Translate

Sunday, 11 November 2018

Not Important.

Evening all!

I know I shouldn't, but I just had to bring you this, fresh from the poison pen of Mr/s Textabuser


I suspect someone is off their meds again.




Oh, Orlov (now Hall), you seem to think that we included you when we mentioned the distracting attacks against us. If that is the case, our apologies.
No need to apologise, Looney Toons 


You have no importance whatsoever. Please understand that and understand that we’re not doing this to belittle you. That, you do a nice job by your infantile self.
Oooh, how hurtful! 


For the case, and that is what matters, it has to be noted the importance you have, which is, we repeat, none.
So, no importance then. Okay. 


You were just a tool that we used to out Mr Thompson. Then, we were quite clear and stressed that fact, that you had absolutely no importance whatsoever.
I get it, no importance. 


That is important because if you had any importance whatsoever, the storm Mr Thompson created in a glass of water because of you would have a reason. As you really have no importance whatsoever, everyone could see that he used his friendship over you to try to get to us, his hysteria being transparently disproportionate.
Dave was inconsolable. 



Okay, already. No importance. We get it. Calm down, dear, your hysteria is showing and I have to say, it's a bit disproportionate, transparent or otherwise. 


So, as you can see, you having the no importance you have is really important to the case. We can’t stress that more.
πŸ˜†πŸ˜†πŸ˜†πŸ˜†πŸ˜†πŸ˜†πŸ˜†πŸ˜†πŸ˜†πŸ˜†πŸ˜†πŸ˜†πŸ˜†πŸ˜†πŸ˜†πŸ˜†πŸ˜†πŸ˜†πŸ˜†πŸ˜†πŸ˜†πŸ˜† 
So, you're saying he has no importance, amiright?


You are a simple supplier of spittle for the lick-spittles. Nothing more.
How very dare you. We lickspittlers use only the finest quality spittle, milked fresh daily from the rare Dontgiveafuck tribe in Western Samoa, and flown in by executive jet. We demand a retraction. 

Joyously, the lickspittlers ran to meet the jet delivering their latest consignment



Now that Mr Thompson is going to spend his Christmases (to keep on topic) with his new BFF, NT, and no longer with you
Well, that's my Christmas plans sorted - leg, wing or breast, Ben? 

Oh hang on - we're having beef........ 
(basing this solely on the passionate friendship Mr Thompson showed to have for you)
You slut, Ben. How could you? 
you might now consider spending them with your new BFF, Jules.
You can't have her. Isn't that right, Jules? 

There was always a good spread at the Ancient Order of Lickspittlers Christmas banquet, served on big round tables complete with tablecloths and placemats. In 547 years, a table had never collapsed

A person you publicly so much respect, endorse and love and seem so willing to overlook all her untruths and her close friendship with a clear abduction apologist, Frog.
Many human/amphibian relationships are very special, Text. Don't knock it until you've tried it 
Frankly, Jules had heard enough of Textusa's Amphibihate. Frogs were people too. 


You do make a lovely couple and after all, why care about a dead little girl when one can try to be funny and win the ladies over?
Ah, the Madeleine equivalent of Godwin's Law! It was bound to appear. 
(You probably won't understand that, Text. Ask a grown up to explain it for you) 


The only surprising thing about you is your indignation when someone calls you a pro. Where’s the surprise?

Probably stems from the fact that he isn't one.

Textusa, I really would suggest you calm the fuck down. At some point you will have to accept that most people think you are completely bonkers, that you suffer from an intractable table fixation, and that your mental health is failing quicker than a Post-Brexit trade deal.

Get some help, sweetie.  

After dinner, the Ancient Order of Lickspittlers would dance the night away on an inadequate esplanade.

47 comments:

  1. πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚
    Oh my days.. That post has to be Tex's most ridiculous one yet..
    Dave being not important x 4 is what's important to the case.. πŸ˜‚πŸ˜’
    Christ knows what it's cooking up next.. Sushi on kebab sticks..?

    ReplyDelete
  2. "You were just a tool that we used to out Mr Thompson. Then, we were quite clear and stressed that fact, that you had absolutely no importance whatsoever."

    No. As usual textusa lies through his hairy arse. Does he really think those who follow him and his nonsensical noodlings, don't remember exactly what happened?

    It went like this.

    Orlov showed textusa up.

    textusa - as he does, then tried to frame Orlov as being Walker.

    I, politely told textusa he was wrong.

    textusa shifted awkwardly in his seat, trembled, turned purple, and blew shit out of his ears.

    Since then, the creepy stalker has followed those who associate with me, with all the decency of a pervert with a pair of binoculars.

    textusa's outing (no, not his annual trip to the park with men wearing white coats, and carrying cattle prods - in case he gets too close to females), of me, amounted to some ramblings about us being a secret gang who respond to the rallying cry of the code-word "Marks and Spencer".

    As outings go, this particular one was oozing with proof - if neeeded, that textusa couldn't have shown himself to be any madder, had he daubed the walls of his cell with his own shit, and attempted to manipulate the foul matter to form a series of hylographics, whilst dribbling from the corners of his mouth, and repeating his disingenuous drivel, over, and over, and over, and over...


    ReplyDelete
  3. Dear NT

    I can tell you now, in one respect, I am pleased. Because every fucking Christmas Ben nicks the best choccy bars out of the selection box and scoffs 'em before I am even out of me pit. The greedy bastard.
    At least with Jules she leaves me the Curly Wurly.

    DaveHallCoLtd©®™ Not at all important.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sir Spittle of Lick12 November 2018 at 01:44

    Thats texts xmas present sorted out then. A course of EST and a box of tena lady. From the lickspittle order of knights of the round table. Ben can hand her ass to her(again)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've been meaning to ask.. (to keep on topic)
      Does anyone know why Christmas came into it.. ??

      Delete
    2. Sir Spittle of Lick15 November 2018 at 21:12

      Its when we have the licketty split lickspittle xmas ball. The invites only have the words marks and spencers written on them...from that we deduce where to go. Tex is pissed she doesn't get an invite(although this year rumours are she'll be here this year as the stuffed turkey).

      Delete
  5. Hi NT

    One thing I really like is pictures with captions. Probably stems from defacing books when I was at school. So I have to say the pix and captions above are really rip-snorting funny, what "LOL" was devised for because I bloody well did laugh out loud.
    In fact I think we should call this the "Orlov Incident 2", (pivotal in the ineluctable sectioning of tExtuSA) as I loved Orlov the above!

    DaveHallCoLtd©®™

    ReplyDelete
  6. Blacksmith Bureau http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.com/

    "We founded this Bureau in 2009 with one aim only: not to sleuth, not to "be there for the child", not to put forward theories but to destroy the public reputation of Kate and Gerry McCann by proving beyond doubt over the long term that their reputation rested on lies and deceit. That is what the motto at the head of the page means."

    "to destroy the public reputation of Kate and Gerry McCann"

    What sort of person would set up a blog to do that to people who have never been arrested, charged or convicted of anything?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm letting this stand, for now, to give John a chance to respond if he wishes
      Frankly, you're on thin ice - I don't really give a shit for the hurt feelings of parents who leave their kids home alone while they go out to a bar

      Delete
    2. I'm very happy indeed to respond to you. Whatever sort of person I am is for others, not me, me to say.

      In this case, however, the answer is "someone willing to accept a libel suit from the McCanns." They know who I am and they can sue if they feel that I have wronged them with unjustified claims. Equally I make sure that I have a truth-defence based on evidence ready if my limited claims are to be contested, out of fairness to fellow citizens like the parents as well as an interest in my own wallet.

      The Bureau was founded after the first investigation was shelved and source evidence rather than newspaper shit became available for detailed analysis. In that time enough evidence had emerged to demonstrate that the McCanns had deliberately enlisted the public in its support to bypass the legal process, specifically in the question of possible extradition.

      That strategy was fully outlined by the head of their defence team on BBC television in late 2007. He said that one of the aims of the team was to eradicate the idea in the UK public's mind of any "guilt" of the McCanns by using the media.

      If you know anything at all about the law you will know it rests on the foundation of judging guilt or innocence in court, not in public. That is why jurors are told to put aside everything they've heard or read about the case.

      That is not compatible with what the head of their team announced. Many people in this case talk blithely about Grange etc. being crooked but few of them actually do as I've suggested to them: "get off your arse and do something about it."

      My decision was, as a citizen of a democratic country, to accept this challenge to UK law, and thus the UK public, as a matter of principle. Behind the McCanns' course of action is a documented history of lying which I have gradually exposed. It is the lying and deception that matters, not the question of crime by the couple; the latter is for the police not me. I don't do theories.

      Both Kate McCann and I were very keen on a review and subsequent investigation. She had demanded it and I wrote a blog called "The Interrupted Investigation" to argue for it.

      I am very pleased with the public statements made by Grange about progress so far. Judging by the note of disagreement on the Find Madeleine website about "sightings" I'm by no means sure that KM is as happy as I am.

      Rather than bark on the internet sidelines I have been anxious to accept, or even play a part in, the legal process. I tried to assist Amaral in the Lisbon legal proceedings. As a matter of principle the Bureau (NOT me alone) took steps to ensure that the MSM covered the Lisbon libel trial in 2010, resulting in the Sky live twitter feed. That was the first time that court evidence, rather than newspaper junk, became known to the public. As you may recall, that was when it was confirmed by the co-author of the Archiving Summary that the McCanns and the rest of the group had indeed "failed to tell the truth" about the checking etc. on May 3 to the police, as I had claimed.

      Both the Lisbon court of appeal in 2010 and the Portuguese Supreme Court in 2017 definitively backed my claims made since 2008 that the Archiving Summary had not "cleared" the couple. I'm pretty pissed off about the crooks on the internet but I'm very pleased that the facts judicially released so far have so strongly supported my claims.

      It is all coming out in the wash, as I said it would eventually.

      Delete
    3. The measure of a successful party-goer is not what they bring to it but their knowing when to leave.

      Delete
  7. Excellent riposte JB. I'm sick of all the unnecessary trolling and theorizing that swirls around the case of missing Madeleine McCann. Most of the facts are there in the PJ Files and I for one think they did a damn good job under the circumstances that they unwittingly found themselves. It is clear why GA was removed.
    The more elements that are unpicked and challenged, more will be revealed and I too am pleased that OG continues, without it there'd be no bi-lateral arrangement UK-Portugal.
    Keep up the good work, both you and NT

    ReplyDelete
  8. Artistic licence, part one and part two.

    https://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.com/

    Sometimes they get amended for a while after publication as I tinker. But I thought you prefer to get them ahead of the game here. Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BTS: "It is widely believed among the Portuguese media, and perhaps the police too, even now, that the McCanns called Sky News before they called the police".
      What's funny here is that the MCs not only never called either Sky News nor the police at all, but hadn't even the cops being called through the usual proxy way. Matthew said he was asked by Fiona and Fiona said she asked Matthew. As for Pamela F's calling offer, it was amazingly (?) rejected.

      Delete
    2. "the MCs..never called..Sky News..at all"

      Glad you pointed that out Anne.

      Delete
  9. Hello anonymous.

    The accusation against the McCanns and, while they were in PDL, their seven friends, is that contact with the media was of greater importance to them than the police investigation into the fate of their child. The PJ insisted on no media. Instead the group, led and organized by the parents, gambled with the child's life by going against their wishes and instructions. Of course, one could argue that the parents - and none of the group acted except in accordance with their wishes - knew the child's life was not at risk, not any longer, but there's only one way they could have known that.

    Everything that has happened since confirms that accusation was true. And it remains true today - a decade later their spokesman has been spouting to multi-media outlets over the past weekend instead of keeping his trap shut. And what was being quoted in the latest stories? That the police didn't want to "alert their suspects" by discussing them - but that, of course, is exactly what Mitchell has done by commenting on the stories instead of keeping quiet: if, by some miracle the girl was alive today then Mitchell would be alerting her captor, wouldn't he? So the parents are risking the child's life ten years on in exactly the way they risked it in PDL in 2007.

    Nobody knows who started the "Sky before police" rumour; what we do know is that the McCanns were happy to promote the rumour, as they did in the BTS piece. What they never went near was the question of whether Sky had been contacted at all.

    It was 2008 before it came out and 2011 before KM acknowledged it. Why was she so ashamed to talk about it? Because it didn't fit in with their narrative that they just happened to find a hundreds strong media mob in PDL on May 4 and "had to engage with it"?


    ReplyDelete
  10. Sky before police was mentioned September 2007
    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lies-beatings-secret-trials-the-dark-side-of-police-handling-madeleine-case-6622113.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks.

      Sky's reporter Ashish Joshi:

      "The first anyone at Sky knew about Maddy was when the story appeared on the Press Association wire."

      V. Interesting if true. I wonder what time the PA floated the story if SKY saw fit to ring Portimao for confirmation, as they did, between 4.30 and 5.30 a.m. Friday?

      Delete
    2. Pandora might just have dropped her key.

      Delete
  11. David James Smith writes that: 'It is widely believed among the Portuguese media, and perhaps the police too, even now, that the McCanns called Sky News before they called the police. For the record, Sky News picked up the story from GMTV breakfast television, at around 7.30am the following day.'

    http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id121.htm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who knows whom I'm addressing? I don't understand the reference to London tabloid gossip in this context but if it's about my comment that "it was 2008 before it came out" I am, of course, referring to the rogatory interviews when the Sky call was admitted by the T7.

      "For the record", what Sky said about GMTV has no bearing to the known and admitted fact that Payne emailed Sky "before the PJ left."

      Delete
    2. "I am, of course, referring to the rogatory interviews when the Sky call was admitted by the T7."

      But not the rogatory interview of Russell O'Brien, who denied it:

      “There were several attempts during the night to, to look about getting an email out to something like Sky or something like that, I don’t actually think that ever happened in the end."

      Then there's the 'known and admitted fact that Payne emailed Sky "before the PJ left."'

      Gerry obviously hadn't told him (as he did Jaoao Barreiras) that he'd already placed a call (“…at a given moment, the father of the missing girl led him to understand that he had already contacted the Sky News TV station and informed them of the situation.”)

      According to David James Smith (The Times) 'By 3.30am they (PJ) had gone', whereas Carlos Anjos (no Pros e Contras, Nov 17, 2007) states,
      'the PJ arrived at the location one hour and a half before Sky'. So SKY personnel were present at the apartment together with the PJ?

      What would have been the point of an e-mail from the Tapas 7 when they could introduce themselves personally? Or is everything down to the supposed 22.11 p.m. 'phone call Gerry McCann never actually made?

      Delete
    3. 4 am, inspector Victor Martins is ordered to return to PortimΓ£o DIC. He locks the 5A, entrusted to the custody of two GNR.
      Between 4:30 and 5:30, PortimΓ£o DIC detective Manuel Queiroz receives several phone calls from Portuguese speakers and an English speaker who identifies himself as Sky News, requesting confirmation of the disappearance of a British girl in Lagos and information on what the police do.

      Delete
    4. Yes Anne

      And you do have to wonder why SKY should be ringing at that time of the morning (which happens to have been shortly after London studio opening) to confirm information they should already have received either from the horse's mouth (Gerry McCann, who sais HE made the call) or their own personnel already at the scene (or aren't they expected to share information with London?).

      Of course there is always David Payne and his borrowed computer. He must have sent SKY an e-mail. Kate McCann has said so after all (lol).

      Delete
    5. Among the information we have, too much or not enough, and within the limits of armchair detecting, what seems pertinent to me is that the MCs, right from the start, avoided carefully being directly involved in the disappearance inquiry. They developped an amazingly sharp ability in by proxy tricking on many topics like the searching, the claiming, their children care etc.

      Afaik GMC didn't make a call to any media, but he managed to have quite a few persons, frustrated not to be able to act, to do it for him.

      Delete
    6. Anne

      In the current context even the actions of 'frustrated persons' are open to question (see 11:56 below). Yet your general point presents us with a curious paradox.

      As you say, the MC's were adept at avoiding responsibility on many fronts, including the authorship of rumours put about by the likes of spokespersons, friends, family etc. And yet GM stood silently by while certain actions were attributed to him by others, i.e., 'phoning a diplomat first and contacting SKY News (personally or by proxy) before the Police, neither of which he actually did.

      The situation's rather like 'it was a dirty job but someone had to do it'. Hence GM was assigned the role.

      I'll leave it to others to figure out why, but in the case of the SKY News rumour, GM clearly knew very early on that SKY would be on board with the story, either because someone among the Tapas 9 HAD managed to contact the broadcaster (he went so far as to claim he'd done so himself) or McCann had been informed by someone else that that was the case.

      The evidence for any of the T9 alerting SKY News is in fact woeful. Which gives just cause for questioning who might have tipped GM off, and when.

      Delete
  12. The PJ officers (one of them got a call from a UK media) were amazed by a media tsunami which obviously didn't come from nowhere. They also noticed the gap between the time of the 'discovery' and the time of the call for help and reckoned that these "victims" were well equipped with cellphones that they used for whatever purpose during that night except for calling the police.

    ReplyDelete
  13. More time wasting from anonymous people on Not Textusa. One wonders why.

    1) You wrote: “But not the rogatory interview of Russell O'Brien, who denied it:

    “There were several attempts during the night to, to look about getting an email out to something like Sky or something like that, I don’t actually think that ever happened in the end."

    That is not a denial, anonymous person, that is a statement of doubt, motive unknown. You are either deliberately misleading or you don’t know the sources. Either way you don't deserve a response from now on and won't get one. Now for the bit at the end you left out, fibber:

    Leicester police record:

    O’BRIEN:“Yeah, I can just, you know. Erm, the rest of that sentence is fine. I think it’s ‘I loathe the media’ comma, just to make it, just to read. Erm, ‘A very low opinion of them’, full-stop. ‘David also’, ‘David was also keen to make use of the media and I think he may have conducted’, conducted, ‘may have sent an email but I’m not sure’, I think he was looking to do it but I don’t think, erm, I don’t think that actually happened”.

    POLICE OFFICER:“Would you say ‘I’m not sure whether that was actually sent’?”

    O’BRIEN: “Yeah, yeah, that’s fine.

    Some denial.

    2) I know you prefer doubt to fact but still. From KM's Madeleine:

    “Dave, seeing Gerry’s anguish and frustration at how little was being done, knew Madeleine needed more help than she was getting. At some point before the PJ left, a retired British couple in a nearby apartment lent him their computer and he sent an email to Sky News alerting them to the abduction of our daughter, using an address listed on their website.”

    What subsequently happened to the email at Sky is not at issue. He sent it. KM never admitted it until four years later, after Sky confirmed it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since I "don't deserve a response from now on and won't get one" I imagine there'll be no apology forthcoming for the ad hominem insult. Never mind.

      You take others to task for referencing the tabloids, yet treat the words of Kate McCann as 'fact'. Really?

      So when did SKY confirm receipt of David Payne's e-mail, the fate of which is 'not an issue'? Oh I know. You're not going to tell because I don't deserve it.

      Delete
    2. I've allowed this through for now, but don't push your luck

      Delete
    3. David Payne's rogatory statement includes reference to a borrowed 'computer, err printer' - to print pictures. No mention of sending e-mails to SKY News, only correspondence with Mark Warner when booking the holiday.

      So we're left with the retrospective claim of Kate McCann, who 'stinks of deceit in everything she says'

      Delete
    4. Okay - let's settle this once and for all.

      Do you understand the difference between a primary and a secondary source? Someone who was a party to the events, such as Kate McCann is a primary source. Newspapers are always a secondary source. It is like taking a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy - the further away one gets from the original, the poorer the copy is. Hence, the further removed the source is from the primary source, the poorer the information.

      If a primary source lies, it does not automatically follow that they are lying about everything - that would be a pretty stupid thing to do and they would be discovered in no time. So unless there is a compelling reason or evidence to challenge the account of the primary source, it will always trump the account of the secondary source - especially as the secondary source draws their information from the primary sources.

      Okay? Enough now.

      Delete
  14. Thanks, JB

    What I have always struggled with is what exactly the group expected the press, or their relatives for that matter, to do at a distance?

    It is perfectly clear they were calling and emailing various press organisations before they had even spoken properly to the police or given statements and within hours of Madeleine being reported missing. As for calling friends, well I just find that inexplicable. I would want to call a close relative to ensure that the first time family heard about it wasn't on the news, but if my child was missing I would be too busy trying to find her to be faffing about with anything else.

    And before anyone thinks of it, I am not interested in hearing that "the police were doing nothing" because that is sheer bollocks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I find it understandable that people hardly aware of which country they are in need their culture (the UK media) for some kind of appeasement, but very unexpectable from the parents of a missing child, unless, since they weren't searching physically (and would one search when knowing there's nothing to be found ?), they had to do something. Relief was likely a relief as was feeling more and more victims thanks to those they called and horrified.

      Delete
    2. Sorry, please read "Sharing was likely a relief".

      Delete
  15. Hi,NT. If they were being truthful they had nothing to gain - as history has proved, publicity failed to help the child. If they were not being truthful then it made sense: muffle the truth, sell the lie.

    But just look at that revolting quote above from Madeleine: the sheer, horrible dishonesty that oozes out like pus. The first sentence "Dave..." starts with an outright invention. How could she know what DP was seeing, how could she know it was true even if he'd told her it was ? And then another - "knew Madeleine needed more help than she was getting".

    She thinks that she is admitting the Sky contact in a clever way and bolstering her own credibility. All she has done, in fact, is demonstrate to both public and, more importantly, police that even when she tries to admit something she still invents, in this case by stating as a fact that Gerry and Payne "could see she wasn't getting the help...". That's the very "police were doing nothing" stuff that you just described as bollocks.

    She can't do it, she honestly stinks of deceit in everything she says. That's why I've always said that the one thing that could convince me of the certainty of abduction is Kate McCann saying it didn't happen.

    ReplyDelete
  16. High NT. Look back at a few of those posts above. The textusa-ites have weathered your initial assaults, like ants under the shoes, and are crawling in to turn your place into yet another round-and-round-in-circles McCann Forum.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi JB,

      Yes, I posted a warning shot across the bows last night and anything else goes to the great recycling bin in the sky. Rather a busy week for me so haven't had much time to devote to picking them off one at a time :)

      I'm certainly not having it here, this endless round and round exercise in nitpicking before finally disappearing up their own arse in a puff of smoke

      Delete

  17. https://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.com/



    ReplyDelete
  18. Did SY look carefully for rabbits and rabbit-holes in PdL ? Did it pass their minds that Madeleine found herself suddenly falling down a very deep well, unable to scream ?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Here's another today.https://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.com/

    I'm assuming most of the regular people here want to know about these as they appear, which is why I link them. If I get the impression that it's seen as using the site to plug my own stuff rather than sharing it, then away they'll go.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Link away, John. If you didn’t, I would link to them anyway. I have been ridiculously busy the last couple of weeks, but will be commenting later, as I think this is a rather pivotal moment.

      Delete
    2. Hi JB. Absolutely we do. Posts in quick succession from yourself are not usually expected so I for one am grateful for a link should I happen to check here for something.
      There's a small error in there I think, the warrant date? Unless I'm missing something.
      Interesting reading. Though I haven't read the msm articles in full as I've not had the time or the motivation for it lately.

      Delete
  20. Hi NT and S. Thanks.

    Sade - No, no, of course you aren't missing something. My mistake - I always get those two key dates mixed up for some reason and have to check "Madeleine" every time. I did this time too but still goofed. I'm always glad to receive error corrections and I've amended the page. Thanks a lot.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anon, Do Not Publish 22.50

    Thanks for your message. Don't worry about it, s/he thinks everyone is me or Ben. As for your question, I'm afraid all I know is what I have heard through the grapevine and read online. I would however question the motives of someone using a female pseudonym in these circumstances if it was proven to be the case.

    ReplyDelete

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