




And where would we be without the owner of the Pamalam website who, in the face of great difficulties and legal threats, has ensured that the blogs of Gerry McCann have not been withdrawn and suppressed?




 The latter are primary sources for the way in which the pair deliberately  misled the UK public about the course of the investigation into their own role as potential suspects,examples of which I gave in the Question of Libel piece. 




The pair short-sightedly put them in the public domain when it suited their purposes and then attempted to assert copyright on them once their purpose had been fulfilled.




This unthinking  short-termism in their own interests runs throughout the case.


 The parents appear to have been shocked when they realised that most of the case papers were going to be made available to the public, despite the absence of any trial. 




But should they have been?




 The disappearance and investigation took place in an overseas jurisdiction, not in Glasgow or Liverpool.


 The parents were warned from Day One that, whatever half-baked ideas the group had picked up from English tabloids and Crimewatch about the way to catch child abductors, if they wanted to get their child back  they had to accept the investigative methods of the host country.






They deliberately ignored those warnings, just as they ignored the fact  that the case files would be released if the case were to be archived, in accordance with the law of the democracy in which they were guests – all of it demonstrating their unwillingness to learn anything about Portugal. 




They went their own way. So who should they blame for the consequences?




The case files present the details of a Portuguese case enabling the UK public – or that part of it that can be bothered – to see the details of the investigation that the parents have fought tooth and nail to conceal. 


One day the McCanns are going to have to accept that the struggle is lost and they must search for a new way to “expunge” the widespread public scepticism about their claims.




Candidates for inclusion




I wrote yesterday of the McCanns’ “assault” on the British public regarding, essentially, the latter’s right to hear either both sides of a legal investigation or, under the UK contempt laws, neither side until a case comes to a conclusion. 




..........




With that track record do you think the Bureau was going to ignore the couple when they brought themselves to its attention?

Posted by john blacksmith  

Enviar um comentário