Friday, 10 August 2018

How low can you go?

I thought you might like to see this
For a couple of weeks now, Textusa has been refusing to answer questions posed by Anne Guedes. Anne, as many of you will know, is the lady we all have to thank for her many translations and in particular of her coverage of court proceedings in the McCann v Amaral case.

I hope Anne won't mind if I paraphrase her, but basically she asked two things:

1. What actual evidence is there to support Textusa's swinging theory?

2. How many people agree with her?

Textusa has refused to answer these. In general she has thrown up a variety of smokescreens, demanding answers from others on completely unrelated topics before she will answer Anne's questions.

The conversation between the two has continued and still Textusa demands answers from Anne and others while refusing to provide any herself - it is a masterclass in avoidance and procrastination

  • Anne Guedes,

    We’re in August so communications between team members are not easy to maintain, reason why we are being “slow” in answering.
  • Oh behave - you're a crappy blogger, not the United Nations

  • You have made a statement that needs urgent clarification:
  • Did you read the bit about you NOT being the United Nations? Urgent clarification my arse.

  • whether Sr Amaral had a choice – or quoting you “GA imo made a bad choice leaving the PJ, he wasn't forced to, was he ?”
  • He wasn't. He took early retirement. Anne is expressing an opinion. That is still allowed, the last time I checked.

  • Sr Amaral was taken off the investigation when he was pursuing 2 lines of investigation that we deem to have been essential to the discovery of the truth:
  • You wouldn't know the truth if it sank it's fangs into your arse

  • reconstruction and bringing over Mr Smith again after he said he recognised Smithman as likely to be Gerry McCann after seeing him coming down the stairs of the plane.
  • How would either of those lead to your lunatic version of the truth?

  • He was indeed shoved off the investigation. That’s factual.
  • No, he was removed after making an unwise and unguarded remark to a journalist

  • So, if we’re going to talk about choices, he could have chosen to be manipulated and go along with the hoax. He didn’t and he was kicked off the investigation.
  • Just a minute - are you suggesting that the remaining officers 'chose to be manipulated and go along with a hoax' ? Evidence for that, please?

  • Here he had a choice: see himself be insulted and take it lying down, or defend his honour. You seem to say that not having opted for taking it lying down was a bad option, we disagree we think he made the right and honourable choice.
  • And Anne disagrees. Tough.

  • Note, he was put into the position of having to make this choice because of all the people who knowing EXACTLY what happened pretended and continue to pretend they don’t and by doing so helped and continue to help the continuing of the hoax that was materially and morally responsible for the suffering the Sr Amaral and his family went through.
  • That's a load of bollocks. He was removed from the Maddie case, but it was his choice to take early retirement. And who are these people you accuse?

  • Having been put into this position, of hearing his name being slandered across the British media without any lifting of any finger from the Portuguese authority to defend him is part of that suffering. The defenders of the hoax – or legally speaking, the obstructers of justice – began to make him suffer before he took the decision of writing the book.
  • The phrase 'the defenders of the hoax' is meaningless - who are you talking about? 

  • Once the choice, the only choice you can criticise him for, to defend his honour, then he HAD TO leave the police. Note, a deterministic ‘HAD TO’. To be clear again, the choice was whether to defend the honour, but to defend it there was no choice in having to have left the police.
  • And that was his choice. Anne disagrees with you. Get over it.. 

  • As an ACTIVE duty police officer he could not write the book, the only way he found to fight the accusations of incompetence that were made against him. Saying that he only repeated what was in the PJ Files, is to be extremely unfair to the man.

  • No it isn't.  

  • He didn’t know if the files would be released to the public.
  • Nonsense 

  • We know the law states that once closed or archived a process can be requested for viewing but as there are, also according to the law many exceptions for this to happen (like for example the pages that were taken out to protect the paedophiles investigated) there could have been a dispatch stopping the files from being released publicly. He didn’t know, no one did.
  • That was due to an agreement thrashed out between the two countries.. 

  • The release of the files, only showed that what he wrote – the book was published before they were released – was true and in the files, except the falling-off the couch scenario which isn’t in them.
  • The book was NOT published before the files were released. Haven't you been paying attention? 

  • (Cont)
  • (Cont)

    So, in practical terms, to answer your question “GA imo made a bad choice leaving the PJ, he wasn't forced to, was he ?”, is yes he was forced by law, unless you think he should have opted to take the abuse he was being subject to.
  • Can you see those three letters, IMO? You may disagree on the factual issues, but Anne is entitled to her opinion 

  • We consider very inappropriate your mention of Sr Amaral’s wife. She’s an innocent bystander and we prefer that you and readers keep her out of the discussion. We consider her and their daughters to be victims and will not accept any comments referring to Sr Amaral’s private life.

  • You're a great one for double standards, aren't you?

    Remember the casting for the reconstruction? Just people doing their jobs as actors. 

    Do you remember what you said to them?

    I hope you realise that you've just forfeited any future in decent pictures with the acceptance of playing the role of Kate McCann in the most recent farce from the undeniably evil ones.
    Couldn't you smell the shit coming out of Clarence's breath a mile away, even with your back to the wind?
    Couldn't that little brain of yours ask, just for a moment, why on earth they HAD to get an American gal to play a British one? Did you ever think that Kate is the only thin-lipped, titless blonde woman in the whole of the Isles?
    Because of the accent? Well, why then not get an Aussie to play Gerry? And a literal cunt to play Jane?"

    Pretty disgusting, I think all decent people will agree 

  • While we prepare the reply to you, could you please answer objectively these questions that we have put to you?
  • Here we go again - why should she? You have made no attempts at all to answer hers 

  • #1 - Do you agree with the following statement: in case one sees oneself being accused of being involved in a sex-scandal, like that of being a swinger, the damage of one’s reputation is so serious and compromising to the future of one’s social life that it’s sufficient for one to seek legal action (as exemplified by the Publico article?
  • Anne asked you what evidence there was and how many agreed with you. Why do you need to know the above in order to answer her?

  • #2 - If there was a VIP swinging event in Praia da Luz involving VIPs such as “judges, lawyers and politicians” and others from other highly prestigious professions (e.g. doctors, architects, etc.) in Praia da Luz, do you believe there would be a rule similar to that chateau’s “black-balling” one in place, which would be extended to both the swingers there as well as the supporting staff to the event from Mark Warner and Ocean Club?
  •  Anne asked you what evidence there was and how many agreed with you. Why do you need to know the above in order to answer her?

  • #3 - Would you expect for any guest to break this pact of silence openly and overtly?

  • Anne asked you what evidence there was and how many agreed with you. Why do you need to know the above in order to answer her?

  • #4 - Would you expect for any worker, regardless of that meaning they would lose or not their jobs afterwards (the loss of a job is not as serious as losing a job and not be given another one anywhere else), to break this pact of silence openly and overtly?

  •  Anne asked you what evidence there was and how many agreed with you. Why do you need to know the above in order to answer her?

  • It would be important for us to know where you stand on these questions so we know best on how to proceed.

  • Why? 

  • Thank you.

  • You don't need to decide how to proceed. You just need to answer the questions and not with half a dozen of your own. 


    1. What a hypocrite ....the author of that vile piece (above in italics) says the following to someone who refers to the MMCs as 'that darned couple' ...

      Textusa10 Aug 2018, 21:33:00

      We inform our readers that we won't be accepting expressions such as "that darned couple" to refer to the McCanns.

      To be very clear, we nurture no sympathy for them but as we have explained, we believe that a lynch-mob style campaign to have the population profoundly hate the McCanns and so convince the government that as the couple is paying a price, Operation Grange can close without conclusion as the McCanns have been punished.

      (Faulty logic and hypocritical)

      1. Absolutely staggering, when you consider what she has said about them in the past.

        Here's just a few random examples of Textusa-speak

        "You, McCanns, have none of it. You're disgusting. You're evil. Your methods and tactics are cowardly.

        Gerry and Kate, do me a favour after you've read me (and please convince all your friends to do the same): stand up and walk to the nearest mirror, look attentively to the reflection on the other side, and be ashamed of what you. Be ashamed of that face for the rest of your lives."

        "Then, those hate filled eyes of GM coming out of the church, confirmed the problem... initial symptoms of rabies.

        An we all know how rabies is cured: the beast breaking it's own spine out of madness.

        But that, obviously, doesn't happen to the spineless."

        "So to all in the UK, please do go on protecting the murdering scum as you may. It’s a stupid useless exercise, in my opinion, but I respect you to differ."

        And who could forget this:

        "A girl has died.

        Her parents didn’t give a sh*t about leaving her alone and went off and got p*ssed (not on the evening she died, but on the nights before).

        Same parents that when they saw her dead, freshly diseased, didn’t give a sh*t about her or anybody else, except themselves.

        Neither did they give a sh*t about burying her with a minimum of dignity or human decency.

        They still don’t give a sh*t about her by doing all they can to make the general public think that their daughter is being repeatedly buggered blue by some sadistic pedophile since the day she was “kidnapped”, instead of thinking that she’s dead but in peace.

        Fortunately, they are f*cking it all up.

        The “friend” that probably killed her didn’t give a sh*t about her also or anybody else for that matter, except himself.

        And he’s not giving a sh*t about getting away with it by making a mockery of Justice.

        The “friends” that know where, when, how, why and who killed her, don’t give a sh*t to come with a coherent version of events.

        That holiday was to f*ck, so f*ck the little girl, that’s their motto."

        All posted by Textusa.

        All the foul hypocrite pulls someone up for the use of the word ''darned''

    2. i thought she's held off to let others attack Anne. Why on earth does Anne need to answer those questions textusa. You have presented a premise-Anne has questioned evidence for that premise. Cut out the political/civil service debating style of answering a question with a question. Its cringe inducing as you are not very good at it.

    3. Latest nonsense

      Textusa11 Aug 2018, 00:19:00
      Anne Guedes,

      All we can say is that we have 13 unpublished comments from the "other side" and reading them it could be said that they are obfuscated when someone dares to question you and immediately "lots" of voices surge to annihilate the sceptics.

      But then that wouldn't be a very analytical way of analyzing things, wouldn't it?

      Neither our readers nor your new fans are obfuscated.

      We trust that both who read us and them are able to come to their own decoded, untangled, clear, logical and independent conclusions."

      I think the conclusion they will reach is that you are too scared to publish the posts showing support for Anne.

      1. NOT TEXTUSA et Cie,
        Vous citez Textusa hors-contexte.
        Vous êtes continuellement sur la défensive.
        Vous n'êtes qu'un employé soumis et obéissant. Ca vous plaît ?
        Dormez bien.

    4. Not always subject to a team approval process then were you Textusa? What a hypocrite.


    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