Madeleine McCann the TRUTH of the Truth of the Lie...by SPUDGUN

I have absolutely no idea what the significance will be of the Portuguese Court of Appeal overturning the ban on Goncalo Amaral’s book, “The Truth of the Lie”, a ban successfully effected by court action brought by the ever litigious Kate and Gerry McCann.

Then again, I never understood how or why the Injunction was granted in the FIRST place. After all, Amaral’s book was effectively no more than a synopsis of some of the key investigation points carried out by the Portuguese Authorities, information which was, (and still is), already in the public domain.

In my own country, (here in the UK), there is currently NO news of the lifting of the ban. It will be interesting to see how long it takes for the BRITISH media to report the matter, and then even more interesting to see which newspaper first chalks it up as a scandalous victory for the “disgraced former Maddie Cop”.


For herein lies the rub. Ostensibly, this little procedure in a Portuguese Court is fairly inconsequential in relation to the material that was the subject of the ban in the first place. For the book was, and still is, freely available online, in many languages.


But it is a HUGE victory, (not just for Amaral who was ALSO facing the consequences of losing his HOME to another action been brought by the McCanns), but for the Portuguese authorities, the Police, their press, and most of all, their PEOPLE.


Whatever happened to Madeleine McCann in May of 2007 may forever be a mystery. Whatever crimes took place may never be solved. But the crimes that have since been perpetrated against PORTUGAL, the country with whom the UK has held one of the longest alliances in the World, must not only be solved, but atoned for. Not least, the crimes perpetrated against it by its own Government, or at least factions of it.


Rumours of political skulduggery and interference have been circulating in Portugal pretty much since Madeleine was first reported missing. Key decisions, both in the case itself and on how it was conducted, can be traced back to direct interference from UK Government Ministers, including the then Premier, (and fellow former Glaswegian), Gordon Brown. Reports of spooks, British Intelligence, and senior Special Branch officer’s presence and involvement have been recorded in the Portuguese press since the early days of the enquiry.

Even Portuguese judges dealing with the investigation and court proceedings in the early stages would appear to have acted completely out of character and seemingly against the legal Statutes, procedures and practises that govern them, (especially where Kate and Gerry McCann were allowed to flee Portugal, 72 Hours after having asserted they would never leave Portugal without their daughter, and a mere 48 hours after being made Arguidos).




Such BRITISH influence and involvement can NOT have occurred without the complicity, (and DUPLICITY), of at least some senior Portuguese Office.



Whatever deal was struck, I hope the Office thinks it was worth it.



It would not be the first time, of course, that a Nation has been let down by its Government. However, such occasions generally benefit from a judicious, fearless, accurate and observant PRESS, bringing to the attention to the rest of the world the injustice and deceit that is ensuing. If the Portuguese had hoped that their oldest allies, the BRITISH, would use their Press to highlight their cause, then they were about to be disappointed.



I have recorded elsewhere the catalogue of journals, newspapers, television documentaries, news programmes, British Government Ministers, ‘B’ list Celebrities, Gossip Columnists and bulletins that have all not only perpetrated and propagated the ABDUCTION story, but have ridiculed, abused and vilified the Portuguese people in the process.


“Up Yours, Senor”, “Useless Porto Plod” and “keep your stupid, sardine munching mouth shut”, were just some of the more fragrant lines written by the UK’s finest scribes.


“Pigs” and “Filth”, were how one Tabloid luminary described the Portuguese Police.


“Bumpkins” was how he referred to the Portuguese people of the area where Madeleine went missing. Presumably he meant those who took time off from their work places and normal lives to search the ground, for HOURS, on their hands on knees, looking for clues as to the little girl’s whereabouts.


Just in case there was any doubts as to the integrity or calibre of the Portuguese people, Piers Merchant, assistant to Member of the European Parliament Roger Knapmann, clarified the situation regarding the British perspective on our oldest ally.

In November 2007, I wrote a letter to the former leader and Home Secretary of the UK Conservative Party, Michael Howard. In the letter, I explained that I was concerned that conflict and potentially irreparable damage was being caused between the two countries concerned, Britain and Portugal, much of which appears to have been caused by the Press and Government of this country. I further questioned the use of the British Government Media Monitoring Unit Director, Clarence Mitchell, as not only a spokesman but as an apparent MENTOR of sorts; resigning from his Government job and allying himself with the McCann's when they were made Arguidos. I suggested this to be somewhat an unprecedented and unusual state of affairs.

I also explained my concerns that Gordon Brown had not only personally intervened in the case by persuading the Portuguese authorities to permit the McCann's to make an appeal for information concerning the 'abductor', as 'witnessed' by Jane Tanner, (even though the Portuguese placed NO significance or, more likely, credibility in this sighting'), but that some factions of the credible Portuguese Press were suggesting that Government Pressure was being brought to bear on the case.



Certainly, I considered it inappropriate and unusual for Gordon Brown to have made the personal communications and offered the assistance that he did to the McCann's.


Clarence Mitchell himself had already confirmed that he, via the Prime Minister, had been instrumental in not only co-ordinating the visit to the Vatican, but also visits to other world leaders and dignitaries. My letter concluded that I felt it essential that the Prime Minister clarified his position and involvement with regards to the McCann's case.

The response I received was a standard, if not unexpected one, advising me that the letter would be forwarded to the Prime Minister for his comments, which would be communicated to me if and when he made them. (He never did).

I published my original letter on an Internet Forum, inviting any like minded individuals to either use it as a template or to modify it for their own purposes and forward it to their own local, Members of Parliament. A lady from Bristol did just that, and the response that it elicited made headline news, both here and in Portugal.



Piers Merchant wrote an astonishing and lengthy response that firstly warned the author to be 'careful' of what she writes, referring to the laws of Libel. It then went on to state, somewhat pompously, that


'‘One of the first duties of the British government is to support its citizens abroad. It is therefore entirely correct that the government should do this in the case of Kate and Gerry McCann".


He then sensationally declared,

'The Portuguese police and judicial system is known to be suspect. Elements of the police are corrupt and indeed in this case the senior detective involved has been charged with corruption? "

He continues;

''The Portuguese judicial system does not assume innocence before guilt in the way the British system does and operates an interrogatory process in which people are denounced as suspects without any proof?."


Merchant explains why this shocking state of affairs is so:

"It is important to realise that Portugal has no real history of citizen's rights and liberties or democracy. From the 1920s to the mid 1970's Portugal was ruled by a fascist dictatorship, first under Salazar and then Caetano. Political opposition was repressed and the police and judicial system was used to achieve this. A stable multi-party democracy only came into existence in the late 1970's and is still very young. Many of the police were trained under fascism and the institutions still bear the impact of this long period of dictatorship".

The letter concludes by stating,

''In all the circumstances it is entirely right that British citizens should be protected against an unreliable foreign system. In any event I think you can rest assured that the British police and intelligence services have long had a better grip on the facts of this case than the Portuguese police".

Merchant later tried to deny that he had written this, protesting that his letter had been ‘altered’. However, I STILL have the original source file, and can assert that it is entirely as it was created. Additionally, he refused an invitation to submit his WEB based email system to cursory examination.

Some three years after this particular response, I am still intrigued as to how much of that inexplicable retort was Merchant’s own work, and whether he genuinely wrote it of his own volition.


Piers Merchant died, in September 2009, taking the answers with him.

So today, Tuesday the 19th October, 2010, IS a victor for Portugal.

It is a victory for the Policia Judiciaria, who conducted themselves throughout with professionalism and determination, despite the horrendous, abusive labels and accusations of incompetence, (completely unfounded), which still plague them to this day. Their ‘crime’?. To assert that Madeleine McCann is dead and that her parents are at least complicit in her disappearance. Presumably for reasons of space, the same newspapers were unable to repeat and reserve the same criticisms for the BRITISH factions who shared that self-same opinion:-

a/The Leicestershire Police Constabulary who, (according to PJ files), were instrumental in proposing that Maddie had died at the apartment. Clearly they saw no point, either, in lambasting:

b/ the specialist South Yorkshire Police ‘enhanced victim recovery dogs’, Eddie & Keela, instrumental in solving DOZENS of cases across 17 Police Forces across the UK, who signalled the scent of Cadavarine and other body fluids, in the McCanns apartment and in a vehicle hired by the McCanns, as well as on other personal items belonging to the McCanns.

c/So too, the Birmingham Forensic Science Services, (who have built a “global reputation for excellence in forensic solutions”), who, according to many sources, including SKY NEWS, reported that DNA extracted from a sample taken from the McCanns Hire Car was a “100% MATCH” to Madeleine McCann.


For whatever reasons, these 3 facets of the investigation, the Leicestershire Police, The specialist dogs and the Birmingham FSS results all made obvious significant contributions to the Portuguese Authorities conclusions regarding the case, yet they have thus far avoided the same derogatory attention afforded to them.

BUT most of all, it is a VICTORY for the Portuguese PEOPLE. Those who gave their time, energy, money, resources and heartfelt support, love and wishes to a “nice” British couple in their quest to find their missing daughter. Those whose lives were blighted, (and some who still ARE), and turned upside down by a tidal wave of media vileness , together with a Government who abandoned them and stood by while this character assassination on a NATIONAL level unfolded.

It is for THEM, that this little bit of Court decision making will go a little way towards restoring their faith in the Democracy, spirit and traditional values of their homeland.


As for the McCanns themselves? Who knows? It may well be that they will manage to overturn, yet again this current state of affairs. No doubt they will embark on ANOTHER course of legal action, certainly against Amaral and possibly someone else as well as, no doubt, several Newspapers, Media Outlets or anyone else who repeats the Books' words.


Some might suggest that they will NEED to.

For they have spent MILLIONS of pounds in donations, pledges and personal backing, in convincing the world that Madeleine McCann was abducted; Either by one of several infamous characters as described by Jane Tanner, or by one of the MANY bizarre, colourful and ludicrous suspects that inhabit various corners of the globe as reported widely in the British Press, (courtesy of the McCanns own private police force, Metodo 3 and Clarence Mitchell).

Or by one of the many faceless, nameless and shameless paedophiles that apparently walk the streets of every Portuguese village, (courtesy of a seemingly innumerable number of High Ranking British ‘EX’ Police Officers/Experts, some of which have financially benefited quite nicely from the McCann Gravy Train) .

And that kind of "LOOKING FOR MADDIE" doesn’t come cheap.

But, as has always been the case in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, there are more QUESTIONS than answers. And as I have been wont to say on more than one occasion, unless those questions are firstly ASKED, they can never be answered.


And today, in a Court room in Lisbon, at least the asking has started again...................


God bless Madeleine Beth McCann, wherever you are.................

The Spy who is still out in the cold.........

I have no idea how MI6 man, Gareth Williams, died. He was, apparently, found in a sports bag dumped in his bath. Ostensibly, this could well be murder. At best, it may prove to be a most unfortunate and embarrassing accident.

What I AM certain of, however, is that his poor family are going to have to try and come to terms with his death, at the same time as having to try and ignore the reported hurtful GARBAGE, masquerading as news, simply because Mr. Williams worked in an organisation generally referred to as a ‘Secret Service’.

This permits scurrilous hacks and editors to concoct a whole plethora of salacious conjecture which they then justify by asserting that because he was a “spy”, perhaps there is some real terrorist link or other security threat to us all.

The truth is that, HAD Mr. Williams been involved in activity of a SPECIFIC, National importance, or had his demise genuinely been suspected by the Security services as being caused my miscreants that pose a threat to our National Security, you can rest assured that we wouldn’t KNOW about it. Its circumstances, details and facts would have been suitably obscured from the public by the same means and methods that they, (and the Government), employ every time one of our spies DOES meet an unfortunate end at the hands of an enemy. (Or there is another ‘newsworthy’ item that the powers that be don’t want released).

Had Mr. Williams been a milkman, for instance, then he would briefly have been a National news bulletin item before being confined to the list of all the other unfortunates in this Country who meet a strange, unpleasant or unusual end.

Which is where I am sure Gareth Williams will eventually end up.

But NOT before his poor family, (especially his parents who are currently said to be, naturally, “inconsolable”), have to read countless articles speculating about his sexual orientation and practises, having his name included in the same sentence as ‘gay’, ‘transvestite’ and ‘rent boys’.

All because he elected to genuinely serve his country in an organisation that the gutter press sees as an excuse to concoct lurid and unrelenting column inches that serve to achieve nothing but heartbreak for the people to whom Mr. Williams meant something.

Dr. David Kelly

I don’t know how Dr. David Kelly died. I wasn’t there. The mild mannered weapons expert simply took his afternoon walk, as he did every day, and didn’t return. He was found the following morning, dead.

Such tragic deaths do not normally become the targets of conspiracy theorists, generally because the proper processes and methods of investigation are employed and their findings tend to be fairly unequivocal. It is why we have CORONERS, and why they have been practising in this country for at least a Millennia.

Alas, for reasons kept only to themselves, the British Government elected to dispense with a Coroner in the case of Doctor Kelly and instead appoint, erm......Lord Hutton, a proven Establishment lackey.

So whereas a Coroner will assiduously subpoena witnesses and cross examine them thoroughly, under OATH, in an effort to uncover the facts, Lord Hutton erm, did no such thing. He was NOT empowered to ask such questions or to cross examine anyone, (then again, as he wasn’t a Coroner anyway, he couldn’t possibly have grasped the significance or merits of the answers he would have received).

So whilst I would NEVER wish to personally reach any conclusions or verdicts surrounding the death of Dr. Kelly, not least because of the pain it would cause to his family, I WOULD love to know the answers to a few questions. In fact, I'd be much happier if they were even ASKED:-

1. Why was the Forensic ‘specialist’, who initially investigated Kelly’s death and on whose testimony so much rested, a NEWBIE who had never previously worked in the field?

2. Why is the PATHOLOGIST who examined Kelly after his death currently the subject of investigations into “astonishing blunders” made in other cases?

3. Why are these 2 obvious inadequates permitted precedence over the hoards of other medical experts and doctors who have voiced concerns that Kelly couldn’t have bled to death?

4. Why were the Paramedics who attended Kelly, and who had witnessed “very many” suicides involving slashed wrists, not permitted to give evidence to any inquiry? According to Dave Bartlett and Vanessa Hunt, there was virtually no blood present on Kelly or at the scene:-“‘there just wasn't a lot of blood... When somebody cuts an artery, whether accidentally or intentionally, the blood pumps everywhere. I just think it is incredibly unlikely that he died from the wrist wound we saw,’' says Hunt.

5. Why did the knife, supposedly the weapon used to slash Kelly’s wrists, have NO FINGERPRINTS, even though Kelly wore NO gloves, a fact only discovered after a statement released under the Freedom of Information Act?

6. How could a man who had a seriously weakened elbow, cut an artery for which there is NO known record of it resulting in the bleeding to death of the victim, (the Ulner Artery),a cut NEVER having previously being recorded in any suicide attempt?

7. Why would Kelly, a scientist, doctor and man of much knowledge, use a BLUNT pruning knife?

8. How could a man, with a known predilection, (almost a PHOBIA), of swallowing pills, consume TWENTY NINE Copraxamol tablets, (even though that amount represents just a THIRD of what would have been required to kill him?)

9. Why did the first person to come across the deceased Dr. Kelly, Louise Holmes find him resting against a tree; a fact borne out by Hutton who confirmed having seen photographs of Kelly in situ; yet by the time Paramedics Bartlett and Hunt arrived, Kelly had been moved “some distance” away from the tree?. Detectives on the scene have already testified that Kelly’s body had not been moved or touched.

Michael Powers QC, is a barrister and former doctor who is one of Britain's leading experts in coroner law. He states:-
'For an inquest to conclude that suicide is the cause of death, it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt,' he said. 'In this case, there are a lot of gaps. The evidence of the paramedics, who are professionals, is significant. There appears to be no accurate measure of how much blood Kelly lost and a very real question, backed up by witnesses, that it was insufficient to lead to his death.
'The toxicological evidence is very poor. There are questions over where the pills came from and how many he took.'

Of course, there may well be entirely logical and wholly innocent answers to these, as well as other questions surrounding David Kelly’s death. It is very likely that many of the answers are in the evidence, documentation and Post Mortem results that were presented to Lord Hutton. Which leads me to my final question:-

10. Why would the Post Mortem results relating to the suspicious and controversial death of a man and scientist, associated with, and knowledgeable about, some of the UK Governments secret operations, be ordered to be LOCKED AWAY FOR 70 YEARS!!???

The Case of Ian Tomlinson

The authorities, media and public commentators have all recently, collectively, expressed disdain, disbelief and total bemusement as to how so many people could possibly want to sign up to a Facebook tribute page, in support of dead murderer, Raoul Moat.

Celebs, columnists and anyone who likes the sound of their own voice, (or the size of their column inches), have been waxing lyrical about the state of our ‘sick’ society, where people would want to canonise a murderer.

Even the Prime Minister himself was quick to declare, in the House of Commons, that Moat was NOT deserving of any sympathy; rather such sentiments should be reserved purely for his victims.

I am sure that quite a few sighs of relief would have resonated along the relevant corridors of power when the tribute page’s creator voluntarily closed the site down; especially so, given that Facebook itself refused to bow under Prime Ministerial pressure to censure 'RIP Raoul Moat you Legend'.
However, I rather believe, and fear, that many of those who ostensibly appeared to be SUPPORTING Moat, were, in fact, actually making a statement about, and demonstrating against, what many perceive to be an increasingly hostile POLICE state, where officers can act improperly and unprofessionally without impunity. I am NOT necessarily suggesting that this was the case in the Raoul Moat case, or in the circumstances relating to his demise. We shall have to wait ANOTHER eon, no doubt, before the full facts relating to THAT matter are ever fully realised, if at all.

No; if the powers that be want to know how or why so many people would wish to express such resentment and distrust of the authorities, police and law enforcers of this country, then they need look no further than the tragic case of Ian Tomlinson.

Mr. Tomlinson, you will remember, died on April 1st, 2009, collapsing in the street after having been beaten and pushed to the floor by a truncheon wielding police officer during the G20 summit protest. The incident, where Mr. Tomlinson was NOT taking part in the protest, having his hands in his pockets and walking away from the police line, was FILMED by several sources; most of them clearly showing what appears to be a completely unprovoked and uncalled for attack.

Moments after the incident, Ian Tomlinson was dead.

Over fifteen and a half Months later, the CPS has declared that NO charges will be brought against any officer in relation to Mr. Tomlinson’s death.

Mr. Tomlinson’s family have stated that the authorities have engineered a cover up.

The evidence available suggests they might be right.

PC Simon Harwood was the officer who was filmed striking and pushing Mr. Tomlinson to the ground. His policing methods, together with those of the unit in which he served, the Territorial Support Group, (TSG), appear to have some history of dubious activity.

According to reports, Harwood had previously served and RESIGNED from the Metropolitan Police, for using unnecessary force in a “road rage” incident. He left the Force on Medical grounds, receiving a pension and thus avoiding the Disciplinary hearing that he was due to face, together with any punitive measures for his actions.

He then, (somehow), REJOINED the police, where his previous behaviour appears to have been completely forgotten, before subsequently receiving an appointment back at the Met.

According to other Media reports at the time of the Tomlinson incident, Harwood is alleged to have removed his shoulder ID number and obscured his lower face with his balaclava just prior to him lashing out at Mr. Tomlinson.

Another newspaper investigation alleged that the TSG were known FREQUENTLY to swap ID numbers amongst themselves whilst on operations, enabling them to claim mistaken identity in the eventuality of any complaints or allegations of wrongdoing being levied.

If ever there was a case where the authorities had to make a stand for common decency and for the General Public, and to be SEEN to be administering justice for clear wrongdoing, this was it. Of course, it is inconceivable that PC Harwood intended to cause serious harm to Mr. Tomlinson, and I personally do not feel that a charge of Manslaughter should ever have been made.

However, to elect to NOT bring any charges whatsoever against Harwood, DESPITE the initial recommendations of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, is not only a most injurious and dangerous course of action to take by the Crown Prosecution Service but, in my opinion, potentially one that could cause a most corrosive and irreparable relationship between the Police Force and the authorities as a whole, and the public whom they are meant to serve and protect.

It must surely be a most unfortunate coincidence that the Deputy Director for the CPS who made the decision NOT to prosecute anyone in the Tomlinson case, Stephen O'Doherty, is the SAME Deputy Director who elected NOT to bring any prosecutions in the Jean Charles De Menezes case.

In that case, you may remember, Mr. O' Doherty absolved the armed police officers and their commanders in a botched operation that left an innocent Mr. De Menezes with seven bullets in his head.

Rather like the De Menezes case, the IPCC originally stated that there were NO CCTV cameras in the area that recorded the incident involving Mr. Tomlinson. When photographs of the SIX cameras available were published by newspapers, the IPCC reversed its position and said its investigators were looking at footage recovered from them.

I can think of no greater insult, nor example of rubbing salt in the wounds of Mr. Tomlinson’s family, than by citing the reasons not to prosecute anyone in this case because of the Medical evidence of Dr Mohmed Saeed Sulema Patel.

“Freddy” Patel, alleged that Mr. Tomlinson died of a heart attack. Natural causes. Nothing to do with any injuries.

Patel is currently facing disciplinary hearings relating to 26 charges of sub-standard practices, including incompetently carrying out a number of earlier autopsies where he failed to attribute any significance to obvious signs of injuries incurred as a result of violence.

For some reason best known to himself, Dr. Patel also disposed of three litres of bodily fluids taken from Mr. Tomlinson, said to be blood from an internal rupture.

Patel carried out his medical “examinations” of Mr. Tomlinson in the absence of any other Medical expert.

Patel is currently suspended from the Home Office register of accredited forensic pathologists and barred from carrying out postmortem examinations in suspicious death cases.

Despite the fact that two further, detailed and lengthy Post Mortem examinations suggested that Ian Tomlinson death was due to internal bleeding, as a result of blunt force trauma – an injury consistent with a fall or assault- Dr. Patel is the medical expert that was clearly more favoured by CPS Director Stephen O’Doherty, stating that the “irreconcilable conflict" between Patel and the other two doctors would undermine any prosecution against the police officer involved.

To summarise:- a clear and obvious assault, by a Police Officer who quite possibly shouldn’t have been serving in the capacity that he was in the first place, operating in a unit whose policing procedures have effectively been rewritten as a consequence of this case; resulting in the death of an innocent man, the true reasons for whose demise were almost certainly omitted by an incompetent and most inept Doctor.

All presided over by a Prosecutor with an unenviable track record of conducting investigations that absolve the police of any culpability.

It is quite possibly fortunate for us ALL, that Raoul Moat met his demise when he did. For if he was still at large, then his subsequent downfall, in the light of Ian Tomlinson’s CPS decision, might have created a tide of support and following for Mr. Moat that no amount of social vilification and comment could impede.


R.I.P. Mr. Tomlinson.................

We WUZ robbed!!

The British press are all, pretty much, united:-
The England football team were appalling...

"Overpaid.....underworked......weak.......disorganised......old......tired......outclassed......outplayed....SACK THEM ALL!!"

Or words to that effect. Along with other, similar words, epithets and conclusions.

They are probably right, in the main. For whatever reason, this World Cup squad spectacularly failed to perform, individually or as a team. I certainly don't know the reasons why. Perhaps no-one, not even the players themselves know.

However, in my humble estimation, the newspapers are WRONG, in one respect:-
they are wrong in asserting that Frank Lampard's disallowed equalising goal wouldn't have made any difference; that Germany would still have won anyway and that in no WAY should the most ridiculous refereeing decision EVER be used to mitigate the circumstances of England's failure.

For the problem with THAT conclusion is that we can never know.

Perhaps England WOULD, still, have lost anyway. Perhaps Germany WOULD still have scored four goals. Or five. Or even six.

Or perhaps less.

Because if Lampard's goal, (and it WAS a goal, of course), had been allowed to stand, then the second half would have started all level at 2-2. And whilst it's no excuse for them wallowing in self-pity, perhaps with such a scoreline England may have fared much better, without having to battle a strong sense of injustice as well as a strong German attack.

Perhaps GERMANY may have faltered, knowing that despite an unforeseen and unexpected soar into the lead, England had somehow managed to level the game. Perhaps THEY would have succumbed to some pressure.

Perhaps, even if Germany DID still get a third goal, then England would have fought MUCH harder for a 3-3 equaliser, instead of crumbling in the face of a crushing 3-1 defeat.

Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.

What I DO know, for sure, is that Germany would have started that second half, KNOWING full well that England had levelled the game and that the officials had declined to register it. They surely must have known, and FELT that the gods were in their favour; this couldn't be anything other than their day.

Perhaps. Who knows?.

Perhaps England, having achieved parity, would have executed a more effective rearguard defence action, rather than mounting a reckless attacking formation that left them woefully exposed to the counter attack.

And what if we had held them? Extra Time? Penalties? Ah, the possibilities. Imagine the dignified welcome home they would have been afforded had they managed to end up losing, (again), on penalties!.

But I DO believe that, whilst that disallowed goal in no way could ever excuse their ineffectual and sterile performances over 4 games, England WERE robbed.

Robbed of a chance to claw back some dignity and pride. Because whilst their gifts, skills and capabilities clearly failed them, they DID, more than anything, want to do well for their country. Just because they failed miserably cannot diminish that. And I DO believe that in robbing them of that one goal, it also robbed them of much more.

For if they had managed to lose just 3-2, then they would now not be facing the endless critiques, ridicule and lambasting that is going to haunt them for the rest of their careers.

Where to pin a medal on Cressida Dick?

The Queen's Police Medal (QPM) is awarded to police officers in the United Kingdom and Commonwealth for gallantry or distinguished service.

Apparently, it was created to be awarded to those who had shown: -

(a) Conspicuous gallantry in saving life and property, or in preventing crime or arresting criminals; the risks incurred to be estimated with due regard to the obligations and duties of the officer concerned.

(b) A specially distinguished record in administrative or detective service.

(c) Success in organizing Police Forces or Fire Brigades or Departments, or in maintaining their organization under special difficulties.

(d) Special services in dealing with serious or widespread outbreaks of crime or public disorder, or of fire.

(e) Valuable political and secret services.

(f) Special services to Royalty and Heads of States.

(g) Prolonged service; but only when distinguished by very exceptional ability and merit.

So when I read that CRESSIDA DICK, the officer in charge of proceedings on the fateful day which saw the shooting and killing of an innocent man, Jean Charles de Menezes, was to receive this prestigious medal, I naturally assumed that Ms. Dick had clearly committed a supreme act of heroism since that tragic event.

For there can surely be no other reason why a woman who presided over the most appalling series of misadventures, monumental cock-ups and downright police failings could ever redeem herself sufficiently to be deemed worthy of such a high award. Surely.

Because about the only unequivocal fact relating to the death of de Menezes on 22nd July 2005 is that there are very FEW, unequivocal facts!. Certainly, many of the official police lines, statements and assertions about the incident not only changed on MORE than one occasion, prior to the eventual hearings, investigations and enquiries, (the first of which was originally kept SECRET), but some of the facts as reported by key officers clearly contradicted those of some of their colleagues.

Indeed, one of the more remarkable assertions was noted in de Menezes POST MORTEM report, stating that Jean Charles had “vaulted over the ticket barriers” and that he “ran down the stairs of the tube station”. Dr Kenneth Shorrock later told the inquest that he had been given this information by police during a "walk-through" with officers at Stockwell Tube Station, the scene of the killing but, despite working in a profession where a supremely meticulous eye for detail is essential, he could not remember who had given him this information.

It then subsequently became apparent during the course of a ‘suppression of evidence’ investigation, that at least one officer had deleted, altered or modified their statements and contemporaneous notes relating to the incident.

Of course, given the fact that there were extensive CCTV cameras all over the station and on the train itself, it would surely be a simple matter to view that material and clarify all of the conflicting accounts. Alas, police reports were later to confirm that the relevant CCTV cameras both on the platform AND in the train carriage itself, (which would have shown a most ACCURATE portrayal of the events), had acquired “technical problems”, resulting in there being “no footage”.

And so, despite several Independent Police Complaint’s investigations, (the IPCC itself clashing with the Metropolitan Police amid claims of obstruction and non-co-operation); a Crown Prosecution Services review which saw the Met prosecuted and merely fined under ridiculous ‘Health and Safety at work’ legislation; together with other critical enquiries, investigations and reviews, NO-ONE has ever been deemed to be accountable or culpable for the one incontrovertible fact; that Jean Charles de Meneze's ended up lying in a subway train with eight bullets to his body, SEVEN of them to his head.

It is easy to cast aspersions and judgements when looking in from the outside. Ultimately, perhaps only those involved on that July day five years ago will ever know the full truth relating to the events that occurred. Only they will, individually, know the thoughts that raced through their heads, the actions that they personally effected. The decisions they elected to make.

But it is surely beyond, not just all rational logic and protocols, but also moral decency and respectability, to award the woman who has TWICE since been promoted, and is now the Highest Ranking female police officer in Scotland Yard, a MEDAL for “gallantry or distinguished service”.

I am tempted to suggest that the medal was awarded under section ‘e’ in the above original criteria: for ‘Valuable political and secret services.’

I am also tempted to suggest that, given the opportunity, the parents of Jean Charles de Menezes would know just where to pin it.

From Court Jester to Kingmaker

About the only issue on which I can, thus far, agree with Nick Clegg relates to Electoral Reform. Alas, for entirely different reasons than his.

He may well want to babble on about referendums and proportional representation, but what I want to know is this:-
How can it be that a LOSING Labour Government clearly voted OUT by a democratic electoral process could, (and WOULD, had the Labour Cabinet been more accommodating to Clegg’s toadying), be voted back IN by a party who has been the laughing stock of British Politics for decades, and who finished with so few votes that they accrued nearly six time LESS seats than the party they eventually ended up sharing office with?

It’s the equivalent of Chelsea being usurped as the Premier League Champions on the basis of them not having quite accumulated enough points, and giving the Cup to Manchester United instead to be SHARED, equally, by bottom finishing Portsmouth.

Whatever intentions, aspirations or wild dreams Clegg entertained when he went into politics could NEVER, even remotely, have included walking the corridors of Whitehall with any position of power. I am perfectly sure that even today, he will still not quite believe that he is Deputy Prime Minister.

He may have momentarily had notions above his station when a bemused viewing audience decided he was the ‘winner’ in terms of his pre-Election TV showdowns with Cameron and Brown, but the truth and reality of his status was clearly etched on his pained face once he realised that he was to actually LOSE seats in the final reckoning.

So I find it somewhat astonishing, (as I am sure, did HE), that the current British Political voting system incorporates a means and procedure that enables the LEAST desirable, wanted and respected Political Party in the Country to effectively yield the GREATEST amount of power in those circumstances as we have just witnessed.

It is to Brown’s credit, and that of his Cabinet, that they clearly elected from the off not to indulge Clegg’s sycophancy and that of his Lib Dem colleagues, or we would be potentially looking at yet ANOTHER period of Labour, with a smattering of warring factions from Scotland, Wales and Ireland.

Not to mention a ridiculous and, ultimately, impotent Clegg, posturing and preening in a position that even his most extreme dreams didn’t incorporate.