Gonc fails to make satisfactory offer to McCanns

Unbelievably, it gets worse. He's churned out a new load of waffle, and appears to think this is of world-shattering importance. Quote:

One of the many marvellous readers of this blog who are also actors in their own right about the case contacted me with an email exchange which they have now kindly (many thanks F) permitted me to reproduce here. It puts the final brick in place.

Can we quote you, Kate?


*****REMOVED AS MATERIAL APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN OBTAINED UNDER FALSE PRETENCES BY PRO-GONC TROLL***


=======================

Yes, and? Is that supposed to be the Big Reveal? We all read that weeks ago - IT WAS ON THE PUBLIC SECTION OF THE FB SITE.

PS - isn't it nice of smiffy to confirm that the person asking was just some stupid 8r troll playing baby games, on smiffy's instructions, on a missing child's FB page?

Montclair/Carolina:

I don't care whether anyone thinks that he likes to make himself look important or whatever, he does get out a lot of information, especially about the McCanns wanting to settle. I had found out the day before his post and I said to myself that this news will be out on the internet the next day and it was. I have no idea who his source was but he had it right.

Oh, what a surprise that must have been.

However could that have happened - right out of the blue like that! It's almost as if it was meant to be that way!

Gonc really does need to have a word with his fan club, this is so clumsy, you can see the strings being pulled by the puppeteer.

PS - trolling a missing child's support site to point-score on behalf St Goncalol was neither big nor clever. Indeed, it's the kind of thing which is liable to turn around and bite you on the bum when you least expect it.

Portia wrote:
Dear John,

After my last declaration of adherence, some of the forum suggested I shut up and pmd you instead.

How?

Never mind. I was educated by someone shrapnelled at the Dardanelles with no left cheek to speak of. And Cambridge.

You told me -together with many others- to get out and look elsewhere for fun & games.

I'm still here.

We will see this to the end.

Are you, by any chance, dear Desmond himself? That would be nice. And it would not surprise me at all.

Good hunting!

Oh, what's this I am hearing from Sauces? That smiffy took material in the public domain and altered it to suit his own agenda? That there WAS no email to Kate McCann, except in smiffy's head?

Surely not!

bb1 wrote:Oh, what's this I am hearing from Sauces? That smiffy took material in the public domain and altered it to suit his own agenda? That there WAS no email to Kate McCann, except in smiffy's head?

Surely not!

Oh he didn't?
Not thee blacksmith, surely? Our beloved Shrapnel; it can't be true, can it?

Hard though it is to believe, Tony, it is looking that way. One might have expected him to learn his lesson after he was caught altering witness statements; seemingly not.

bb1 wrote:Hard though it is to believe, Tony, it is looking that way. One might have expected him to learn his lesson after he was caught altering witness statements; seemingly not.

Hohum, he's done, what a bum.

bb1 wrote:Oh, what's this I am hearing from Sauces? That smiffy took material in the public domain and altered it to suit his own agenda? That there WAS no email to Kate McCann, except in smiffy's head?

Surely not!

He must think Kate's head zips up at the back.

Here's the thing. I saw similar to the first and last of those two supposed 'emails' in the public domain, in posts on the official fb site. Not quite the same - admin denied the rumours, and told them not to talk about, as I recall, that nasty man on Madeleine's FB page.

A cynical person would be forgiven for thinking smiffy also saw them and altered them to suit his own agenda, inventing the middle one along the way.

As he has invented so much else over recent months.

bb1 wrote:Here's the thing. I saw similar to the first and last of those two supposed 'emails' in the public domain, in posts on the official fb site. Not quite the same - admin denied the rumours, and told them not to talk about, as I recall, that nasty man on Madeleine's FB page.

A cynical person would be forgiven for thinking smiffy also saw them and altered them to suit his own agenda, inventing the middle one along the way.

As he has invented so much else over recent months.

As with so much else posted about Madeleine and her parents, you are aware that this is another example of distortion of the truth regarding those emails.
He's a bigger liar than Bennett, and that takes some beating

Here's what I think, Maggs. Smiffy got some idiot forker to pretend to be 'concerned' on Madeleine's FB page; said troll got a dusty answer - which is what I saw, this was all in public.

Smiffy has invented the rest. He's desperate to somehow convince people - or maybe himself - that this load of horse manure is true.

It isn't, which is why he is so desperately twisting and spinning.

Knew we had it. This is what was said IN PUBLIC:

https://jatyk2.forumotion.co.uk/t2849p240-gonc-trying-to-settle-with-mccanns



Looks rather as if smiffy has been creative with that post, doesn't it?

bb1 wrote:Knew we had it. This is what was said IN PUBLIC:

https://jatyk2.forumotion.co.uk/t2849p240-gonc-trying-to-settle-with-mccanns



Looks rather as if smiffy has been creative with that post, doesn't it?

Would you ever believe it. What is the matter with these people? Lies, lies and more lies. Can't find any evidence so just make it up.

bb1 wrote:Knew we had it. This is what was said IN PUBLIC:

https://jatyk2.forumotion.co.uk/t2849p240-gonc-trying-to-settle-with-mccanns



Looks rather as if smiffy has been creative with that post, doesn't it?

So why is Shrapnel lying?

Who was it who referred to

my brief period manufacturing the news ?

Oh yes, it was smiffy. 'Nuff said.

Someone should give smiffy a new spade for his next birthday, that's some hole he's digging himself into.

I've deleted my post, because I have realised I am disgusted - this episode has proven we are right never to trust forkers, even ones who pretend to be house-trained. Especially ones who pretend to be house-trained.

What smiffy and his troll chum are claiming they have done is worse than anything Bennett has done with emails. Even Bennett hasn't posted what he claims are third-party emails.

Textusa, bonkers though she is, would never be so vulgar and bad-mannered as to post anyone's emails, let alone third-party ones.

I don't know what the truth of all this is, but let's pretend smiffy's telling something resembling the truth, for a change. By his accounts, he and his troll friend have done something which has reached a new low, even for forkers and Gonc supporters. They're no better than Laffin, emu, the multi-id loonies on twitter he so despises, or any of the other hydra trolls, and he need never again bother claiming moral high ground over Bennett.

Or anyone else.

There was a certain humour to smiffy's WUM-mery, some amusement to be had in his endless U-turns and backstabbing of allies.

But this? It's just squalid - and at least Coldwater never sounded like a drag queen on a bender having a hissy fit.

IMO, smiffy should have packed it in a couple of posts back. Then he might have gone out with some dignity, not revealed he's just another forker troll who enjoys playing nasty games to 'prove'....God knows what.

I certainly don't know, and as of now have ceased to care.

I believe that we must remember who smiffy et al are, well, 'playing' to, as Bonny has stated. Take this.....

e: Blacksmith 5th march 2013 - and conclude
bobbin Yesterday at 10:43 pm

Châtelaine wrote:
We're in the thousands. It would be flooding the gates. Would they want to sue each and everyone, who holds a critical view of what may have happened? It's a case of their very own making. Their inconsistencies, their turnabouts ... why wouldn't one be allowed to doubt the veracity? Apart from that: would they want to take on posters outside the U.K.?

I agree, there were some 60,000 signed that last petition, but the situation is still unequal. Just look at Tony and Goncalo, their books banned in the UK and UK citizens at risk of losing all and being imprisoned for exercising their freedom of speech. I know Tony signed papers, but he was forced to, such again is the unequal situation where the rich have ordinary people by the 'thingies'.
However, UN and ECHR are agreed that freedom of expression is a right and that the current UK libel laws are wrong, so an appeal could be made on those grounds, but of course Mme. Mai is talking of taking UK out of the ECHR. What will follow that, taking us out of UN.

The only thing is, as you say, numbers. The UK populace will take just so much before apathy becomes discomfort, then anger, then an overturn. Maybe it won't need to get to a repetition of the American civil war, or a new French type revolution, but once people are pushed enough, the push backwards is not a pretty thing and politicians can get spilled in the stampede too. Some politicians are mindful of this, others, so arrogant and self-believing may miss the cues, but at their peril. "The peasants are revolting, sir" "yes I know, no finesse at all"

Head in sand means bottom sticking out. Beware, head-in-sanders.

Bennett chose to sign the papers and I don't believe he said that Kirwans forced him to.

ECHR - Article 10 states, once more,

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to freedom of expression. Before the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force, the right to freedom of expression was a negative one: you were free to express yourself, unless the law otherwise prevented you from doing so. With the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into English and Welsh domestic law, the right to freedom of expression is now expressly guaranteed.

However, the right to freedom of expression in Article 10 is not absolute. Interferences with the right to freedom of expression may be permitted if they are prescribed by law, pursue a legitimate aim and are necessary in a democratic society, that is, satisfy a pressing social need. The legitimate purposes for which freedom of expression can be limited are:

* National security, territorial integrity or public safety.
* The prevention of disorder or crime.
* The protection of health or morals.
* The protection of the reputation or rights of others.
* The prevention of the disclosure of information received in confidence.
* For maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

But what about this from Judge Tugendhat?

In effect, the Defendant's submission is a straightforward denial of the Claimants' rights to equal treatment and protection under the law. His attitude that fundamental or human rights are only for himself is one that is by no means unique to himself. It brings the law of human rights into disrepute. The true position is obvious: there can be no human rights unless those claiming them also acknowledge their responsibility to respect the rights of others, as Art 10 specifically provides.

The Defendant he is talking about is Bennett.

Also, can anyone please explain to me what slavery has to do with this?

Smiffy is counting on people like this to eat up his BS.

Thank you, Lily - we got an excellent demonstration last night of how little smiffy and the troll cared about other people's rights. Topped off with the use of the 'F' word, to sound well 'ard, like some Icke cyber-warrior.

The UK populace will take just so much before apathy becomes discomfort, then anger, then an overturn.

Pity it doesn't sink in with them that THEY are the ones who are angering the public, isn't it? It is going to be entirely down to THEM if various laws are tightened up, thanks to their utter disrespect of the rights of others.

According to Judge Tugendhat, Bennett isn't the only one who thinks they can do and say what they please. He's right about that.

He said it brilliantly, didn't he, Sabot?

I missed that little demonstration last night and am rather disappointed. Was enjoying myself in Dubai.........

It's a great place but I'm not sure smiffy would fit in. Or maybe he should go there and have a good smoke........

Nothing worth seeing really, Lily. Suffice to say, he now comes under the heading of, Don't feed the troll....

Absolutely spot on, Lily. And in perfect English, so sadly, The Forkers will likely not understand it. And I wonder how Bennett felt when told he is not Unique. Just another Pitch Forker, in fact.

bb1 wrote:Nothing worth seeing really, Lily. Suffice to say, he now comes under the heading of, Don't feed the troll....

Was not surprised when I looked over on not-Bennett's place at the unfailing ignorance rampant there.

Quite; it's a measure of how stupid the supposed stunt was that yoyo is now a smiffy fan. Guess he's now sunk to the low level he should always have been at.