More money goes down the drain in the Madeleine McCann case on top of the £13.5 million of British taxpayer wonga chucked away on absolutely no results
This morning – continuing the pointless pattern of the Mirror and MailOnline to “note nothing new” in the case of ‘disappeared’ Madeleine McCann we highlighted last week – The Sun shared an “exclusive” about the investigation that frankly wasn’t worthy of a single column inch.
After beginning with the bashfully bold headline “Madeleine McCann’s parents to find out this year if they’ve won legal battle against ex-cop” Goncalo Amaral – whom currently is owed a “six-figure sum” believed to be circa £750,000 by Gerry and Kate McCann after he beat them in court in February 2017 – the paper then concluded without an actual “when” and the non-news that “the judges will now give a verdict by the end of the year.”
Of this diatribe of drivel, one could say: “Thanks for that,” but more realistically anyone rational would ask of The Sun instead: “Couldn’t you have asked your contributor to instead go looking for a missing person where there is a genuine chance of that person actually being found?”
Meanwhile, on Sunday, the Mirror – a red-top reliable for prattling on about “non-news” about a situation that could have been avoided perhaps if two doctors hadn’t left their toddlers unattended so they could live it up in a restaurant with their mates – shared that the prosecution team that named Christian Brueckner (AKA ‘Christian B’) exactly one year ago just as the British government began their ‘coronavirus distraction technique,’ have actually not spoken to Gerry and Kate McCann once during the ensuing period.
Asked if they had genuinely made any progress in the case, prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters “angrily hit back at critics” and illustrated the weakness of his work in declaring: “I don’t care who believes what… We are missing important important information. We want no stone unturned. Whether there will be an indictment in the end, I cannot foresee at the moment.”
The Mirror concluded: “Brueckner, serving seven years for raping a 72-year-old woman in Praia, has not been interviewed,” whilst elsewhere the Daily Record added Wolters pathetically offered: “Our appeal for witnesses still stands.” We respond: “Where on earth do you think these people are given the millions already offered in rewards that have never been claimed?”
Clearly, on top of the £13.5 million of British taxpayer money wasted on this case already, that’s another chunk of change down the drain whilst other families of missing people shamefully get little to no help at all. Enough is enough; it is time to close down the investigation into ‘missing’ Madeleine McCann.
— Madeleine Case Tweets🌐 (@McCannCaseTweet) March 8, 2018
Elsewhere on social media this weekend, the matter of Kate McCann being photographed with bruises on her wrists in the days after her daughter disappeared was again discussed. This tweet from 2018 was once again referenced.Christian Brueckner (AKA ‘Christian B’, pictured left with his ex-girlfriend Naskcije Miftari) was brought to public attention just as the British government began to suffer “very bad news days” at the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic last year. The narrative of him being the evil, paedophile suited Boris Johnson’s government a treat as it helped shift the headlines – for a period – away from their appalling handling of initial lockdowns. This weekend, equally, Johnson has managed to do something similar by marrying his latest ‘baby mama’ Carrie Symonds and in doing so, cynics quite correctly argue that he has used the ‘distraction technique’ to get his bad week courtesy of Dominic Cummings off the front pages. Unsurprisingly, social media manipulated imagery from the wedding by using images such as those pictured (centre and right).
In December 2017, when £11 million of British taxpayers’ money had been spent towards the search for ‘missing’ Madeleine McCann, 86% of viewers of ITV1’s ‘Loose Women’ said the public purse should cease to fund the investigation. Now, in May 2021, with that sum at £13.5 million (aside from the millions in private money also), it is time to allocate resources to the search for missing people who actually can be found, we would suggest.
‘Tatler’ magazine called out for suggesting a Chelsea restaurant that closed down in August 2016 as a “hot spot” post ‘Lockdown 3.0’ ending in May 2021
A “tattler” is an “observer or spectator… a gossip who tells tales,” whilst ‘THE’ Tatler is defined by the Oxford Learners’ Dictionary as “a British magazine, published once a month and containing articles about upper-class and upper-middle-class social events, fashion and the arts.”
Given the Condé Nast lifestyle publication’s staff – amongst them previously the current editor of the Daily Mail, Geordie Greig, and the ex-editor of Vanity Fair and The New Yorker, Tina Brown CBE – have variously included many Oxbridge alumni, one would assume they’d be a little better at fact checking than the notoriously sloppy seconds employed by the MailOnline (which is rated 1 out of 5 by the Microsoft Edge browser given its propensity to share fake news), but instead a recent edition of the monthly society bible featured a complete balls-up.
“[Brasserie Gustave at 4 Sydney Street, London, SW3 6PP is] located at the exact point where South Ken meets Chelsea (and on a site that has seen more restaurants than Ramires has had yellow cards), this French bistro is a keeper. If the art-deco posters look a bit hackneyed, not to say banal, the food is anything but. It’s fresh and lively, classic French dishes prepared with punctilious attention to detail. Confit de canard is superb and you won’t find a better plate of kidneys in London. Great wines too, managed with gusto by experienced sommelier Richard Weiss.”
Whilst of their thirteen selections, the loathed by Dan Wootton magazine prattled: “We’ve eaten our way around Chelsea’s top restaurants… We’ve got you covered,” a comment on OpenTable from as long ago 22nd August 2016 reads: “I made a reservation and got there and the restaurant was closed.” Plainly, anyone with half a brain would have realised five years ago that Brasserie Gustave turned out actually to be anything but “a keeper.”
In the time since, Tatler’s editorial team also missed their very own one-time contributor Giles Coren’s visit to 4 Sydney Street on 15th July 2017. At that time, he lauded “pan-Asian” Zheng Chelsea as “the sort of places foodies go in quest of the new and wonderful.”
Pictured top: 4 Sydney Street has been various restaurants over the years including Carpaccio, Sette, Marco Pierre White’s Sydney Street Grill, Brasserie Gustave and most recently Zheng Chelsea.
The magazine’s May 2020 feature on Brasserie Gustave – a restaurant that closed in August 2016.In August 2016, an OpenTable user commented: “I made a reservation for [Brasserie Gustave] on Open Table and got there and the restaurant was closed.”The front elevation of Zheng Chelsea, 4 Sydney Street, Chelsea, London, SW3 6PP.The interior of the restaurant as it used to be during the era that Brasserie Gustave (left) occupied the site and as it has been since circa 2016 as “pan-Asian” Zheng Chelsea (right). Of food there, in July 2017, Giles Coren remarked: “Food this good and this unusual would normally never be found in Chelsea… Chelsea is not absolutely the last place in the entire world that I would go looking for brilliant authentic Malaysian cooking, but it comes close. What with the well-upholstered complacency of the locals, the lack of any significant oriental population, the high throughput of tourists and idle shoppers in need of plasticky chain food, the sky-high rents and concomitant historical lack of any decent restaurants here at all, Chelsea is perhaps the second last place in the known universe that I would go in expectation of fiery, original, challenging but entirely successful Straits Chinese cuisine.”The society go-to title was previously accused of a “swathe of inaccuracies and false misrepresentations” in May 2020 by Kensington Palace after it published an article about one-time friend of its current editor, Richard Dennen (pictured together right), the Duchess of Cambridge titled “Catherine the Great.”
As the ‘Mirror’ publish yet another “nothing new” story about ‘missing’ Madeleine McCann, Matthew Steeples suggests: “Why not instead allocate some coverage to other missing people?”
In July last year, the MailOnline ran a ludicrous story suggesting that “a new witness has come forward to claim that Madeleine McCann is alive and living with a German family on the Algarve.” They did not name this supposedly beady eyed individual, but suggested “she saw the by-now teenager in a supermarket just 40 miles from where she disappeared speaking German.”
Unsurprisingly like most ‘leads’ in this curious case, this far-fetched suggestion never resulted in any further developments and now, this morning, it’s been the turn of the Mirror to muddy the waters yet again.
Note Nothing New McCann 2021 – Gerry and Kate McCann pictured out running in the days after the ‘disappearance’ of their daughter. Soon thereafter, claiming the Portuguese police were “setting them up,” the couple fled back to Britain.
Aside from banging on about a note left in a staff message book at the resort, the paper shared that Mr and Mrs McCann have recently declared on Facebook: “We love you and we’re waiting for you and we’re never going to give up.”
This morning, I counter: “Why don’t the Mirror and MailOnline and others stop printing such drivel and why don’t they instead help the thousands of other families of missing people who get little to no assistance instead?”
Missing Madeleine – Questions STILL without Answers
Many questions about what happened on the evening of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann remain. Some that have been highlighted by the press and discussed online include:
Why did Kate McCann refuse to answer 48 questions put to her by the Portuguese police?
Why were certain records of phone calls on the evening of the disappearance “whoosh-clunked” from the memories of the phones of Mr and Mrs McCann and the ‘Tapas 7’?
Why did a British sniffer dog sense the smell of a corpse in a cupboard in the apartment from which Madeleine McCann disappeared?
Why did a sniffer dog also supposedly sense the smell of a corpse in a vehicle hired by the couple a month after the disappearance of their daughter?
Why did Mr and Mrs McCann go jogging and play tennis in the days after their daughter’s disappearance?
Was it acceptable for Mr and Mrs McCann’s mortgage to be paid by the fund established to search for their missing daughter?
Martin Allen vanished without a trace in London on 5th November 1979 aged just 15. Though his brother, Kevin Allen, has kept the case in the public eye as much as he can, he gets little to no help from the Metropolitan Police. Again today, I ask: “Why isn’t money from the public purse allocated to solving this case and thousands like it and why, instead, has fast approaching £13 million been allocated to a case that has not been solved in 14 years?”Luke Durbin disappeared aged just 19 in Suffolk in May 2006. In spite of his mother’s tireless campaign to attempt to find her vanished son, why don’t the police devote more resources to the search for him?Ben Needham, then aged just 1, disappeared on the Greek island of Kos on 24th July 1991. He has been missing for over 29 year and in the time since his mother, Kerry Needham, has shockingly come under attack from supporters of the family of Madeleine McCann. Of this in October 2015, she commented: “It feels like a personal attack on me. It is deeply, deeply hurtful. I have myself had massive amounts of slanderous abuse from supporters of the McCann campaign in the past but I have never taken that personally. It’s freedom of speech. But it is getting the names of two missing children out there which is really important.”
Ghislaine Maxwell’s trial before Judge Nathan moved to 29th November in spite of her crackpot lawyer claiming jurors won’t be fair to her because they will want to be home for Christmas
“By contrast, pushing the trial to the end of November will have a severe and irreparable impact on Ms. Maxwell’s defense. First, she will be detained longer.”
“Second, the estimated four weeks for the government’s case will result in Ms. Maxwell’s defense being pressed to conclude before the holidays or worse, extending the case into the new year, which the Court already concluded was unwarranted delay.”
“While the government may complete its case-in-chief before Christmas, the defense will not. This will cast defense counsel and the defense casein a negative light as jurors impatiently wait for the trial to conclude before Christmas, which it won’t.”
“Third, starting on the Monday after Thanksgiving will pose impediments to the potential jury pool – many of whom will hopefully be able to travel to see family for the first time since before COVID – and will disrupt travel plans for counsel and our families.”
“Fourth, Ms. Maxwell’s witnesses who will be traveling from various locations will be forced to book uncertain travel plans in the days leading up to – or after – the holiday season.”
So, basically, if Sternheim is of the view that the ‘Bouncing Czech’s’ deviant daughter wants turkey before Christmas and turkey before Thanksgiving (no doubt with a bit of Krug to accompany also), perhaps she should tell her client to do the decent thing: It is time for ‘Grubby Ghislaine’ to ‘woman up’ and finally tell the truth about what her and her paedophile cronies like Jeffrey Epstein and Jean-Luc Brunel actually did to the poor, innocent, trafficked victims.
Pictured top: Ghislaine Maxwell with her socialite friend Christopher Mason, a man whom once sang a song in honour of another Maxwell-Epstein associate – Donald Trump.
Nathan in November – Ghislaine Maxwell pictured “in happier times” living it up with Anthony Haden-Guest and ‘Daily Mail’ editor Geordie Greig.
Nathan in November – In December 2014, long before his chum Ghislaine Maxwell was arrested for sexual abuse, Christopher Mason sang a song about his Kim Kardarshian’s arse.
Sue Homan quite deservedly“slams” decidely deviant disgrace Michael Barrymore for not helping secure justice for her murdered ex-husband Stuart Lubbock
Whilst late last month we reported that Michael Barrymore had been dragged in for further questioning about the 2001 rape and murder of Stuart Lubbock at his Roydon, Essex bungalow, his former agent, Mike Browne, heartlessly batted off questions by cretinously commenting: “The police seem convinced with the evidence they have found but I’ve no idea what it is. They seem sure but I can’t see how it can end in charges after so long.”
Responding to the wicked wall-of-silence from Barrymore and the other 7 still-living guests supposedly present that night – one of whom is presumably the 50-year-old recently arrested in connection with the appallingly sick slaying – yesterday, Stuart Lubbock’s ex-wife, Sue Homan, told The Sun:
“It would have really helped our campaign to have someone with [Michael Barrymore’s] fame supporting us.”
“Barrymore could have reached out to Stuart’s grieving family more to help them get justice.”
Previously, on the 5th May, Homan shared another article from The Sun and tweeted:
“So, after reading this. I’m assuming @mrbarrymore will be getting in touch soon, so we can both work on getting #Justice4Stuart Yes? No? Thoughts below pls. Michael Barrymore hopes for justice over death of Stuart Lubbock in his swimming pool 20 years ago.”
Responding to the tweet, another campaigner for #Justice4Stuart, ‘Agent 007’ answered:
“He’s only ‘hoping’ I’m afraid Sue, I don’t think he’ll go as far as ‘helping.’ He’s spent 20 years trying to make this disappear… I dread to think who’s advising him… Oh, it’s his pound shop solicitor.”
Now, today, we join all calling on Michael Barrymore and the others present that fateful night to finally do the decent thing and join those helping work towards a second inquest. It is time these miraculously quiet individuals finally assisted Essex Police and it is time each and every one of them responds to the police plea advertised as follows:
“Nine people went to the party at Michael Barrymore’s house, but only one of them – Stuart – ended up being violently sexually assaulted and murdered. We know not everyone at the party was responsible for what happened, but someone was. We also know that not everyone at that party may know what happened, but someone does… 19 years – still no justice: Help us get answers for Stuart. Someone knows.”
Pictured top: Michael Barrymore (left) in a decidedly dodgy shirt and Stuart Lubbock and Sue Homan in happier times on their wedding day in July 1993.
Of their marriage, in 2001, Miss Homan told the ‘Daily Mail’ – “He always wanted to settle down and have children. Stuart was devastated when we broke up. We had grown apart and I had grown up. I realised that I was too young to settle down.”
“Stuart was a lovely, lovely man who would do anything for anyone. He worked hard and adored his children. I just cannot believe that he is dead, no one can.”
Hoping v Helping 2021 – A decidedly drunk Michael Barrymore pictured (left) with a decidedly drunk and since convicted racist bigot Marie-Claire, Baroness von Alvensleben and with another of his equally vile friends, the thankfully now croaked paedophile Sir Jimmy Savile (right).Hoping v Helping 2021 – The scene of the rape and murder of Stuart Lubbock on 31st March 2001: Michael Barrymore’s then home, 4 Beaumont Park Drive, Roydon, Harlow, Essex, CM19 5HB.Hoping v Helping 2021 – A now 50-year-old Jonathan Kenney. This one-time estate agent turned estate agent was a lover of Michael Barrymore at the time of the murder of Stuart Lubbock and claimed to be the first to have discovered the body. In March this year, ‘The Sun’ reported: “[Kenney now] works as a coach driver and is in a long-term relationship with someone else,” though other reports elsewhere cited him as being a driving instructor.Hoping v Helping 2021 – As he faces certain death soon from terminal cancer, Stuart Lubbock’s crusading father Terry Lubbock deserves an answer to the question he has never stopped asking. That question: “Who killed Stuart Lubbock?”
As her lawyer issues an image of her with a black eye, mucky madam Ghislaine Maxwell’s history with fakery should lead anyone rational to question whether its current or genuine even
In the wake of its release yesterday, one has to ask: “When was the supposedly ‘new’ photograph of Ghislaine Maxwell with a black eye under her eye actually taken and is it actually genuine?”
Responding to the snap being shared on the official ‘RealGhislaine’ Twitter handle, one user remarked of the allegedly fake image: “Absolute trot!” whilst another added: “Perhaps she slipped manicuring her eyebrows with clippers.”
Miss Maxwell’s history with fake imagery and manipulation relating to such has previously illustrated her dishonesty in this area.
The photograph of alleged vegan Ghislaine Maxwell munching on a burger in Los Angeles in August 2019 that was released by her associate was widely debunked later as a fake.
A photograph that Prince Andrew claims to be faked – taken in Miss Maxwell’s house in 2001 – has never been proven to be anything other than real.
Like her fraudulent father, anything but honest Ghislaine Maxwell also has a history of using pseudonyms and called herself “Jen Marshall” or “Janet Marshall” when buying ‘Tuckedaway’ in November 2019.
Our conclusion: “Is Ghislaine Maxwell a woman whose word and images can be trusted in any regard or is she just an utter fake?”
Like the case of the boy who repeatedly cried wolf, grubby groaner Ghislaine Maxwell and those close to her also have a history with visual media that would make even the most sympathetic individual doubt what they have to say in that context. As a result, the latest potentially fake image – released by her lawyer and on her ‘RealGhislaine’ Twitter handle – of the incarcerated alleged teenage trafficker with a black eye should be treated with the contempt it deserves.
Aside from her and Prince Andrew having utterly failed in their efforts to get anyone to believe the 2001 photograph of the randy royal with his “chubby fingers” around the waist of the then 17-year-old Virginia Roberts at her Kinnerton Street house to be anything but genuine, the ‘Bouncing Czech’s’ daughter has many other links to the misuse and manipulation of imagery.
Firstly, it must be remembered that the mucky madam was likely involved in leaking that infamous “too perfect” photoshopped image of herself at an In-N-Out Burger restaurant in Los Angeles in August 2019. Aside from this wicked woman – whom bangs on about being vegan constantly now – “planting herself for a double-double” burger, that image was subsequently debunked by The Cut. For them, Bridget Read stated:
“The intrepid Daily Mail checked out the location of the burger joint in Hollywood where Maxwell was allegedly spotted by a regular last week and found some odd discrepancies. Notably, a bus stop in the background of the shot shows an advertisement for the movie Good Boys – which the company that operates the ad space said has never been there. The bus stop currently displays an ad for a local hospital, which it says has been there since July 28. Maxwell was supposedly photographed at the In-N-Out on August 12.”
Fake Maxwell – Prior to her arrest at the curiously named ‘Tucked Away’ using the invented name ‘Jen Marshall’ or Janet Marshall,’ woman-of-multiple identities Ghislaine Maxwell’s associates allegedly released most likely faked images of her at an In-N-Out restaurant.Fake Maxwell – This anything but fake photograph of “chubby fingered” Prince Andrew, Virginia Roberts and Ghislaine Maxwell on the first floor landing of 44 Kinnerton Street, Belgravia, London, SW1X 8ES on 10th March 2001 quite rightly remains in the public domain in spite of the royal claiming it to have been a doctored creation.
“Questions about Maxwell’s lunch outing have fed into the already robust set of conspiracy theories around Epstein, his high-profile acquaintances, and his death. Why was a second smartphone on the In-N-Out table? Why did Maxwell never stick a straw in either her soda or her shake? Why did the diner who supposedly photographed her have such a nice camera, with a lens that took a very clear photo? It doesn’t help that the In-N-Out employees at that location have been forbidden, supposedly by their employer, to talk about Maxwell’s visit.”
“If Saffian did indeed leak the photo of Maxwell, it was likely to try and throw the FBI off her scent… If the In-N-Out photo is indeed doctored, Maxwell could be anywhere and could show up anywhere she pleases. What’s next? Some predictions: eating a hot dog on the steps of the Met, posing with a cactus at Joshua Tree, riding a unicycle at Burning Man, or painting her nails on the C train.”
Secondly, Miss Maxwell and her now deceased paedophile ex-lover have been repeatedly accused of covert surveillance of high-profile guests – including potentially the film director Woody Allen, President Bill Clinton, lawyer Alan Dershowitz, Barclay’s chief Jes Staley and the Duke of York – at the homes they shared. With holes in ceilings where technology for such was installed found in Epstein’s Lenox Hill, New York townhouse, for example, the clear indication is that information gathered was used to blackmail those targeted into doing whatever this deviant duo wished.
Thirdly and most relevantly, the most ‘recent’ image of Miss Maxwell – a woman accused of having snapped sleazy images of naked people at Epstein’s now demolished Palm Beach perv pad in addition – shared by lawyer Bobbi Sternheim yesterday of the disgraced socialite allegedly sporting a black eye should now be questioned in the same way as that of the supposedly spurious In-N-Out snapshot.
“Last night, she was confronted by MDC staff due a visible bruise over her left eye. The ‘black eye’ is depicted in Exhibit B. Despite 24/7 camera surveillance (except when guards elect to exert authority in an intimidating way off-camera, as they did in Saturday’s bathroom incident), no guard addressed the bruise until Ms. Maxwell, who has no mirror, caught a reflection of her aching eye in the glean of a nail clipper.”
“At that point, MDC staff confronted Ms. Maxwell regarding the source of the bruise, threatening to place her in the SHU if she did not reveal how she got it.”
“While Ms. Maxwell is unaware of the cause of the bruise, as reported to medical and psych staff, she has grown increasingly reluctant to report information to the guards for fear of retaliation, discipline, and punitive chores. However, there is concern that the bruise may be related to the need for Ms. Maxwell to shield her eyes from the lights projected into her cell throughout the night.”
“The MDC routinely places inmates in the SHU if they have engaged in physical altercation with other inmates or to protect inmates who are the subject of abuse. It would be ironic if the MDC follows through with its threat to place Ms. Maxwell in the SHU: It would signal that Ms. Maxwell needs protection from the very staff so intent on protecting her, since she has no contact with anyone but staff.”
Frankly, given said image is unaccompanied by any kind of source information or date, it should be treated with the same skepticism as to anything related to a woman who once answered: “[I am a citizen of] TerraMar,” when asked what country she was from by the FBI.
Pictured top: The undated, unsourced, potentially fake image released by Bobbi Sternheim showing Ghislaine Maxwell sporting what they claim to be a black eye (left) and the subsequently debunked ‘fake’ image of Ghislaine Maxwell at a Los Angeles, California In-N-Out burger diner in August 2019 (right).
Brothers in Coats – Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein
Elsewhere yesterday, a beady eyed reader pointed out to The Steeple Times something that surprisingly utterly everybody else has missed about the 2010 photograph of ‘Randy Andy’ walking in New York’s Central Park with the then already released from jail for two years already paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
Both men are clearly wearing identical coats and frankly anyone with half a brain will now enquire: “Why? What are they? Creepy, copycat blood brothers?”
What next? Perhaps ‘Mucky Maxwell’s’ PR peddler Brian Basham could launch a sideline fundraiser by selling a limited edition run of the coats on RealGhislaine.com. Cha-ching!
Nikolay Kalinin asks YouTube star Max Fosh about why he decided to run as a candidate in the 2021 London mayoral elections
Max Fosh is running a campaign to simply get more votes than ‘Detective Sergeant Ignoramus,’ the actor Laurence Fox, in next week’s London mayoral elections.
However, outside of appearances on his YouTube channel, Fosh has not spoken much about his campaign and his rivalry with Fox, so I decided to get to know him better and asked him 10 questions on behalf of The Steeple Times:
NK: Did you intend to run for London Mayor back in 2020 before the pandemic, or was it only after Laurence Fox announced his campaign that you decided to run?
MF: I decided to run when I saw a BBC News article outlining all the potential candidates, and at the bottom it had the different things that one needs to do in order to become a nominee, which was to get 66 signatures from 33 different boroughs – 2 individual signatures per borough – and to raise a £10,000 deposit. That’s what caused me to run, and I decided my main target was Laurence when I realised: ‘Hey, Sadiq’s going to win this election,’ so I wanted to have my own candidate to run against. I saw Lozza – similar background [they both went to school at Harrow], no experience in politics, he’s got 5 million quid and I don’t – and I decided to see who wins.
NK: Do you feel as if people your age and occupation are not taken seriously, especially by politicians?
MF: I think people my age and occupation are taken seriously, especially when they are pulling in numbers that they are. I mean, Niko Omilana has 5% of the vote, and he’s polling high in the 18-25 year old demographic, so I think we are being taken seriously.
NK: What was your reaction when you saw all these articles about you appearing on sites such as Daily Mail and Metro and, of course, in The Steeple Times?
MF: My reaction was of course: ‘Ooh! How interesting!’ Look, I know my media is online, so any information or any article that’s written about me in the mainstream press is always… well, I wouldn’t say it’s a welcome bonus, but it’s there and as long as more people can read the story of Max Fosh and his mayoral run then that can only be a good thing.
NK: In regards to Laurence Fox, what are you doing in order to get more votes than him besides making videos featuring you pranking him? It’s essential to note that you were tied with him in the ITV opinion poll revealed some time ago.
MF: I wouldn’t say I’m pranking him at all. I’m just positioning myself as a candidate. I’m just trying to utilise my audience to go out and vote and I have to preface this – I said this in multiple videos: I don’t want people to vote for me just because it can be fun. I want people to look at all the candidates running and make a formal decision and vote for whom they think is the best Mayor of London.
Would I be the best Mayor of London? Absolutely not. Would Laurence? Absolutely not. I’m just using my audience and the platform to encourage young people to vote.
NK: Will Laurence Fox in your opinion ever reach his political ambitions of first becoming London Mayor and then MP? What will happen to his Reclaim Party?
MF: I do not have the personal political expertise at all to be able to tell you whether he’ll reach his political ambitions. I mean, I’m not sure what his political ambitions really are; in this election, do I think he’s going to become Mayor of London? Absolutely not. In regards to the Reclaim Party, I really could not say, because it’s not my place to say. That’s more of a question for the party.
NK: How are you planning to react if you fail to get more votes than Fox?
MF: I would shake his hand, congratulate him and retire from politics.
NK: If you were legitimately running for position of London Mayor, what policies would you write in your manifesto?
MF: I am legitimately running for the position; I don’t think you could get any more legitimate than putting your name on the ballot paper. If you would like to see my manifesto, it’s all on laurencefox.org.
NK: Would you ever consider creating your own political party?
MF: No, not at all. I very much intend to retire after 6th May from politics altogether – whatever the result (obviously even if I win, which is an infinitesimal chance).
NK: How do you feel about major media outlets such as BBC, ITV and LBC ignoring your campaigns and instead interviewing and organising debates only between candidates from big parties?
MF: I totally agree with them. There are 20 candidates who are running, and four of them are considered the big players who are going to get most of the votes, so I think the big media outlets should be focused on them. It doesn’t mean they should be ignoring other campaigns, and they haven’t. I’ve been featured in every single nominee list, so I don’t really mind.
NK: Finally, do you think that your and Niko Omilana’s attempts to go into politics will start a trend where Internet personalities will try to run for public office?
MF: I don’t think that it will start a trend, because the trend has already happened; look at the US with Donald Trump, look at Ukraine with their President, so I don’t think this is going to kickstart a new trend; it’s already happening.
Flushing Out Fosh – Max Fosh appeared at Laurence Fox’s campaign launch with a car wrapped with the message: “Don’t Believe Everything You See On A Bus.”
Flushing Out Fosh – Max Fosh’s campaign in the 2021 London mayoral election centres around his use of YouTube as a medium to communicate with his clearly vast audience of 18 to 25 year olds.
Ghislaine Maxwell’s latest supporter revealed to be Jay Beecher, a far right-wing political writer and ex-Ukipper with associations to the quite rightly banned-from-Facebook ‘Politicalite’
Now, today, we can reveal the latest to join Basham’s not-so-exclusive club is a man named Jay Beecher. He claims to be a ‘journalist’ and also the founder of an organisation with a currently defunct site named Vote Watch.
Vote Watch, curiously, according to a Patreon page supported by just 43 people, was something that aimed to “provide groundbreaking reports exposing media bias, left-wing extremism, and corruption.” It set out to “expose crooked politicians [with]… undercover journalism, exclusive news, and in-depth investigations,” but now Beecher has plainly turned to the very, very dark side and is being lauded by RealGhislaine.com for supporting convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged head honcho.
In two tweets that were subsequently shared by the ‘official’ @RealGhislaine campaign yesterday, Beecher announced:
“ONE TO WATCH: The new site has now been covered by the Mail, NY Post etc, & sets out to counter MSM bias & ‘fake news.’ GHISLAINE Maxwell’s Siblings, @RealGhislaine Launch New Website To Counter MSM Fiction.”
“Also worth remembering that they are Ghislaine’s brothers and sisters, so don’t deserve to be attacked simply for doing what anyone else would do – defend a family member they love.”
Elsewhere, Jay Beecher is heavily involved with producing content for the controversial far right website Politicalite – which claims to be a “proudly right-wing website that supports the silent majority of forgotten working-class men and women from across the UK. We back Britain’s vote for Brexit and America’s vote for President Trump.” Politicalite was deservedly banned from Facebook “for violating the company’s hate-speech policies” in May 2020.
Beecher was also convicted of driving offences whilst standing as a Conservative candidate in a by-election for Peterborough City Council in June 2017. He was fined for driving whilst disqualified, driving with no insurance and having no MOT on his car, but in Maxwell-esque ‘innocence’ claimed: “This is a personal matter. It was a misunderstanding. It won’t affect me going forward.”
Beecher’s Muck – Ghislaine Maxwell’s race to try to attempt to stop her trial starting in July looks as likely at succeeding as a donkey successfully jumping Becher’s Brook at Aintree. Here, the now incarcerated mucky madam is pictured with her then ‘bestie’ Prince Andrew, at Royal Ascot in 2000 in the days when she was considered a “socialite” and welcomed to ritzy events across the globe along with her paedophile boss Jeffrey Epstein.According to his Twitter handle, the mucky madam Ghislaine Maxwell’s latest supporter, Jay Beecher, has been called “a journalist with balls” by Rod Liddle and described by the actor Michael Sheen as “an ignorant tw*t.”According to the widely respected ‘Byline Times’s’ Sian Norris and Nafeez Ahmed on March 1st this year: “Beecher has also been accused of racism himself, having sent a tweet to Black Lives Matter activist Natalie Rowe saying that she looked like a ‘cross between seabiscuit and a transexual fish.’” Going further, Norris and Ahmed added: “[He] has been accused of running a sock puppet account known as ‘Rob Daniel’ or ‘The Secret Journalist.’ The account frequently shared posts by Beecher and, when Beecher was challenged by ‘Byline Times’s’ executive editor, ‘Daniel’ sent a ‘troll reply.’ Beecher denies this, inviting ‘Daniel’ for a pint. Bots frequently share Beecher’s tweets.”
Jay Beecher was described as being suspended from UKIP for “being a naughty boy” according to a clip posted on YouTube in October 2016 by a postman and Labour councillor called Darren Fowler.
In June 2019, Jay Beecher was interviewed by controversial journalist Rod Liddle in the context of alleged voter fraud in Peterborough.
Internationally infamous Handforth parish council member Brendan Murphy faces jail for calling his neighbours “perverted” and a “tart” and a “peeping Tom”
By February this year, the council’s meeting were being “dogged by rows again,” but now further scandal has emerged after one of its members, Councillor Brendan Murphy, was convicted of harassing his neighbours over a 13-year period.
Whilst the bickering councillors of Handforth provided light amusement for millions at the height of December’s lockdown, 79-year-old Councillor Murphy it seems is headed to jail for labelling his elderly neighbours “perverts” and “The Tart” and “The Peeping Tom.”
“Maverick” Murphy, currently a member of the Real Independent Group and the “first Macc Tory to ever be sacked” in December 2001 according to the Macclesfield Express, was found guilty of two charges of harassment at Stockport Magistrates’ Court last Friday.
Featured in the Daily Mail earlier this week, Murphy stood accused of “hounding” his neighbours Christopher and Margaret Boyd “with barbed comments after they fell out over a dispute about local gossip… and alleging he was underpaying his council tax.”
With police called on over 19 separate occasions, Murphy – whom unsuccessfully (unsurprisingly) stood for Parliament for the Conservative Party in the Vale of Clywd in 2001 – Mr Murphy told the court:
“I call Mr Boyd a ‘Peeping Tom’ and his wife a ‘Tart’ for a good reason and I think my legal response is justifiable.”
“I saw a CCTV camera on the wall filming me and I jokingly said, ‘I see you are a peeping Tom.’ I also said: ‘Mind you don’t fall off that roof, I cannot give you the kiss of life,’ but that was a joke too.”
“On one of the occasions, I was out with my dog. Mr and Mrs Boyd were walking down the road hand in hand swinging their arms looked very happy.”
“I said: ‘I’m glad to see you are so happy’ but instead of crossing the road she lurched into me and the dog whimpered in pain and that is when I called her a tart.”
“I think they are making a big deal out of this. I do not do it every day. I am an elected active councillor and I do a lot of community work.”
“There have been instances where I did say in response to them and they would stare, laugh, and sneer.”
“Mr Boyd is a very active DIY man with improving the garden, etc. His garage is his workshop, and he makes a loud noise that I do not want to hear.”
“People use the word ‘tart’ in lots of different ways and I will continue calling them a Peeping Tom and a tart as long as the cameras are still there.”
“I say these words 100 times when I see the cameras and it just gets it off my chest. There are nastier things I could say.”
Responding after being convicted, Murphy of 6 Hilton Road, Disley, Cheshire, SK12 2JU “confirmed that he intends to remain as a Cheshire East councillor” and boldly declared: “An immediate appeal will be launched, I am confident the conviction will be overturned.”
Previously, in April 2012, Brendan Murphy was found guilty of harassing Mr and Mrs Boyd. At that time he was fined £300 for harassment, ordered to pay £1,500 in court costs and given a restraining order prohibiting “him from speaking to or making gestures at the Boyds,” according to Macclesfield Live.
Murphy, the kind of person even “snitchin’” Priti Patel wouldn’t welcome to her street, will be sentenced on 26th April. He remains on unconditional bail until then, but will go down in history with the likes of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Zipporah Lisle-Mainwaring as an ultimate neighbour from hell.
A Perverted Parish 2021 – The row between Brendan Murphy and his neighbours Christopher and Margaret Boyd escalated after they installed a fence in 2007 as part of an attempt to stop him harassing them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jB3P_0GAi0I
A Perverted Parish 2021 – Councillor Brendan Murphy, a man prone to calling his neighbours “perverts” on hundreds of occasions, was one of the councillors involved in December 2020’s infamous Handforth parish council Zoom debacle.
It’s time for the ‘MeGain & Randy Show’… As dopey dipstick Diane Abbott MP sticks her gumboots into the fallout of the Duchess of Sussex’s car crash interview, the scandalous Prince Andrew should again be called to answer questions
This morning, however, seizing on an opportunity to shove her gibberish filled gumboots back into the fray in the wake of the Duchess of Sussex’s Prince Andrew-esque interview, Abbott decided to chuck a hand grenade into the mix and told the Guardian:
“One of the most upsetting things is when people, meaning well, will say: ‘Oh, but Diane, you’re so strong.’ Nobody is that strong. Nobody can take the sort of abuse that Meghan had to take and that I’ve had to take. And by dismissing it by saying: ‘Oh, black women are strong,’ that’s denying our humanity.”
“For a lot of black and mixed-race women, when they can look at what we’re now hearing, what’s happening to Meghan, they can realise: if this can happen to her and if it could be so crushing and humiliating to her, I can face up to how that sort of thing makes me feel.”
“We shouldn’t internalise the idea that we’re not supposed to feel vulnerable, we’re not supposed to get upset, and we should have people around us that we can confide in, or we can be open with. Otherwise, it’s incredibly corrosive.”
“[Palace officials] clearly very soon did not welcome a mixed race woman marrying into the Royal Family… There has got to be very serious reflection. They need to look at some of the people that work at Buckingham Palace.”
“I don’t think they necessarily need to get into a tit for tat publicly but they do need to think hard about some of the attitudes of the courtiers, the aides the advisers who are in Buckingham Palace because it is clear that on that level they didn’t adjust well to having a mixed-race woman marry into the Royal Family.”
“[The media want to] tear down a woman for no apparent reason.”
Whilst the brain of Britain that isn’t Miss Abbott’s influence in this matter will likely not go far, elsewhere in the Guardian this morning, the paper’s Ben Quinn reported that Gloria Allred, a lawyer for some of Jeffrey Epstein’s victims, “has suggested that Buckingham Palace’s plans to examine bullying allegations against the Duchess of Sussex are a “calculated decision” to take the focus off Prince Andrew.”
Speaking of alleged bullying by the Duchess of Sussex specifically, Allred told the paper:
“Allegations about him are far worse than the allegations about Meghan Markle. Prince Andrew was a working royal when he became a friend of Jeffrey Epstein, who was a sexual predator… Prince Andrew is accused of much more than bullying or harassment in the workplace.”
“Why does Buckingham Palace not conduct an investigation and make a public statement condemning Prince Andrew for failing to provide what is requested to those who are seeking the whole truth and justice for the victims of crimes against children?”
“Why has Prince Andrew not been stripped of the royal titles that he enjoys, as has been the case for Meghan and Harry? He has certainly not brought dignity and respect to his work as a royal.”
“The investigation into Meghan Markle is a distraction, and it appears hypocritical under the circumstances. I have to wonder if it reflects a calculated decision to take the focus off of Prince Andrew.
“It is long overdue for the palace to change its priorities and announce that it is conducting its own investigation of Prince Andrew. In addition, it should immediately issue a statement condemning Prince Andrew for failing to provide full in-person cooperation in the ongoing criminal investigation by the United States justice department.”
Now, today, we join those calling for ‘Randy Andy’ to finally do the decent thing: Be a good boy and go to America and answer the FBI’s perfectly reasonable questions about your involvement with the mucky madam Ghislaine Maxwell and your conveniently croaked ‘bestie’ Jeffrey Epstein.
The MeGain & Randy Show – For months now, people have been asking of Diane Abbott: “Have you seen this woman?” Well, this morning she predictably resurfaced and stuck her gumboots into the fallout of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s disastrous interview with Oprah Winfrey.The MeGain & Randy Show – The “publicity shy” Duchess of Sussex (or Meghan Markle as she then was) used to be happy to hang around with publicity loving Lizzie Cundy. Whether she actually “ghosted” her former ‘friend’ and Piers Morgan is also debatable.
The confusion of the woman formerly known as Meghan Markle
Given ‘MeGain’ banged on about her friendship with Prince Andrew’s daughters prior to meeting Prince Harry in the Oprah interview, is there really any truth to her having never Googled the royal family or researched them with a view to seeking them out?
Did the then Meghan Markle really “ghost” her supposed chums Lizzie Cundy and Piers Morgan or are they both just getting rather carried away with their own attention seeking agendas?
Prior to marrying into the royal family and since, has ‘MeGain’ “organised pap shots” of herself?
Why did the Duchess of Sussex lie and claim she hadn’t met her half-sister in over 20 years when photographic evidence shows quite to the contrary 13 years ago?
Why didn’t the Duchess of Sussex simply show herself to be a bigger person and make amends with her own father instead of going to war on him? If she had simply behaved with dignity and made one less enemy, wouldn’t she have been perceived as a far better person?
Why is the Duchess of Sussex claiming that the royal family “silenced” her at the same time as repeatedly giving interviews to the international media and taking the dime of the hardly quiet Netflix and Spotify?
Why are the Duke and Duchess of Sussex now suggesting they were “cut of financially” by the royal family when they previously stated they “wanted to be financially independent”?
Why do ‘MeGain’ and her drip husband think they should be entitled to have the public pay for their security when they turned their backs on public duty for first “privacy” and then personal profit?
If ‘MeGain’ wanted such a “simple life,” why did she seek out a career first in acting and then get herself into a relationship with a member of the royal family?
Why, subsequently, did this woman with a desire for “ordinariness” then return to Los Angeles and sign deals with the likes of Disney, Netflix and Spotify?
Has ‘MeGain’ ever used body doubles of herself and her son, Archie?
Did the Duchess of Sussex make up that she had already been married to Prince Harry for three days when she walked down the aisle on 19th May 2018?
How many times has ‘MeGain’ actually been married? Twice or three times?
The MeGain & Randy Show – The Duchess of Sussex’s claim that she hadn’t seen her half-sister Samantha Markle in 20 years has been proven to be a lie by fact of this photograph.The MeGain & Randy Show – The Duchess of Sussex also stands accused of organising paparazzi to take photographs of her, yet hypocritically still moans and bangs on about press intrusion.The MeGain & Randy Show – Ever since she came to public prominence, social media has been awash with rumours about the Duchess of Sussex and her use of body doubles and some go further even and remarkably suggest she faked her pregnancy even.The MeGain & Randy Show – Elsehwere on social media, this image of graffiti that read “Prince Andew is still a nonce” trended. Contrary to what many suggest, however, it is quite possible to actually dislike the behaviour of both the Duchess of Sussex and Duke of York as the two are not mutually connected.The MeGain & Randy Show – Those “in the know” continue to question when Meghan Markle first met Prince Andrew and what went on between them prior to her marriage to the alleged sexual abuser’s nephew.
