McCann Body Language: We Can't Stop Doing What We Do

I am not going to concern myself with what is said here in the main, that I am sure has already been picked over at numerous places around the web.

Just what takes my fancy then, and for the purpose of this gallery, my comments are above the relative pics.


So we're straight in with a demand, I find that only works well with a gun in your hand, otherwise, please, invariably seems to achieve the desired results.



And what has become now a pre-requisite for any interview, the obligatory clasping of hands accompanied by the even more obligatory wristbands. Good quality I hope.



Look what's on its way.



Getting closer.



Voila! Must be talking about her daughter, or perhaps it was us lot on this occasion.


Ever the same aggressive little fuck as always.





Right so! that's the bits out of the way.

I think we all know what this is about without me giving a protracted intro, so let's drive on without more ado.

Or should I phrase it, they're under starters orders and; they're off!

Showing well well after ten seconds, in the green it's Gerry McCann with a head scratch. (Times on the slide bar.)

Darshna Soni You are calling for a review of the investigation. Explain to us why.

DS Do you think it makes it difficult for them, though, because you have got your own private investigators looking for your daughter? Does that make your relationship with the police difficult?

DS Leicestershire Police have said to us that they haven’t shelved the investigation because it was never their investigation to shelve because it was being led by the Portuguese. What more would you expect Leicestershire Police to do?

Still on the same question. Pennies from heaven. (If I cross post this at the plod blog, what might you think the header might read?) Now done.

GM Leicestershire have, you know, largely played their part and they have done that to the best of their ability.

There were numerous shots in this Mrs Kate series, but in fairness I think it was the genuine article in this case.

DS And how do you keep going? How do you keep hoping? There must be days when it is very, very difficult.

KM Well we’ve worked so hard. I mean, understandably, we’re Madeleine’s parents and we are going to do everything that we can and we work really hard.

"And we work really hard." Sounds a tad familiar.





Unprompted, but that doesn't mean to say it's not in response to something going on in the asylum of his mind.

Part Two

There are two particular instances in part two that I found, I was about to say amusing, but on reflection and for want of something better, just let me call them interesting.

This next example includes both question and answer.

DS You’ve also spent money on your own investigators as you’ve said. There have been reports that some of these detectives have taken money but then not delivered. They are dodgy detectives if you like. How can you reassure people that money won’t be spent on people like that in the future.

GM Well we’ve very much had for the last two and a bit years, we’ve had Dave Edgar who is a very experienced detective who was near retirement. He’s been working with us. He’s very much accountable for the spend. He feels he can justify every penny. But at the same time I hope the public realise as well as directors of the fund in particular when we were arguido and there was no search going on that it was incumbent upon us to continue a search in very, very difficult circumstances. So we have made decisions along the way which have always, we felt, been in the best interest of the search to find Madeleine and we are very accountable. All the expenses are there err, receipts and we’ve got quite a tight-knit team working on this but we need them. Without it there would be no-one there to go and interview people and follow up leads.

It is amusing isn't it? in fact it's more than amusing, it's comical given who he's talking about.

This next piece isn't amusing, for me it's hilarious. But to truly appreciate what's going on with Doctor Dangerous, you have to click here first.

More at the Sandra Felgueiras archive.



Watch the struggle, watch the conflict, as he tries not to scratch his ear. Then try it on the clip.








These bottom three, I don't know where they came from. I must have grabbed them somewhere else. Confusion isn't a hard thing when you're screen-shotting, it's not hard to end up with a zillion shots in the folder, particularly if you wonder, "did I get that one" and you go back and have another basin full. Imagine a professional photographer where he might take dozens of shots of something, all seemingly the same. Well it's a bit like that only not quite as organised.





And finally, a big tip of the hat to Bren at Headlines today for saving me hours of work by having transcripts of both clips. They can be found here along with the Youtube versions and much more.





You might recognise along the way, where I found the quote for the header, though as I recall, I don't think it was body language that McCann was describing at the time.


h/t to original uploader. Ch4 News as it happens.

Will He Never Shut Up?

Certifiable!? not half.

I wouldn't normally feature stuff from Martin, I'm such a little tart of the yard no less, Brunt, but this latest from McCann is a pearl.

Try this bit:

An independent report by Jim Gamble, of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre,

An "independent report" by Gerry McCann's best mucker, Jim Gamble, yeah right. Do you know what that report is worth? about as much as Jimmy's little rubber stamp; and that was before Gamble decided to, or was helped to decamp the CEOP.

I'm not surprised the Home Secretary won't give it to the little bollocks, fuck me! listen how he whines now, can you imagine what the demented fucker would be like with that in his hand? Stroll on!

And you do know don't you, that that is all he wants the thing for, to wave it about and to whingen and whine and cry, "look how not guilty Jim Gamble says we are."

Jesus wept, how these two are still at liberty is beyond me, absolutely and totally beyond me.

Madeleine Petition As Parents Rap Home Sec

Martin Brunt, crime correspondent

Madeleine McCann's parents are launching an online petition to help force a UK and Portuguese joint review of all evidence in the case of their missing daughter.

They hope it can lead to a new police investigation into the girl's disappearance from the family's rented holiday apartment in Portugal three-and-a-half years ago today.

Kate and Gerry McCann also accused Home Secretary Theresa May of offering "words, but no action" to help the search for their daughter.

Mrs McCann said: "Reviews are done in all major investigations, at least in this country.

"The benefits of pulling together different bits of evidence can be enormous but, until that is done, we can't be sure what has been missed.

"You have to ask why it isn't being done in Madeleine's case. What is the block?"

An independent report by Jim Gamble, of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, is thought to back the couple's demand for a review of all the evidence gathered by British and Portuguese police.

The report was commissioned by Labour Home Secretary Alan Johnson but not completed until the summer, when Mrs May took office under the coalition Government.

Yet the Home Office refuses to disclose its recommendations to the McCanns.

"There is no reason why the contents of the report can't be made available to us. They say some of it is sensitive, but we are Madeleine's parents for goodness sake," said Mr McCann.

"We've made it clear we will not divulge any of it except to help our own investigators."

The couple met Mrs May in August, but say they were left with little optimism of government help.

Mrs McCann said: "We didn't get answers. We got a lot of words but no action, nothing concrete. I can't get my head around the fact that the Government has given up on Madeleine." blah blah

we are Madeleine's parents for goodness sake," said Mr McCann. For fuck's sake stop.


And this bit: "I can't get my head around...." Can't get your your head around it! I'll tell you something sunshine, you just keep it up, because you're going to end up getting the fucking you deserve.

Or to borrow a phrase, The only justice you will get is what's coming to you.

Is This The Kind of Journalism That You Speak About Mister Marr?

This is the concluding half of an article by Jon Pilger entitled The BBC is on Murdoch's side. Posted here because I don't want to knock this post (of the last hour) off the front page.

It would appear Journalist, John Pilger is less than little impressed with your hackery Mister Marr.

Blair was embraced by the new BBC corporate class, which regards itself as meretorious and non-ideological: the natural leaders in a managerial Britain in which class is unspoken. Few did more to enunciate Blair’s “vision” than Andrew Marr, then a leading newspaper journalist and today the BBC’s ubiquitous voice of middle-class Britain. Just as Murdoch’s Sun declared in 1995 it shared the rising Blair’s “high moral values” so Marr, writing the Observer in 1999, lauded the new prime minister’s “substantial moral courage” and the “clear distinction in his mind between prudently protecting his power base and rashly using his power for high moral purpose”. What impressed Marr was Blair’s “utter lack of cynicism” along with his bombing of Yugoslavia which would “save lives”.

By March 2003, Marr was the BBC’s political editor. Standing in Downing Street on the night of the “shock and awe” assault on Iraq, he rejoiced at the vindication of Blair who, he said, had promised “to take Baghdad without a bloodbath, and that in end the Iraqis would be celebrating. And on both of those points he has been proved conclusively right” and as a result “tonight he stands as a larger man”. In fact, the criminal conquest of Iraq smashed a society, killing up to a million people, driving four million from their homes, contaminating cities like Fallujah with cancer-causing poisons and leaving a majority of young children malnourished in a country once described by Unicef as a “model”.

So it was entirely appropriate that Blair, in hawking his self-serving book, should select Marr for his “exclusive TV interview” on the BBC. The headline across the Observer’s review of the interview read, “Look who’s having the last laugh.” Beneath this was a picture of a beaming Blair sharing a laugh with Marr.

The interview produced not a single challenge that stopped Blair in his precocious, mendacious tracks. He was allowed to say that “absolutely clearly and unequivocally, the reason for toppling [Saddam Hussein] was his breach of resolutions over WMD, right?” No, wrong. A wealth of evidence, not least the infamous Downing Street Memo, makes clear that Blair secretly colluded with George W Bush to attack Iraq. This was not mentioned. At no point did Marr say to him, “You failed to persuade the UN Security Council to go along with the invasion. You and Bush went alone. Most of the world was outraged. Weren’t you aware that you were about to commit a monumental war crime?”

Instead, Blair used the convivial encounter to deceive, yet again, even to promote an attack on Iran, an outrage. Murdoch’s Fox would have differed in style only. The British public deserves better.

John Pilger homepage, have a wander through the site there is a wealth of stuff to be found there.

A Verdade Da Mentira Freedom of Speech Gallery

Am I To Take It Madam Home Secretary Your Answer Is

On the assumption of course, that the cap fits.




A couple of weeks ago I steeled myself to watch Andrew Marr* interview Tony Blair, mass murderer and Christian of the Catholic persuasion. Of all that slithered out of Blair's mouth, only two things I was prepared to accept as true. One of those things. Had the disciples of Islam on the eleventh of September, had the opportunity to murder three hundred thousand instead of three thousand, they would have done so gladly.

And the other? dropping a monumental clanger by implementing the Freedom of Information Act.

Not that he has that much to regret, not if we consider this response from Home Secretary Theresa May.

Home Office response to FoI request concerning meetings and activities undertaken in support of a possible case review McCann Exposure

13 September 2010

Home Office
Information Access Team
Information Management Service
Financial & Commercial Group
On behalf of the Home Office Police Powers and Protection Unit (PPPU)

2 Marsham Street, London, SW1P 4DF
Switchboard 020 7035 4848
E-mail: Info.Access@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk Website: www.homeoffice.gov.uk
[name and email address redacted]
Our Ref: 14551

09 September 2010

Dear [redacted],

Thank you for your e-mail of 24 March, 2010 in which you ask for the following information

Academic as they are, for it is the reply that concerns us here, the twelve questions can be found at mccannfiles.com. I do not promote liars here.

Your request has been handled as a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOI) and we can now provide you with a substantive response to your request.

I can confirm that the then Home Secretary met Mr and Mrs McCann in October 2009. Also present were two members of the Minister's Private Office and a Home Office Official. There were no subsequent meetings between Home Office Ministers or Home Office officials and Mr and Mrs McCann or any representative acting on their behalf, between then and the date of your letter.

I confirm that the Home Office holds some information relevant to remaining parts of your request but that, other than the information provided above, we consider that information to be exempt from disclosure under sections 31(1)(a) and (b), s.40(2) and s36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Act.

Furthermore, we neither confirm nor deny that we hold any further information by virtue of Section 23(5) – information relating to an organisation listed in Section 23(3) of the Act. Section 23 confers an absolute exemption from our duty under section 1(1)(a) of the Act and does not require any further consideration. This response should not be taken as conclusive evidence that the information you have requested is or is not held by the Home Office.

The general policy of the Home Office is not to disclose to a third party, personal information about another person. Section 40(2) of the FOI relates to the handling of personal information under the Data Protection Act. The Home Office has obligations under that Act, and in law generally, to protect the personal data that it holds. Mr and Mrs McCann would have had a legitimate expectation that any meeting with the Home Secretary was a private meeting. We have therefore, concluded that such information as you have requested which relates to Mr and Mrs McCann’s participation in the meeting and any views or opinions expressed, is exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) of the FOI, on the grounds that the such disclosure would breach the first Data Protection Principle in that it would constitute unfair processing of their personal data. The same exemption applies in relation to the details of Home Office officials present at the meeting. Section 40(2) is an absolute exemption and does not require any further consideration.

Section 31(1)(a) provides that information is exempt if its disclosure would or would be likely to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime, and section 31(1)(b) if it would potentially prejudice the apprehension or prosecution of offenders, and (in both cases) the public interest falls in favour of applying the exemption.

Sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) apply to information which, in the reasonable opinion of a qualified person, would if disclosed, be likely to inhibit the free and frank provision of advice, or the free and frank exchange of views for the purpose of deliberation. Section 36 is also subject to the supporting arguments of a public interest test.

Consideration of the public interest test in relation to these elements of the Act is detailed in Annex A.

If you are dissatisfied with this response you may request an independent internal review of our handling of your request by submitting a complaint, within two months, to the address below, quoting the reference number at the top of this letter:

Information Access Team
Home Office
Ground Floor, Seacole Building
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF

Alternatively you can e-mail:

foirequests@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

If you ask for an internal review, it would be helpful if you could say why you are dissatisfied with the response. As part of any internal review the Department's handling of your information request will be reassessed by staff who were not involved in providing you with this response. If you remain dissatisfied after this internal review, you would have a right of complaint to the Information Commissioner as established by section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act.

I apologise for the very long delay in replying to your request owing to the need to apply and fully consider the public interest test in this case.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Lister

Information Access Consultant

Isn't she a dear, a candidate for joining the flock methinks, but not tonight, soon perhaps.

* Just to say I really enjoyed Marr's History of Modern Britain. You can find it here on Google vids if you haven't watched the thing as yet.

Hard to say which I enjoyed the more, Marr's history of, or The Trial of Tony Blair. (Link updated)




An amazing two minutes if we consider the number of talking points the Woman touches upon. It may even sound a tad familiar towards the close.

Teddies For Truth Investigate The Evidence For McCann Abduction Claims

Teddies For Truth. It's a none starter I'm afraid, type Teddy in the search bar.