Friday, 24 April 2015

Just take a little time.....

It seems Textusa is a little unsettled. (I was going to put 'disturbed' but you already knew that, right?)

So it looks like I shall have to wade through 15ft of concentrated effluent, trying to work out what the fuck she is on about in that crazed little head of hers

Flippers on............

3 hours? For Tapas????

Textusa proving that she should stick to looning and not attempt humour 
1. Introduction

We didn’t have any intention of publishing this week.

This was for two reasons, one was we thought that last week’s post – it was one of our most read weeks ever – was too important not to have an extra week on the front page of the blog and the other is that the post did give us a lot of work so we thought we deserved a rest. And intended giving ourselves one.
That translates into - ''Last week's post was so full of glaring errors that I have been disappearing up my own jacksie trying to keep up with the negative press'' 

But as Santa Claus has elves we have our Textusa’s Little Helper, better known as Insane. The same person who almost 4 years ago pointed us, correctly we must add, in the direction of what would be last week's post “Irrefutable proof”.
Irrefutable proof my arse. Champion tinhattery with a side order of cobblers, served on a bed of fragrant bullshit, with a fucktard jus.  

This week, more precisely on Monday, Insane decided again to give us reason to blog.
Sorry, everyone. My bad.  

So just to acknowledge his efforts in the discovery of the truth as to what happened to Madeleine McCann we gave up the rest which we were lazily enjoying and came back here to write this post.
Oh get the fuck on with it, you lying twat.  

In his playground in his corner of the internet – where he’s sworn to show things yet to be shown – this is what he wrote on a post (the asterisks are ours):

“Monday, 20 April 2015

Load of Bullen-sh*t

Seems others are noticing that Textusa talks out of her *rse, with forums rightly pointing out that there is no evidence that the person Her Loonyness identified as the ''mystery woman'' was in fact her.

Wait until they notice that for Textusa to be right, the Bullen group would have to have spent 3 hours at dinner.

3 hours? For Tapas????

Posted by Not Textusa at 11:35 No comments”

2. Mystery Woman

First, Insane, we have never said that Dawn Bullen spent 3 hours at Tapas.
No, you didn't. But unless she spent 2 hours powdering her nose, one assumes the bulk of time she spent in a tapas restaurant was actually devoted to shovelling  albóndigas down her gullet

As we don’t think the Tapas dinners ever existed as described, we could hardly state that a person was, for whatever period of time, somewhere we didn’t think she was.
Oh fuck, here we go again. So no dinners were served to anyone at the Tapas? In fact, it's a figment of their collective imagination - is that your new version of events? 

We have only shown what others say about where and when Bullen was on that evening of May 3 2007.
The only fucker saying anything about it is you. Oh - and some of your textaloon readers of course, but they barely qualify as sentient

They being the Ocean Club and Jacqueline Williams, a Mark Warner nanny.

The Ocean Club alleges, via the May 3 Tapas reservation sheet it handed over to the PJ, that the Bullens (misspelled Buller) reserved a table at 07.00 pm for 4 adults. The same time as Edmonds, Carpenter and Mann.
The Ocean Club does not ''allege'' anything, so you can cut the bullshit with the emotive language. There was a booking for dinner in her name. That's not disputed.
According to that sheet, they were allocated table #201 and their presence was checked.

You, Insane, are assuming they were punctual and arrived at 19:00.
I'm assuming no such thing. I'm guessing you, however, are about to take massive liberties with the truth  

We have no way of knowing that but have no problem in also taking it as correct that it was around that time the Bullen group allegedly arrived at Tapas. We agree on arrival time.
So what the fuck was the last bit about then? 
Jacqueline Williams, about Dawn Bullen that night, says the following:

“That on last May 3 2007, at 22.05, being the deponent performing her functions at the Mini Club, in the service called “dinner period" (sic), together with her colleagues Charlotte and Amy, an individual of the female gender whose name she cannot indicate, only that she was the mother of a child who was there (belonging to the Toddlers2 group), being a tourist lodged in the resort in question and who ended her stay last week, went to those facilities saying she had been informed that a child with the name “Maddie” had disappeared, so the parents of that child needed the help of the nannies in order to try and find her.”

She does not refer to Bullen’s name, that’s true.

But does say two things about this mystery woman that allows us to make a positive identification of her as Dawn Bullen:
No she doesn't 

- at around 22:00 (22:05 according to Jacqueline or 22:15 according to Charlotte Pennington) she knew Maddie had disappeared;

- she was the mother of a child who attended the Toddlers 2 club.
So that's the only identification given 

That mystery woman had to be at Tapas that night unless anyone can come up with an alternative scenario, for someone to have known at that time Maddie had disappeared  According to various statements the alarm took place at the Tapas – nobody else heard it apart from those at the Tapas.

To spread that alarm so quickly, only a diner could have told reception in that timescale.
Nope. Nowhere does it say that is the case. In fact some of the witnesses say it quickly became pandemonium, with people running about all over the place, and by the time the 'Lost Child' procedure was put in place a number of guests had already turned up to help. So basically you were just winging it with your claims that you ''identified'' Ms Bullen. It could have been any of the dozen or so families with a child at the night creche and you have no way or means of identifying who.  
Having a child at Toddlers 2 club and also in the alleged night crèche that night,  rules out the Tapas staff, which means mystery woman had to be a guest.
It was clearly stated that she was a guest, that was never in doubt. So you are stating the bleeding obvious. 
The Bullens, as we showed in our “Luz's secret service” post, were the only guests dining  at Tapas who didn’t have their child, who attended Toddlers 2 club, with them during that alleged dinner.

Mystery woman can only have been Dawn Bullen.
No, you have made an assumption that only someone who had been dining in the Tapas could be aware there was a missing child. Yet some of the Tapas staff themselves only became aware there was a missing child when they witnessed guests searching.

The woman who called at the creche may have been Dawn Bullen. And it may not. The point is you do not have sufficient evidence to say it was because your entire argument is based on the premise that the only people who knew at that stage that a child was missing were the diners from the Tapas, and that's total cobblers. What is even more hilarious is that you are claiming the woman who dined at the tapas and then alerted the creche could only have been Ms Bullen - and in the same breath claiming that the dinners in the Tapas never happened in the first place so she couldn't have been there! I'll assume that when you were going up the stair you met a man that wasn't there, shall I ?

Insane, if you – or anyone else – can demonstrate that mystery woman was any other than Dawn Bullen we will gladly correct ourselves. We must warn you that saying simply “it wasn't her” does not constitute enough information to make us change our minds. 
I don't give a shit who it was and god knows why you do. 

3. 3 hours? For Tapas????

Stampede at the DFS sale, where Big Round Tables are on special offer.

We were surprised by the disdain you, Insane, have shown concerning Tapas.
No dear, I am showing disdain for you. 

Wasn’t it supposed to be such a quality restaurant that people rushed and queued up to get one of the only 20 covers available there? 15 if one is to take Kate McCann’s word in her book. That particular week, there were only available 11 covers (or 6, again according to Kate) as the T9 had taken 9 covers off the market, so to speak.
And your point is? If you have one.... 

A 3 hour dinner is not unusual for a restaurant that seems to have a much greater demand than its offer. The harder it is to get a reservation the more one tends to savour the moment and prolong the pleasure.

But your 4 question marks make it clear that you think an absurdity for anyone to have spent 3 hours at a place like Tapas:
Do they, indeed? 

That conclusion can only come from the fact that you agree with us that Tapas had no further added value than any second-rate fast food restaurant and one does not spend 3 hours in one of those unless one really has to.
Nope. And don't do that ''this means you agree with us'' bullshit because it's possibly the most annoying thing on God's earth 
Add the fact of eating outside in an esplanade that tunnels the breeze of a chilly evening (for some reason Jane Tanner borrowed Russ' fleece, allegedly) and we totally subscribe to your 4 question marks in your“3 hours? For Tapas???”.
So what the fuck are you arguing for then, you stupid great tart?

4. The Bullens' Tapas dinner

Textusa didn't know it yet, but Fred and Simon were having a 'thing'
If the Bullens came in at 19:00 and stayed up until 22:00 – the group had to have stayed until that time otherwise Dawn couldn’t have possibly known that Maddie had disappeared – then, yes their dinner at the Tapas esplanade would have taken 3 hours.
Thank you, Professor Stephen Hawking. 

We agree with you that time to have dinner outside in an esplanade like Tapas is absurd, laughable and ludicrous.
Why do I feel you are about to declare ''therefore the dinners never happened''? 

5. The Carpenters' Tapas dinner

Angela sighed. Textusa's posts took forever to read and her husband and kids were starving 
Using the same reasoning then Insane must agree with us that the Carpenter family Tapas dinner of May 3 is equally nonsensical, outrageous and preposterous as the Bullens’.

The Carpenters also arrive at 19:00 and say they leave at 21:30.
Well no actually. Mr Carpenter mentions that other diners with a booking for 7 were already there and seated when they arrived, indicating that the Carpenter party may have been slightly late arriving, and he states they left between 9.15 and 9.30. Plus, eating with children can often take longer, as I am sure you are aware *pauses to contemplate the horror of Textusa reproducing*

If a 3 hour meal at the Tapas esplanade for 4 adults is risible, what can one say about one that lasts 2.5 hours of a family of 4 with a toddler and an infant?
About right? 

Unbelievable? Yes, we would agree with you on that too, Insane.
Ah yes, I see what you did there. Amusing.

6. The Tapas 9 Tapas dinner

I know you think you see a big round table, but be warned, it never existed. Matron, can I have my tablets please? 
This group is said to arrive every night at 20:30, as per Tapas reservation sheets.
Oh god help us, here we go again 

Jeronimo Salcedas on May 6 2007, says:

“When asked, he said that they would normally stay at the restaurant until 23.30 - 24.00, although some of them would leave earlier, at about 23.00. They were people who showed their satisfaction with the food and would consume on average 8 bottles of wine (4 red, 4 white) between the nine of them, which he considered to be normal consumption for a group of such a number.”

The same Salcedas on April 23 2008, confirms the group usually left after 23:30 and speaks of one particular night in which it left after midnight

“Generally, they left the Tapas at 23h30/midnight, at times together and at other times in small groups. On the night in which they drank more than usual, they left a bit later, perhaps towards 00h30-01h00. I remember this detail because I was supposed to finish work at 00H00 and I wanted to go home. They always left on good terms and always wished the staff good night.”

Ricardo Oliveira confirms that night to have been on Wednesday:

“It was also normal for certain members of the group to order dessert. After this, they would normally stay at the table until after 24H00 but would always leave before 00H00, the time when the bar closed. One or more of them, on another night, asked for an after-dinner drink. He remembers this clearly because they asked for Amareto and the bar did not stock it.

The witness served almond bitters to all. He remembers that this happened on Wednesday. He does not remember if they had more after-dinner drinks. He does remember that on Wednesday, certain elements of the group got up, with their after-dinner drinks, and headed to the bar and stayed there until about 00H00/00H10. This was the only night where the group elements were in the bar after closing. He also remembers that they would normally be the last clients to leave. Wednesday was the last night they were at the bar after dinner.”

From these statements, the T9 dinner went from 20:30 to 23:30 or later as the T9 group “would normally be the last clients to leave”.

3 or more hours at Tapas????
It's such a shame you don't put your picture up so we can see if you look as stupid as you sound. 

We have to agree with you Insane, the T9 dinners are indeed comical, farcical and hilarious. The only reason they wouldn't be bored to death would be because the group spent their 3 ot more hours every night behaving like Jacks in the box!
Oh no they didn't. Because according to you, the dinners never took place and all those waiters are lying.

So you can't have it both ways. You say they are lying, then try to use their statements to prove a point. I mean, I always knew you were a bit thick, but really.........

7. Insane

Textusa working undercover

To new readers, Insane is not just any detractor.

The fact that he has dedicated a significant amount of time of his life to, exclusively, try to discredit us bothers us little. In fact he’s quite versatile in the use of insult which is puerile, at times provides a distraction and in rare moments amusing.
Oh believe me, it's not significant. It's also a pleasure. You're welcome. 

The peculiarity about Insane is what he alleges.

He acknowledges contacts with Mark Warner. In a comment in the post “Truth as Clue”:

“As for your remarks about childcare and Mark Warner - well, as you know, I have a Mark Warner contact. I feel it's only right that they should know about the malicious falsehoods you are spreading.”

Confirms these contacts in 2 other comments, one in Nov 14 2012 11:37:00 PM:

“Oh look here - amazing what one can find out by means of a couple of emails to Mark Warner.

You are toast, lady. Finished.

I am going to enjoy this more than is actually decent.”

The other on Nov 15, 2012 10:47:00 PM:

“One thing I really like about Mark Warner is how helpful their staff are. Really go the extra mile for someone needing information. IYKWIM [If You Know What I Mean]


The seriousness of these comments are not their threatening nature but their content.

What was in question was a mail sent by one of our readers to the Ocean Club inquiring as a potential customer for details about the Tapas bar and what sort of food they served.

This mail was written after Maddie's disappearance.  

She received a reply from the Ocean Club that Tapas only served snacks and pizza upon request, if memory serves us right.

The mail was addressed to the Ocean Club and the answer came from Silvia Baptista (do note it was Ocean Club's maintenance manager answering on a customer related subject).

What Insane implied was that Ocean Club revealed the content of this mail to Mark Warner (simply a tourist operator) and Mark Warner, in turn, did the same to a completely different person.
Like you did, publishing the reply, you mean?
I seem to remember that what had escaped the attention of yourself and the Loonettes was the fact that the Tapas restaurant had closed and been replaced with a ......Pizza restaurant! Serving Pizza! Well, bugger me......... 
Nice for Ocean Club and Mark Warner customers to know that whatever they may inquire about Ocean Club, the resort will keep it for themselves and share it only with their 10, or maybe 20, best friends.
Don't even think of going there after your false allegations about a 12 year old girl and her family.

The people they “go an extra mile” for. According to Insane, that is.
No, they went the extra mile for me, dingbat. 
Please note that Insane has also put in the following very interesting comments (asterisks and underlining are ours):

Aug 28, 2011 9:27:00 AM:

“…How would any of you idiots like it if your name came into the public domain because you werewitness to a crime, and some mad b*tch set up a site in which she called you a liar, and claimed you were actually involved in the crime you witnessed? Just ponder on that for a moment”
Ah yes, I remember this. This was the one where you couldn't tell the difference between ''witness'' and ''eyewitness'', wasn't it? 

Aug 28, 2011 1:09:00 PM:

“…Where is your sense of shame or decency in accusing innocent witnesses of being involved in covering up the death of a child?

Yes - you accused them of being involved in just that. If you claim a child is dead, and that someone is involved, then you are asked why you are accusing an innocent person of being involved in the death of a child, the correct response is not ''So you admit she is dead, then?''
But I wouldn't expect you to understand that because you're a bit simple. 
I see no shame or decency on here - just an utter indifference to the rights or feelings of others.

I notice no-one had the b*lls to answer my question about how you would feel if this was done to you - if you were a witness to a crime and some deranged cow on the internet accused you of being involved. You are all a complete disgrace.”
Ah yes, the ''witness'' thing again. Still not got your head around it........ 
Lastly, Insane, we hope the Bullens are pleased with the insensitive, distasteful, rude and immature word play you made up with their name.
I'm absolutely positive they will be thrilled with your allegation that their '' “known” participation is highly questionable and should be questioned''

An allegation you made on a blog with no justification whatsoever

With friends like you, who needs enemies?

Just looking out for the innocent. They shouldn't have to suffer because of your forked tongue, you deranged harpie. 

Now fuck off. 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Leave a message. If you're a conspiraloon, we might publish it, but we reserve the right to take the piss mercilessly. Have a nice day.

Messages not for publication can also be left, or you can email