Translate

Tuesday, 7 August 2018

Fuckwit




Chortle


NT has all along been trying to say that it can't be proven that a body was in the living-room, in the bedroom and on the flowerbed 'just because' the dogs alerted in 5a. That has a name: dog-dissing.
Those defending NT have no shame.


Jesus, you're such a dimwit. 

Let me ask you a question - is Shannon Matthews dead?

No?

That's right - yet search dogs signalled cadaver odour in some of the locations searched. There was another explanation for those alerts - furniture which, like the little lad in the Bruce Willis film, had seen dead people

This is why alerts have to be confirmed - so that stupid people like you don't slap people in a Wicker Man and set fire to them because "Dogs don't lie"

No, dogs don't lie. They leave that to your fuckwitted idol, Textusa von Trapp.

Studies have shown that these dogs are seriously good at correctly registering the presence - or absence - of their target scent, but the bit that you can't seem to work your miniscule brain around is that there is a reason the alerts need to be confirmed and that reason is that there can be an innocent explanation. There may also be some alerts which simply cannot be confirmed because the dog is alerting to residual scent and there are are no remains there to find.

As Sade suggests, try cracking open a book occasionally and stop falling for Textusa's bullshit and dog whistles












62 comments:

  1. She can't be that stupid. Just a liar...i mean you cannot break it down easier. I hate to repeat myself but i could cook a hot curry tonight,clean all the plates and pots. But the scent lingers. And even though the curry was cooked and eaten in the kitchen it can be smelt in other rooms. Its simple. I go into my neighbours wearing the clothes i cooked the curry in...and the smell then lingers in my neighbours even when i leave. Ffs i can't be clearer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was going to say something along those lines too Nick, but the fact they ended the tweet with 'cadaver residue "floats"' - actually attempting some kind of sarcastic sneer at the very thought of it, well, I think I just stood there staring at my phone for ten minutes trying to fathom how that much stupid can fit in one person lol.

      Delete
    2. You two always make me laugh - normally a good thing; today, with a rib injury, a bloody nightmare :D

      This is what has been cracking me up for weeks -

      "Hur hur - he says it's a gas Hur hur "

      Seriously - did they attend school?

      It's like - "So how do you think the smell gets from the floor, down there, to the nose, up here? Take your time, we have all day...."

      Delete
    3. Well you always make us laugh too so that's good 🙂 the rib injury, not so much, ouch! Hope you recover soon.

      I'm concerned about what they do with perfume - take the spray top off and hurl the liquid in the faces of passers by? 😂

      Delete
    4. Ah yes - the Novichok Manoeuvre - a popular way of saying, "Hello, don't I smell nice?"

      I'm starting to admire them for still being alive, you know? For actually making it to - presumably - adulthood without poisoning themselves, blowing themselves up, or being crushed to death by a big round table collapsing under the weight of placemats.

      Delete
    5. Ouch mate...best advice i can give...after breaking 3 of my ribs in 7 places...is tylex,nurofen plus or tramadol washed down with a good whisky,glayva or drambuie 30 mins before bed. Works a treat. Haha Sade...that technique only works if its a novichok ;)

      Delete
    6. Thanks, Nick.

      Tbh, that's pretty much my nightly routine anyways :)

      Delete
  2. They haven't the slightest clue what they're talking about do they? I did consider a more explanatory approach, but decided I don't want a headache this evening.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think the Whispering anvil woman - presumably that's what caused the blow to the head - is actually that stupid whereas Textusa is merely a liar, hence her famous reworking of Martin Grime's words

    "If there isn't a scent source in here, i.e. a physical article where the scent is emitting from, any scent residue will collect in a particular place due to the air movement of the flat"

    ...to read

    "a scent source in here, i.e. a physical article where the scent is emitting from, any scent residue will collect in a particular place due to the air movement of the flat"

    Her new ''explanation'' is even more bollock-worthy

    " The capability, in this case, which NT insistently denies, is to point the location from where the scent is being emitted from.

    (I have never said anything remotely like that. Ever)

    In the case of the EVRD dog, he points to a general area. We have already explained that this is due to the intensity of the cadaver odour being stronger than that of blood, so the dog is able to pick up the scent further away from the emitting source than the blood dog has of picking up the blood scent.

    (That is a pile of complete bullshit she literally just pulled from her arse)

    As Mr Grimes explained, in unventilated areas, there can be a cumulative effect of the scent in an area away from the emitting source – there remains one – but in these cases, and in these cases only, BOTH the source and the accumulated odour are within the unventilated area.

    (I would love to see where she reckons Martin said that)

    So,in unventilated area, the area signalled by the dog is bigger.

    (or that)

    The opposite phenomenon happens in ventilated areas, like the living-room and backyard. There, because the scent Is dispersed, the scent picked up by the dog has to be nearby the emitting source.

    (or that)

    In the case of the blood dog, as it is not a strong odour, the dog only picks It up near the emitting source.

    (ditto)

    Reason why it’s is said that the EVRD dogs points to a general area and the blood dog to a point.

    (Science, by Textusa, the dimmest woman on the planet)

    But the general area of the EVRD alert is not him picking up in the living-room and the source to be in the dining-room (ventilated area, so source was somewhere behind the couch) nor the alert in the bedroom came from other than from the bedroom (a not as ventilated area as the living-room)."

    (she appears to have written this in Klingon)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Devious...leaving words out to change the meaning. In other words she fully understands you are right and she is wrong. But admitting that to her followers brings her house of cards down.

      Delete
    2. She is just a blatant fucking liar! I challenge any of her defenders to come here and defend that absolute bollocks. And it's YOU dissing the dogs? Yet she can totally disregard everything Grime has said and reinvent it to suit her?

      So, Textusa defenders. Can you explain to us why Grime said;

      '...and what I would say in this case is that there is enough scent in that area there for him to give me a bark indication but the source may not be in that cupboard, the source may well be in this room somewhere else but the air is actually pushing into that corner'

      Yet Textusa decided he meant;

      '...there can be a cumulative effect of the scent in an area away from the emitting source – there remains one – but in these cases, and in these cases only, BOTH the source and the accumulated odour are within the unventilated area.'

      She literally just made that shit up!

      Then, she decides that blood scent is stronger than cadaver scent and that's why Keela alerts to a more specific area. Yet Grime clearly states - and probably assumed most would link this statement to what he'd just said a few seconds ago, but he hadn't met Textusa -

      "...and there must be something there physically for her to be able to alert to me that's she has actually found something.'

      Keela is always alerting to a physical source, Eddie not always, as explained above. Have I got that right? Because I don't have the slightest clue about the science of all this but what I can do, is read. I'm shocked at the amount of people who clearly can't.




      Delete
    3. Indeed, Sade you are correct as far as I understand it!!! As you are aware Grime gives a very clear explanation and I fail to see where TT's problem lies.

      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm#mg2462

      Neither can they accept that cadaverine is a SMELL ....i.e. it is a gaseous rather than a physical substance and will be strongest at source but may well linger elsewhere.

      Nick's curry analogy explains perfectly �� Just cannot understand why it should be an issue!

      A cadaver or something which had been in contact with a cadaver had been in the places where Eddie alerted. End of.










      Delete
    4. To further my analogy(sorry folks)...you bring in a world renowned curry sniffing chicken into my neighbours house after i have left. It can cluck as it alerts to the smell of curry. But thats it...investigators then,armed with this alert,have to work out what caused the alert. But as Sade says...she's a fucking liar. She can not be that mentally incapable she doesn't understand this. So defenders of textusa...ask yourselves WHY she pretends not to get it? That a physical source of the scent need not be present?

      Delete
    5. Precisely.

      But then you get that utter fucktard "Whispering" woman and this (I'm going to post it again, to reinforce how barking it is)

      "NT has all along been trying to say that it can't be proven that a body was in the living-room, in the bedroom and on the flowerbed 'just because' the dogs alerted in 5a. That has a name: dog-dissing.
      Those defending NT have no shame."

      It does indeed have a name, you mad old bag. The name is ''science''
      The dog is trained to alert to a scent - it can't tell you who's dead or where they have been resting in what you seem to think was a massive game of "Corpse Battleships"

      Textusa only has a few following now, and they are the ones who are so dimwitted, they couldn't locate their own bumcheeks with both hands and a compass

      Delete
    6. Lesly Finn7 August 2018 at 20:33

      Hi, Lesly

      “Neither can they accept that cadaverine is a SMELL ....i.e. it is a gaseous rather than a physical substance”

      Neither can I.

      Respectfully

      Ag

      Delete
    7. Ag

      The smell of decomposition mainly consists of a number of volatile amines which are produced primarily as the result of the action of gut bacteria, breaking down the tissues. Cadaverine is one of those amines.

      For any substance to be detected by smell, the particles must be capable of becoming airborne, ie as a gas or vapour, otherwise it cannot reach the detectors in the nose

      Delete
    8. NT @05:59

      Cadaverine is not “a SMELL”. It is a physical substance in whichever physical state it happens to be. It can be in a gaseous state. It can be liquid and it can be solid, but it is always a material/’physical’ substance. In every-day conditions it is smelly indeed, but it is not “a SMELL.”

      I appreciate your taking the time to explain as you have. I have not failed to notice that you more than once very clearly explained this on your blog before. I have no problem with your explanations whatsoever.

      Many thanks and kind regards.

      Ag

      Delete
  4. Honestly, can you believe this?

    "Textusa8 Aug 2018, 11:20:00
    From our "FB Anon":

    "I must be one of your dim-witted followers Textusa, as I really don't understand what NT is saying.... He says this: 'The dog is trained to alert to a scent - it can't tell you who's dead or where they have been resting.....' So is he really suggesting that someone ELSE died in 5A and it's their odour floating around the apartment? Or that the furniture in 5A came from an old people's home? Or are we back to the ancient burial ground again?? What a shame I'm not as intelligent as his good friend Nick, who even though he put his foot in it with the info about Kelly's bar, and who also spells things incorrectly and has bad grammar, NT still has him as a faithful follower."

    Please, you dimwitted person, try to understand before one of us dies, okay?

    The dogs alert to a scent. That's it. They can't tell you who is dead, how long ago, how they died or what their last meal was. They can't tell you who 'did it', how tall they were or if they were armed with a candlestick or a fucking Howitzer.

    I am not dog-dissing, dear. I'm stupid twat-dissing.

    ReplyDelete
  5. 😂😂
    It's painful to watch...
    Game of Cluedo..?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I have bad grammar...my spelling is atrocious...and apparently the tapas brigade weren't in kellys...yet i still understand how scent works.
    So how fucking stupid does that make you matey? :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "So how fucking stupid does that make you matey?" 😂😂😂 love it!

      Delete
  7. Jesus wept.


    Anonymous8 Aug 2018, 14:17:00
    he is saying 'it can't tell you who's dead or where they have been resting'.

    is that difficult to comprehend?''

    I THINK THAT IS THE PROBLEM. IT CLEARLY IS DIFFICULT FOR SOME TO COMPREHEND.


    Textusa8 Aug 2018, 16:01:00
    Anonymous 8 Aug 2018, 14:17:00,

    So, the locations where the dogs alert are irrelevant, is that it?

    In practical terms, according to NT:

    - inside the apartment the EVRD dog alerted in the living-room and the bedroom but these locations are meaningless as the body could rested in them but could also have rested in the bathroom, kids' room, corridor, kitchen and dining-room;

    - outside, the dog alerted to the flowerbed but that location is meaningless because the body could have rested in any other corner of the backyard or in the adjacent backyard.

    Are we reading what NT has said correctly now?"

    UNSURPRISINGLY, NO.

    SMELL IS AIRBORNE, YOU DOZY PLANK. CELLULAR RESIDUES CAN'T MOVE ABOUT, UNLESS YOU ATTACH THEM TO A BLOODY CAT, BODILY FLUIDS CAN BUT THERE WEREN'T ANY, HOWEVER AIRBORNE MOLECULES CAN. IT'S HOW THEY GET FROM THE SOURCE TO THE SCENT RECEPTORS. IF YOU TAKE THE SOURCE AWAY, IT DOESN'T RECLAIM ALL IT'S MOLECULES AS IT HEADS OUT THE DOOR, YOU VACANT TURNIP.


    Textusa8 Aug 2018, 17:17:00
    From our "FB Anon":

    "Oh dear, I seem to have upset NT, so much so that he's had to go into full patronising mode, to really put me in my place. Of course I understand that the dogs can't tell us who died, but the dogs have indicated that there was a dead body in the living room and bedroom of 5A. The only person the police suspect of dying in the apartment is Madeleine McCann. The Ocean Club have confirmed that no-one else died in 5A. Yet, NT seems to be suggesting that there is some other explanation for cadaver odour being present, now why is that?"

    AAAARGGGGH. YOU SAY YOU UNDERSTAND, BUT YOU CLEARLY DON'T. IF SOMEONE FARTED NEXT TO YOU IN THE QUEUE AT THE CHECKOUTS, WOULD YOU ASSUME YOU WERE IN THE TOILETS, AND DROP YOUR KNICKERS?

    ACTUALLY, YOU PROBABLY WOULD.....


    Textusa8 Aug 2018, 17:27:00
    From our "FB Anon":

    "NT is so patronising that he's even called me "dear": “I am not dog-dissing, dear. I'm stupid twat-dissing” 😂
    A whole post dedicated to me! How honoured and proud of myself I am right now!"

    IT'S A COMMENT, YOU OAF. YOU DON'T DESERVE A POST.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Arghhhhhh...it's pointless. They are proud of their stupidity. No one is saying madeleine didn't meet her end in 5a.
    But the dog alerts don't tell you that. The forensics do. And they are completely inconclusive. So the dog alerts are just that-alerts. They don't say a body lay anywhere..its residual fucking scent.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Now...as keela was sent in to narrow whether it was cadaver odour or blood that eddie alerted to...we know the areas that eddie was detected cadaver odour. There was nothing PHYSICALLY there. So it was residual odour.

    ReplyDelete
  10. *eddie was marking alone meant he detected cadaver odour.
    I really need a laptop ffs.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The mad old bat is now rambling on about some architect in the 1980's who circulated sex tapes. What this has to do with swinging in 2007 I do not know.

    We've also moved on to Tommy Sheridan and his libel action against the NoTW. Unfortunately, Textusa leaves out the most important bits - that Sheridan claimed to be teetotal but was seen drinking champagne, and the fact that he was accused of using cocaine. No-one gave a stuff about the swinging, but presumably Sheridan saw an opportunity to make a few quid, then ended up doing time for perjury.

    None of this flabber explains why a group of hundreds of people would conspire to cover up a supposedly accidental death of a child, and thus commit very serious crimes, to hide the 'fact' that they were there to swing, which is not a crime at all.

    Not that they were, because all this bollocks is to detract from the fact that Anne is still waiting for her answer and there is no evidence whatsoever.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly. All of this irrelevant rubbish for what?
      I think anyone can admit they'd be mortified at their private life splashed across the rags, but to cover up the death of a 3 year old child for it? Even, if you wasn't even involved in that death?! It's ridiculous.
      I've seen hundreds of stories like that over the years, the "scandals" - usually politicians - who gives a shit? I certainly don't, they're a bunch of overpaid pompous twats and nothing they do surprises me in the slightest.

      Delete
  12. "For personal reasons, one team member is not available at the moment which means that the reply to Anonymous 8 Aug 2018, 12:02:00 is being held up (nothing controversial, just needed to go through the usual team approval process) so unlikely to be published tonight."

    I laughed so hard I am now in severe physical pain.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was just about to quote the exact same bit! 😂 watch those ribs lol

      Delete
  13. Can't leave comments on Mr Blacksmith's blog.. Frog said she's being slaughtered and to ask Mr Blacksmith where.. Asking here if that's ok with you Mr NT :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Jules and everyone. I don't allow comments on the Bureau because dealing with them was too time consuming and unpleasant.

      I've never communicated with a Green Leaper. On the Amazon forum a couple of years ago there was a Misty, a refugee from the eternal circle-jerk that is the Justice forum, who addressed me with a kind of clunking Teutonic familiarity as Antonio and complained that, because she always read posts from the bottom up, my posts were too lengthy to understand. Addressing her with exclusively upside-down posts failed to assist her with this disability.

      Nevertheless she seemed extremely familiar with the contents of the Bureau over the years.

      Green Leaper appears to be a clone of hers who lives exclusively on a diet of wikipedia cut and pastes. I have no idea who the f*** she is and don't care.

      You will note from your exchange with her yet another confirmation of what I have repeatedly stated, most recently in yesterday's Bureau: that dealing with the facts stated in my posts is verboten in Serious Supporter-land. It was a tactic developed by PM/DM via JATYK some five years ago and has never been breached except on one occasion by Nessling, who retired hurt after accepting that my claims were correct.

      I don't know about slaughter but to demonstrate her dishonesty one merely needs one tweet: Do you believe Kate McCann’s written confession that she and her husband lied about the investigation because they "felt they had no choice"? If so, do you think that admission would affect her credibility as a witness under oath?

      Cheers.

      Delete
    2. 😂😂.. Hi Mr B.. Oh dear.. I shall ask her to pop on and read the reply, if she hasn't already.. :)
      Thank you for the response.. x

      Delete
  14. The Whispering idiot has excelled herself once again; calling me "fucking stupid" then blocking me. Presumably to prevent herself from constantly replying to my tweets, an urge she couldn't trust herself to smother 😂
    How will I cope? Twitter isn't Twitter without stupid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm blocked too... How will one cope 😩

      Delete
  15. Tut-tut! With regard to the ground-hog post that demands a response from Nick regarding the Kelly's Bar issue I am SHOCKED that none of you have acquiesced to the 'oh so polite' entreaty. Rabid dogginess and throat-ripping not withstanding the silence is pure torture for someone of such grand importance! I despair of you xxx

    ReplyDelete
  16. I am really disgusted to see Textusa's goons attacking Anne Guedes, with one of them even saying

    "Just what is your point here, on this blog besides sucking in all the air?"

    I bet they weren't saying that when Anne reported from the court, or translated the judgements.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I continue to wonder whether some of those Anonymous comments are actually T himself - certainly possible. Anne is standing her ground but she is being picked up on everything she says. There is only one voice allowed.

      Delete
  17. Hello Jules. Do you see now? It was like waving a crucifix at her, wasn't it? Did you see how quiet Bale-Walker goes? Always does.

    I get the impression that, while nobody has ever criticised me for saying that there is a strict policy of never discussing these particular issues, people think I may be exaggerating.

    I am not. It was a decision down a chain that starts with OFM. That's how KM's wishes on dos and don'ts are informally passed on. And the supporters are caught: if they rise to the bait now and discuss them to demonstrate that I'm wrong then they run into the reason for the ban like a truck into a canyon: once they answer one of those questions frankly, or even badly, the door opens to a whole set of linked questions that are more dangerous.

    Ultimately it all leads to their undoing: the "only known fact", all "serious" journalists used to say for years, "is that Madeleine McCann disappeared from her bed in apartment 5A on the evening of May 3 2007."

    No, that is not a fact. There is no reliable evidence at all that the child was in the apartment after 7.30PM. The only known and irrefutably established fact about the disappearance is that the parents lied about their role in the case when they were in a jam and "felt they had no option".

    There is no way round that. For those interested, every textbook on the judicial process or the establishment of truth acknowledges the intractable problems that "unreliable witnesses" pose unless there is independent and comprehensive supporting evidence.

    No investigation of this case can ever move forward until it either finds independent evidence to support the known-to-lie about-the case parents' claims or discounts their evidence, and their innocence, completely. Not one of the three investigations has found any such evidence. Compared with that, Amaral, the dogs, all the rest are a mere sideshow. And it is this situation that neither the parents nor the supporters dare deal with. And rightly: it dooms them.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Mr B.. I really do see.. Yesterday was another big eye opener for me.. I witnessed quite a few boobies.. One reply to me was quickly deleted (i have a copy) and another subject got diverted to swinging.. I let it go.. It will keep.. x

      Delete
    2. If i could jb? Where does the investigation go if as you say-the parents have been by their own admission lying? As you say no evidence of their innocence exists. Also mr blacksmith,as an aside- do you think Nessling was flung to the wolves as an example to other shills as an example of what happens if you go against the chain of command...in your opinion? Always wondered if more was at play ther?

      Delete
    3. Jules...is there any chance at some point you could post up the question and response you got to it on twitter? I don't tweet....but interested to see the response before deletion please? Pretty please even? :)

      Delete
    4. Reply to JB. 10 Aug 09.16

      As this is the only way to speak to to you may I ask if I can repost your comment on my page (with proper attribution) please? I would like to post it minus the first paragraph if I may?



      Delete
    5. Hello. Yes of course you can. Cheers.

      Delete
  18. Like i was saying...Anne couldn't be reprimanded by textusa. So rather than answer the question set by Anne she has waited for the attack hounds to come to her rescue. Btw textusa...there is no issue. I was under the impression that as the children were not at kelly's bar some had been left alone. If i am wrong then so be it...it doesn't change the fact that
    1 you still haven't Annes question
    2 you can't or won't understand scent
    3 are a fucking disgrace allowing attacks on a woman on your blog who has done more to get FACTS out there than almost anyone. One can almost smell the jealousy. Or to put on textusa language....Anne says textusas theory is shit,but textusa put it in her mouth,tasted it and realised she was eating shit-but rather than admit to eating shit she declared it to be chocolate :)

    ReplyDelete
  19. Watch this space...next,because we are supporting,someone over there will declare her a pro..a dog disser etc. Purely because we salute her

    ReplyDelete
  20. Which question Nick.. Sorry my reply got sent before asking..?

    ReplyDelete
  21. About given that km had confessed in writing to lying...could her testimony in court be trusted?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Ah yes, i asked that question.. Frog was quite evasive, said what of all the others who had lied.. Thing for me is, whoever else lied, weren't the parents of Madeleine. . Frog also said her lie was akin to saying she had put 2 sugars in Gerrys cuppa but told him she had put 3.. Lol..

    ReplyDelete


  23. Nick 10 August 2018 at 10:53

    You are correct ... and here it is:

    "We write only for our 6 readers, and without associating Anne Guedes with her supporters over at NT, we are very grateful that we’re not popular in some quarters. Really happy and really couldn’t be more grateful.

    We will continue to explain to her why we believe the “abduction hoax” was a decision to avoid a sex-scandal involving very prominent members of UK’s society who were swinging in Luz.

    If Anne Guedes continues or not to reply, it’s her choice. "

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yet another old trick of paying the man instead of the ball Lesly. Smearing Anne instead of just answering the question. She can't as an honest answer means the realisation she's just wasted a decade of her life defending her premise. The fallout is going to be spectacular. I called it months ago that she would turn on her regular posters...

      Delete
  24. Really....1-0 blacksmith then! Lying in an investigation where you are the main suspect...must've been 4 sugars ffs. That answer exposes them lol. Thanx Jules...let us all know how Townsend reacts to his twat blog ;)

    ReplyDelete
  25. I'm trying to find out if Frog or her twin sister Indy has a secret crush on Mr B.. Nicholas has done a runner after i posted the blog then got crushed by my good friend JBL.
    It was painful to watch Nick. .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They say there's great pleasure in pain sometimes lol

      Delete
  26. With regards to Nick Townsend/Dishonestbroker/Ferryman -
    As you will have noticed, he only really has one topic of conversation - Martin Grime.

    His MO was always exactly the same.
    He would smarm onto a forum and start posting questions trying to draw people into a conversation, for example:

    "Why do we think Martin Grime would take a dog with only 2 years working life left to the USA?"

    Everyone would ignore him

    He would repost the question

    Everyone would ignore him again

    So he would answer his own question

    "The answer is easy - he wouldn't"
    Rinse and repeat for about two years, or until banned.

    He only quotes from a section of that FOI response.

    Amongst other things SYP confirmed were the dates Martin Grime was employed, proving that Townsend's claims about him freelancing were lies.

    His explanation about the visit to the USA is that Grime ''pulled the wool over the eyes'' of his senior officer. Madness.

    Then something a bit weird happened - South Yorkshire police removed the response to Townsend from their log of FOI responses. Not sure why, but I do know that they had received complaints that the content had been misused and misrepresented.

    Martin Grime is very well aware of Townsend's activities and knows exactly who he is.

    ReplyDelete
  27. So pretty much the same script he still uses now then, apart from the 2 years has gone down to 18 months.. I'm glad Mr Grime is aware.. Thank you for letting us know that Mr N.T..

    ReplyDelete
  28. Yes NT, well done. I mailed Mr Grime years and years ago simply to say how much I appreciated the dignity and restraint with which he'd handled the appalling attacks on him. His reply, naturally, was again a model of restraint and neutrality. No surprise there. If only other ex-police officers in the affair had managed to handle themselves with similar dignity.

    As far as all the McCann fibbing is concerned - I don't like to repeat stuff but, for newer viewers, I'd better do a Bureau reprise rather than take up NT space here. One of the deadly elements in the saga is the KM "we didn't feel we had any choice" [but to lie] comment: in other words they couldn't see any other way out. That raises some devastating questions:I'll do the post soon.

    Observing recent twitter debates involving the implacable N-TEE GUNNIN 4U CREW from here I note that Bale-Walker is beginning to look somewhat threadbare under the pressure. And increasingly toothless. The latter, of course, is a common symptom of starvation, when sufferers have nothing to chew on but their own spit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great Mr B.. Will look forward to it.. :D

      Delete
    2. Looking forward to it...not doing twitter means observing a battle without ever seeing the battlefield

      Delete

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 nottextusa@gmail.com