Time for a change
From: (Blacksmith)
Sent: 05 February 2011 11:47
To: (XXXXXXXXXXXXXX)
Subject: The Blacksmith Bureau
Hello.
You will note that I have deleted the Bureau. There are a number of reasons for doing so, the most important of which is that it is no longer fulfilling its purpose of assisting GA with the provision of reliable counter-information to the inadequacies of the UK media.
One issue, however, concerns you and me.
I have always accepted criticism from the supporters of the McCanns, most of whom are, while unpleasant as individuals, as sincere in their views as we are in ours, especially since the blog has never been aimed at forum members but at the neutral general reader.
For some time, however, on the Joana Morais and MCF sites you have allowed, unmoderated, persistent personal attacks on me, mostly, it seems, from Portuguese posters, claiming, among other things, that I had no factual basis for my comments and that they were some sort of vendetta against GA or the Portuguese.
And these comments have been amplified elsewhere.You know what a good friend of Portugal I have been.
You knew perfectly well that the majority of the Portuguese information I posted from beginning to end was provided by Goncalo Amaral and yourself, with subsidiary input and documentation from others, including members of the PJ, officer De Freitas and lawyers associated with the case, for example.
Furthermore I remind you that before publication of recent posts I repeatedly asked for the evidence from GA of political interference by the UK, none of which he was able to provide.
At no time has anyone on those two sites made any attempt to point out to the more hysterical of your posters, even tactfully and anonymously, the true origin of much of my information.
I could not do so myself without breaching confidentiality and good faith.
As a result the clear impression has been given, and allowed to stand by you and your colleagues, that I am one of those fraudsters like Bennett and Levy – both of whom have been protected from any criticism at all on your sites - who aggrandise themselves with pretend sources, lies and rumours.
I am sorry but I am not willing to accept that insult to my reputation unchallenged.
Unless I receive a reply from you today outlining your plans to bring these facts to your readers on both sites I intend to publish this email.
B
Sent: 05 February 2011 11:47
To: (XXXXXXXXXXXXXX)
Subject: The Blacksmith Bureau
Hello.
You will note that I have deleted the Bureau. There are a number of reasons for doing so, the most important of which is that it is no longer fulfilling its purpose of assisting GA with the provision of reliable counter-information to the inadequacies of the UK media.
One issue, however, concerns you and me.
I have always accepted criticism from the supporters of the McCanns, most of whom are, while unpleasant as individuals, as sincere in their views as we are in ours, especially since the blog has never been aimed at forum members but at the neutral general reader.
For some time, however, on the Joana Morais and MCF sites you have allowed, unmoderated, persistent personal attacks on me, mostly, it seems, from Portuguese posters, claiming, among other things, that I had no factual basis for my comments and that they were some sort of vendetta against GA or the Portuguese.
And these comments have been amplified elsewhere.You know what a good friend of Portugal I have been.
You knew perfectly well that the majority of the Portuguese information I posted from beginning to end was provided by Goncalo Amaral and yourself, with subsidiary input and documentation from others, including members of the PJ, officer De Freitas and lawyers associated with the case, for example.
Furthermore I remind you that before publication of recent posts I repeatedly asked for the evidence from GA of political interference by the UK, none of which he was able to provide.
At no time has anyone on those two sites made any attempt to point out to the more hysterical of your posters, even tactfully and anonymously, the true origin of much of my information.
I could not do so myself without breaching confidentiality and good faith.
As a result the clear impression has been given, and allowed to stand by you and your colleagues, that I am one of those fraudsters like Bennett and Levy – both of whom have been protected from any criticism at all on your sites - who aggrandise themselves with pretend sources, lies and rumours.
I am sorry but I am not willing to accept that insult to my reputation unchallenged.
Unless I receive a reply from you today outlining your plans to bring these facts to your readers on both sites I intend to publish this email.
B
