Decline
and Fall of Modern Journalism
One
small slip for a man; one giant fall for a profession.
In
previous short Chapters (29
- Fake News; 30 - Clarke Lies and videotape; 31 - On Lies and
conspiracies; 33 - Jon Clarke Entrenched Lies )
I tried to unravel some of the extraordinary stories relating to the
reported disappearance of Madeleine Beth McCann put out by Jon Clarke
the disgraced journalist, editor and proprietor of “The Olive
Press”, a free tabloid newspaper and advertising sheet found at
supermarket-check-outs in southern Spain.
I
tried to unpick the way in which outright and provable lies were
printed, published on-line, and then, bizarrely, put into first-hand
reporting in the recent Netflix ‘documentary’.
I
showed how a whole series of Clarke’s lies was immediately revealed
by the contemporary video footage included in that same Netflix
production, and how anyone watching and thinking about what they were
seeing could identify the untruths and inventions and falsehoods he
was uttering direct to camera, sometimes as he was actually making
the mendacious statements.
As
each Chapter was finalised new evidence was uncovered and comments
from readers flooded in, drawing my attention to yet more aspects of
this totally unacceptable behaviour.
What
follows is a series of short essays to try to unravel still further
what many believe to be a web of deceit .
*************************
Jon
Clarke. The Olive Press
As
readers of his paper have realised, Clarke is very free with
invective and ad
hominem
abuse, Clarke and his paper love nothing more than identifying people
by name, occupation, age and place of residence. He purports
however to be protective of his own family. A long time ago his
children were named by a contributor in an on-line forum, and he
asked for the details to be removed. Very quickly they were.
It
is in fact easy to find full details of Clarke’s wife and of his
children by conducting a ‘google’
search. Even a cursory search will find a Daily Telegraph article –
now no longer available except by using the WayBack search engine –
where the meta-text, the précis and extracts which appear under the
headline, remains.
People
familiar with the system will know that by adding one of the terms
from the meta-text and then repeating the search a slightly different
result is obtained. After as few as five iterations of this type
the full names of all the family and details of their home can be
seen. The ages of his children are easy to calculate. [ As a
matter of common courtesy I shall not append the details here.]
Clarke
placed all this in the public domain himself, and yet complains when
others do it. He may of course have been paid for the article, and
that may have over-ridden his core objection.
During
our unproductive e-mail exchange in which I asked for a retraction of
the deliberate lies Clarke had told about me, and perhaps some sort
of correction and apology, he finished by making an extraordinary
statement about publishing details of my family.
It
may be that this was a vague threat of some sort, but it is slightly
confusing.
Given
that my brother was a Blue and twice an Olympic athlete, (Montreal
and Moscow, since you ask) then held a National position within the
NHS, and lives in a house of historical interest which can be found
on the internet; given that my niece holds a middle management
position in PR for the UK’s oldest and most famous wine merchant
and appears under her full name on the Company web-site; given that
my nephews both hold high profile positions one within the world of
finance, the other in on-line trading across the world, and that any
cursory ‘google’
search will find them all, as indeed it will find me, it is unclear
how giving out their details would disturb anyone.
Perhaps
the theme of ‘knowing
where someone lives’
is a powerful one.
Clarke
claimed to have been forced to leave the Costa del Sol some years ago
when his activities as an investigative journalist began to attract
unwanted attention from his targets. His claims to have sought
anonymity in a renovation project outside a small village in the
mountains of Andalucia are slightly at variance with his decision to
publicise the considerable renovation work in a major national
newspaper, and then to open the place as a high quality rural
retreat, advertised in all the usual places.
Fact,
False Hope, or a Hoax ?
Clarke
uses the theme in the story about the Angolan Bouncer [q.v] where it
was said that he had ‘been
forced to flee
to Spain’
(Huelva) from Portugal to avoid his assailants.
The
inconvenient facts that there is an open and uncontrolled
Schengen-area border between Portugal and Spain; that Huelva is less
than 50km from that border, less than 100 km from Faro, and less than
150 km from Portimão; and that the gentleman in question had been
living happily in Huelva for some considerable time and had been
instrumental in the local basketball team’s success in a relatively
major competition – all of this discoverable within two minutes on
‘google’
–
seem not to diminish the power of the words used.
The
claim that the Angolan Bouncer was living in fear of the gang of
high-profile and aggressive Portuguese child traffickers was also
slightly contradicted, if not to say revealed as totally bizarre and
frankly unbelievable, by the publishing of a full face head and
shoulders colour photo at the head of the story in question,
reproduced across all the syndicated papers, and still retrievable on
the internet.
As
with all things McCann, none of it makes sense, and much can only be
explained by making the assumption that it is pure invention. Or in
plain English – lies.
One
of the (many) intriguing aspects of the Angolan Bouncer story is that
despite its having been reported by a self-styled Investigative
journalist, no follow-up article has even been published.
There
is no mention of the result of phone calls to the Spanish police to
confirm their receipt of the dossier, nothing about asking the PJ to
confirm they had in fact received it, no details of emails to the FBI
or Interpol, no follow up interview with the man himself, with his
lawyer, or indeed with anyone.
No
article either castigating the authorities for their total failure to
follow up this important information, nor congratulating them for
taking it as far as they did
The
story exists as if in a vacuum. It came from nowhere, and went
nowhere.
It
is as insubstantial as a dream, a phantasm.
It
became cat litter and was disposed of in the normal way. It exists
in permanent form only in the internet archives in the deep caverns
of northern Finland.
More
worrying thoughts
The
Angolan Bouncer story has been dissected at length and a long series
of questions which naturally arise from it has been documented. To
date it seems none has been addressed or answered.
There
are yet other aspects of that strange story which are more worrying.
Did
Clarke and The Olive Press, and the Sun for whom he was also writing,
allow time for SpanPol to contact PortPol in the form of the PJ, to
contact Interpol and to contact the FBI to start appropriate
enquiries with the US Border and Passport control agencies among
others, before they published the article ? Or did Clarke just
blunder in and risk Madeleine’s life still further – or yet again
?
We
know that GM went against specific advice from the PJ when releasing
details of the eye defect, the coloboma, thus making it highly likely
that she would be horribly mutilated, or more likely killed.
Apologists might argue that this was his privilege as a father – to
take action which led directly to his daughter’s death – but the
same cannot be said about Clarke.
In
one of his reports Clarke says he “ran
it [the
story ]
past Maddie’s
family ”,
which – if it happened at all – may be a lame attempt to move any
possible blame to the family. But by printing what he did, in such
detail that the alleged group involved
could have
identified themselves, Clarke must consider his joint responsibility
for any negative outcome.
Gerry
McCann is on record as saying that releasing the details of the eye
defect was “a
good marketing ploy”
which
immediately raised even more concerns about the nature of the
‘search’.
Was
the Angolan Bouncer story also a
good marketing ploy
for the discredited Olive Press ?
A
Lie is a Lie is a Lie
How
many different Versions of the Truth can be True ?
I
detailed previously Clarke’s three separate and distinct ‘Versions
of the Truth’, saw them initially as irreconcilable, one with
another, and then tried to fuse them together to make a consistent
story.
In
this I think I was partially successful. But that success is
dependant on the admission by Clarke that one other element is false
– that of the claimed time of a phone call and the estimated time
of departure from the family home in rural Spain.
It
is instructive to consider yet again the wording of the statements.
I
make no apology for repeating them, so that everyone shall understand
the depths to which journalism has sunk, and how Tabloid proprietors
and journalists have lost even the scrap of morality and decency they
may once have had.
Versions
of The Truth (VofTT)
1 2017.
“When
I arrived at about 11.45am I was firstly able to walk into the
apartment,
where
I introduced myself to the McCanns and told them I would do
everything I
could
to help.
“The
only reporter on the scene till late that evening . . .
2 Netflix. “I said hello to them as they were leaving and introduced myself to them as a reporter from the Mail, and they said “Hi”, and I think they may have also said “thanks for coming”.
3 The
first journalist at the scene reveals Maddie's parents' ‘devastation'
4 2019
“The Olive Press Editor, 50, was the first journalist on the scene
in Praia da Luz the day after police began their disastrous attempt
to find the toddler.
5 Crews
interviewed publisher of Spain’s biggest expat paper Jon Clarke,
who was the first UK print journalist in the resort
6 2019
“Praia
da Luz was a sleepy little village and hardly anyone was around when
I arrived later that morning. But I was shocked when I saw the
McCanns’ apartment
– there
was no security and just a flimsy piece of police tape covering the
side gate.
“A
few hours later, I met Kate and Gerry.”
I
show in chapter 32
‘On Lies and Conspiracies’ – how
even if Clarke, an investigative journalist for whom we may suppose
details were once important, asks his readership to believe that he
did not know or did not realise, or had just forgotten or overlooked
the fact that Portugal and Spain are on different time zones, his
timings still do not make sense.
But
he asks us to believe it. So we have to try.
The
self-aggrandisement about being the ‘first’
or the ‘only’
journalist was shown by the Netflix film itself to be totally untrue
and pure invention. The transparent attempt at ‘definitional
retreat’
in VofTT5 is exposed as a classic fallacious argument along the lines
of . . . “When
I said First
journalist I actually meant the first UK Print journalist, by which I
think I mean the first British journalist who publishes in British
tabloids, and in English . . .”
Good
try, but it also fails, since Len Port, who lives in Portugal and
publishes in English in another ex-pat outlet was there at 0830 and
is clearly visible in the Netflix videos.
If
VofTT6 is correct – that he spoke to the McCanns ‘some
hours later’
[than his arrival], then much of the rest of that extraordinary
description of empty streets, few police, no dogs, no journalists,
and no signs of the frenzied activity clearly documented on the
videos from early-morning onwards, could well be more accurate than
we have allowed.
If
so, then I apologise again for having doubted him.
But
in turn Clarke must explain, as I set out Chapter 32, how he was in
PdL by 0600 - 0700 on 4/5/7, why he lied - if he did - about the
phone call at 0700, when he did the 4 hour drive and why he still
insists in VofTT1 and VofTT2 that he arrived about 1045 local time,
when we can show from the contemporary video evidence that this is
simply not true.
That
is Clarke’s dilemma
He
cannot have it all ways.
Some
at least of what he has written and said must
be untrue, factually inaccurate, incorrect, or a straightforward,
downright and blatant lie.
The
world awaits the Truth. Not a Version.
The
Oath taken in a court of Law is quite clear. It is definitively NOT
. . .
I
Promise to tell A Version of the Truth
Part
of A Version of the Truth, and
Nothing
but A Version of the Truth
That
would be, to use a favourite word from the McCabulary,
– “Ludicrous”
One
rule for Me – Another rule for everyone else ?
One
of the strange feature of Madeleine’s case so far is that those
still searching for the truth adopt the position, “ –
here is the argument and here is the evidence and the logic to
support it. Here are the references, here are the videos, here is the
supporting documentation, and we are open to discussion and look
forward to receiving any evidence you may have – “
The
contrary argument is only ever
presented as Libel, threats, intimidation, and ad hominem abuse.
Never
once
is supporting evidence presented, and the response is almost always
accompanied by demands for yet more evidence, more information, and
more analysis
The
dogs’
alerts are dismissed out of hand, with a refusal to discuss them
The
lack of a ‘window
of opportunity’ is simply ignored
The
state of the shutters is skated over by saying “the
McCanns never said that”
The
Pool photo - few have ever tried to support it. Those who did
revealed a profound lack of understanding of the evidence and the
logic of the argument
So
let us try to tackle the logic of what he says.
Clarke
is an educated man, perhaps not with a sharp forensic mind honed in
the debating chamber of a grey stone University, but surely able to
identify false logic and the huge leaps of faith concomitant on
arguing a point with a total lack of supporting evidence.
He
went to a good university; one with four Nobel laureates on the
staff, and incidentally the one which awarded my Masters.
Surely
he is profoundly embarrassed by having to write stuff like this
Why
does he do it ? Only he can say.
Can
money be his sole motivation ?
Clearly
a proper search for the facts and the truth might have led him in a
different direction, along a different path, even if his ultimate
conclusions based on the evidence he found turned out to be the same.
What
has he written,
“A
few hours later, I met Kate and Gerry. They were polite, and thanked
me for reporting on the case. I knew immediately
they weren’t involved.
This
uncannily mirrors a statement by one of the main paymasters of the
McCanns, millionaire Brian
Kennedy
who is reported as saying:
"They
both looked like a wreck, after 12
seconds
just reading the emotions everything told me 100 per cent that this
woman [Kate McCann] is genuine –
she is a
victim."
This
is strangely precise – “12 seconds”. [cf. 9:04
by his watch ]
Now
turn it round and apply this standard of investigation, this total
lack of proper consideration of the evidence and of the arguments, to
a criminal trial.
Imagine
YOU
are the [wrongly]
Accused, and you hear a member of the jury say. “I
knew in 12 seconds he was Guilty”,
and another one says “I
knew immediately”
Such
persons would and should be barred from jury service, and a re-trial
ordered.
It
is not reassuring. It is not how the world should work.
Visceral
reactions are part of the human condition. They are the very basis
for racism and several unacceptable prejudices, but gradually through
use of our intelligence, better education and societal change we are
learning not to rely on them.
There
is no longer a place for the 12 second conclusion. It is surely
what Investigative,
in the title ‘Investigative
Journalist’
actually means.
The
fallacy, for those who are interested, is known as secundum
quid,
or ‘Jumping to conclusions’
A
PROPORTIONATE RESPONSE
When
presented with fallacious arguments one of the more effective
responses is to hit back with another one. Here the obvious choice
would be the
Plurum interrogationum -
the Plural, multiple or complex question, perhaps flavoured with a
dash of ad
hom. abuse
Did
you have to go to Journalists’
College to learn to be so stupid ?
How
much were you paid to tell all these lies ?
Strange
Logic
In
the 2007 article Clarke sets out his reasoning. I use the word
loosely, but it is worth a short diversion to demonstrate the
secundum quid
in operation, and how journalists will twist the normal rules of
honesty and logic to press home an illegitimate point.
The
short paragraph reads
Original
Version
But
for a couple of loving parents to murder their daughter, bury and
cover all traces in the space of an hour while on holiday is
stretching it a bit far.
The
fact that they are educated doctors with not a blemish on their
names.
The
fact that they were on holiday with two other families.
The
fact that they invited the world’s
press to help with not one speck of real dirt sticking to them.
These
are just some of the reasons why I am convinced the McCanns did not
kill their daughter Madeleine, 4.
10th
Anniversary Version.
But
for a couple of loving parents to murder their daughter, bury and
cover all traces in an hour while on holiday is stretching it just a
bit too far.
But
this didn’t stop the Portuguese police from charging them… and to
this day, one notorious ex-detective continues to publish books
claiming they were involved.
No
care [sic] that Kate and Gerry McCann were educated doctors with not
a blemish on their names.
That
they were on holiday with two other families.
And
that they had invited the world’s press to help in the search.
These
are just some of the reasons why I am convinced the McCanns did not
kill their daughter.
Quite apart from the obvious objection that none of these is in any sense a “reason’ for believing anything, he then ends with an ignoratio elenchi, specifically a ‘straw man’ which he then knocks down. I am convinced the McCanns did not kill their daughter.
Quite apart from the obvious objection that none of these is in any sense a “reason’ for believing anything, he then ends with an ignoratio elenchi, specifically a ‘straw man’ which he then knocks down. I am convinced the McCanns did not kill their daughter.
For
the record so am I – at least not with the active implication of
the word ‘killed’.
But
let us dissect it.
a
couple of loving parents Is
there evidence for this. Does Clarke have access to information which
allows him to describe the parents as “loving’ either of
themselves, or of their children ?
to
murder their daughter, So
far as I am aware no sane person has ever suggested “Murder”. The
term was first used by Kate, and has since been repeated by Mitchell.
bury
and cover all traces in an hour Where
did this come from ? This is pure invention. There is no
independent evidence of a time opportunity of this size, or disposal
in this way, even though Kate refers to it obliquely when she is
trying to dismiss the dogs’ findings
.
. . while
on holiday is stretching it just a bit too far. Just
as the Zapata case in which it was alleged that dogs’ alerts proved
that a man had carried his murdered wife’s remains across several
States for over a quarter of a century was ‘stretching
it just a bit too far’.
?
The
judge at first instance took this point and did not allow the
evidence to be heard.
It
was nonetheless true,
as Zapata confirmed in his subsequent confession.
But
this didn’t stop the Portuguese police from charging them. . .
As has been pointed out elsewhere ad nauseam this is simply factually
inaccurate. Clarke knows this. It is a Lie.
Kate
and Gerry McCann were educated doctors with not a blemish on their
names. Again
Clarke must be privy to full background information denied to the PJ
to be able to make this statement. And a cynic might also point out
that Harold Shipman fitted into this category before his conviction,
as did the other 24 UK doctors convicted of manslaughter since 1990.
That
they were on holiday with two other families.
Three,
actually, as surely after following the case for a decade Clarke must
have known, or been able to check very easily. Sloppy journalism
and failure to check facts. But in any event it is entirely
irrelevant to the matter in hand.
And
that they had invited the world’s press to help in the search. The
cases of Guilty people turning to the world’s Press in an attempt
to divert attention from themselves runs to dozens of pages. Clarke
must, surely, be aware of at least some. If not, I recommend Chapter
11- Crocodile
Tears’
in which I list eleven of the more notorious ones.
These
are just some of the reasons why I am convinced the McCanns did not
kill their daughter.
There
is not actually a single “reason”.
The phrase ‘kill
their daughter’
is a not only a Straw Man, but also subtly trying to shift the burden
of proof.
Read
it again.
.
. . I am convinced the McCanns did
not kill their daughter.
What
this tactic does is try to shift the Burden of Proof by forcing us to
explain that no one else does either, and has never suggested that
they did.
By
which time people have got bored and lost track of the original
proposition.
Apart
from the fallacious ‘Special Pleading’ - “.
. . They are doctors . . . ”
we are left with nothing.
When
we consider that all the authorities involved in this, the PJ, the
GNR, Brit Pol (LeicsPol and MetPol), three sets of self-proclaimed
private detectives, several Investigative journalists of various
credibility and experience, and hundreds or even more people across
the internet have all attempted to come up with a credible scenario
which accounts for at least some (even one) of the McCann’s set of
facts, and realise that all have failed miserably, we are entitled to
think that perhaps the “McFacts”
presented are not as they might seem.
We
keep coming back to Clarke
It
may be that somewhere in his several articles something may actually
be true.
If
so, perhaps he now owes it to his readership to tell them which
version it is.
He
clearly was
in PdL on 4/5/7, and on any test he was there long before 1000 local
time. There is documentary evidence in the form of video film which
shows him the midst of a throng or a gaggle of reporters at that
time. Other evidence including his observed familiarity with the
scene and his relaxed and friendly contact with senior police
officers indicate that he was probably present for a considerable
time before 1000.
But
in two of his Versions of the Truth (VofTT1, and VofTT2). he insists
he did not arrive until 1045 local time. (The McCanns and the PJ are
clear that they left at or just before 1000)
TABLOID
TRASH
Does
it matter ?
Does
it matter that Reporters Write Rubbish
Does
it matter that Papers Publish Piffle
Does
it matter that Tabloids Type Trash
On
one level – No. Not at least for intelligent and discerning
people.
But
the Tabloid press is aimed at C2DE readers who may lack the
intellectual acumen or the education to allow them to filter out the
dross, lies and nonsense.
No
intelligent person now believes anything printed in the Sun, or the
Record, or the Star.
No
one believes anything said by Mitchell. Articles by Kandohla seem
designed simply to attract negative comments. No one believes
anything they contain, unless there are independent sources for the
information.
Clarke
has managed to add his own name and that of his paper “The Olive
Press” to the ‘Dis-Honours
Board’
in that ‘Hall
of Infamy’,
and by association has damaged Netflix.
Most
people believe only a small amount of what is in the other slightly
more up-market Tabloids.
The
days of the Thunderer and the Telegraph as papers of record are now
long gone.
Only
Private Eye has the good grace to apologise, and does so sincerely
and on a regular basis.
It
took Profiler Pat Brown four months and a lot of pro-bono legal
assistance to wring a recent grudging correction out of The Sun.
The deliberate mis-representation they had printed fitted their
‘Agenda’ and they were reluctant to print something which spoke
against it.
An
article “KEY
TO FINDING MADDIE Expert says mystery man spotted on night she
disappeared is key to solving case of missing Madeleine McCann”
(11 March)
originally had a headline which reported that criminal profiler Pat
Brown believed Madeleine McCann may have been abducted by
a mystery man seen on the night she disappeared. To
clarify, she
believes that the man is key to solving the case, but does
not believe that he abducted Madeleine.
A version of the headline also suggested that two ‘mystery
men’ seen
on the night may have been the same person; in fact, Pat Brown
believes they were different men. We apologise for the error.
Original
article 11/3/19 Correction 19/7/19
“Pat
Brown believed”
- v - “Pat
Brown does not believe”
It
is difficult to see how that could have been a mistake, and the
suspicion remains that it was and is part of a concerted and focussed
plot.
And
that suspicion grows when we know that Pat Brown did not speak to The
Sun. Ever.
Her
words were ‘borrowed’ from elsewhere and changed to fit the News
Corp Agenda that there was an abductor, and that someone who has
looked at the evidence actually believes this.
Which
for the record, no one does.
Given
the proven nexus between Clarke and News Corp (The Sun) and his
inclusion in the lists of contributing journalists in various
articles it may be reasonable to suspect that Clarke might be deeply
embedded in any conspiracy to deceive - if it could ever be proved
there were one.
Some
may say that taking the Tabloid press to task is a waste of time.
I
think however it is instructive to show the depths to which
journalism has now sunk, and how, apparently for money, journalists
and publishers are prepared to lie to the public.
My
particular case also shows when even after Clarke was exposed as a
liar in “The Olive Press”, he seemed to lack the moral fibre -
not to mention the common decency and good grace - to correct and
apologise.
He
has incidentally still
not done so. The piece remains on-line and in the public domain.
Clarke’s
lies and his abusive and defamatory statements are preserved for
anyone to see.
There
was a time when Journalism was a respected profession. It was seen
as the 4th Estate, to hold the Establishment to account, by
fearlessly exposing corruption and deceit. The Telegraph exposed the
MP’s expenses scandal, and it was journalists who by their tenacity
and boldness in the Watergate saga brought down a President.
Private Eye tried long and hard to expose Savile and Smith as
disgusting perverts, only to find they were protected by the
Establishment and Libel Lawyers.
‘Don’t
play the ball, play the man’.
A
diversion on the Fallacy of ad hominem abuse.
Ad
hominem (abusive)
is fallacious because it says nothing about the issue under
consideration.
It
addresses the personality, the character, characteristics, racial
background, gender, proclivities or previous history of the person
arguing a particular point. But all these are irrelevant.
It
is possible for scoundrel or even a Tabloid journalist to be right,
just as the local doctor, the Pope or the Dalai Lama may be wrong.
(Only the Dalai Lama would have the humility to accept this, of
course )
So
it is commonly used by common people who have nothing else to say,
who have no answer to the proposition.
It
is an ‘adult’ extension of the playground verbal bully, or
“Little
Britain’s”
grotesque
but all
too recognisable Vicky
Pollard –
“ .
. and anyway don’t listen to her because everyone knows she ain’t
got no pubes . . “
[worse (and funnier) examples exist !]
There
is no essential difference between this and describing a contributor
to a debate as a “troll” without addressing the central issue.
Try
it.
“Mr.
Clarke, what is your view of Mr MacLeod’s research which strongly
suggests that the Pool Photo was taken on Sunday 29th, and not on
Thursday 3rd as the McCanns insist ?
“Yeah, but no, but yeah, but no, but anyway don’t listen to him because everyone knows he’s old and he’s bald and a troll . . so there . . !”
Or
as the disgraced Clarke actually wrote
“There
was even the deluded former deputy chief superintendent, who trolled
long and hard from his villa in Andalucia, convinced that the parents
were guilty.”
And
on another infamous occasion
“The
former Nottinghamshire copper has long trolled that the parents were
guilty and even
produced
a libellous pamphlet on why they did it. . . .
[Err, I didn’t, and it wasn’t ]
Jon
Pollard or Victor Clarke ?
There
is no
difference.
Jon
Clarke, numbered among
the
McCann’s principle acolytes and proselytisers, has metamorphosed
into a parody of the monstrous Vicky
Pollard. Whilst
his use of language may be slightly more
refined . . . his use of logic is not.
What
Clarke notably does NOT say is
“MacLeod
is wrong when he suggests the Pool Photo was taken on the Sunday. He
has failed to note that the official weather charts for Faro airport
were discredited by the Government investigation
XYZ/67/89/gov/port/weather which exposed serial failings, and lead to
the complete overhaul of the systems in place . . .
Or
MacLeod
has misinterpreted the reports by relatives and friends about what
they were told about the shutters. On closer inspection of the press
reports it is clear that they all intended to say words to the effect
“They
were saying they were not
smashed or broken or forced or jemmied, and that is why they couldn’t
understand how the intruder had gained entry . . . .”
He
doesn’t say that, of course. He can’t. It would be nonsense.
As well as untrue.
And
worse, it would invite even closer scrutiny of original
documentation.
Like
many other apologists he offers no evidence or analysis, and so is
forced to confine himself to ad
hominem abuse.
He
has nothing else to say. We understand that. Like the playground
bully who resorts to verbal or physical violence, it is proof enough
that he has lost any argument.
Clarke
is in a trap of his own making.
His
boasting and self-congratulatory contribution to the Netflix
film has preserved his lies and deliberate deceit
for all time.
Clarke has been exposed, disgraced, and revealed as something other
than that which he purports to be.
Hubris
followed by Karma
? Clarke’s Nemesis
was the Netflix film. No one else was involved.
He
is, to use a Shakespearean expression, “Hoist
with his own petard.”
Another
book, also written a long time ago said.
Pride
goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.
(Proverbs
16:18.
KJB)
Clarke
has no escape. And for that he may deserve our pity.
“Evil
and Pernicious”
In
his 2019 article Clarke concludes by saying
“One
thing for sure, it made me think long and hard about doing my job and
how evil and pernicious the internet and its many trolls can be.”
Well
yes. Jon. You phrase that well.
After
you had thought long
and hard,
what conclusions did you come to ? Your internet editions
identifying the innocent girl in the Axarquia, and your deliberate
and disgraceful lies and defamatory comments about me are still
available on line. You were censured by your own professional body
for the former, and have never had the common decency to apologise
for the latter.
After
thinking long
and hard are
you still proud of that ?
Evil
and pernicious ?
I might have been tempted to use more moderate language, but you are
right. The Netflix programme can certainly be described as
pernicious,
– (adj)
having an exceedingly harmful effect, especially in a gradual or
subtle way –
and
the evil
–
(adj). profoundly immoral and wicked –
consists
in the perpetuation by the film of the fraud on the general public
who lack the perspicacity, the acumen or the training to see through
what they are being told. It is part of the coordinated mass and
continuing deception in which some might suggest that by your lies
you are complicit.
To
wind up with a similarly pithy phrase, aimed not only at Clarke, but
at all uncritical acolytes and apologists, drones, scribblers and
hacks
Your
inability to understand and your refusal to consider the evidence
are
not valid arguments against it.