The British press in general published a newspiece today, the 9th of January 2009, which was forcefully bombastic: a young Tory, a member of the British Conservative and Unionist Party, was expelled from said party over allegedly “offensive behaviour [that] is not only shocking but intolerable and completely unacceptable”. Adding to these words from the President of the Party, Caroline Spelman, Clarence Mitchell states that the young Conservative activist’s behaviour is beyond any limit of what is credible and acceptable, and, as expected, demands private and public apologies to the McCann couple due to the fact that he considers it to be “a complete disgrace that Madeleine's name and image should be made fun of in this way”.
Well! What did young Matthew Lewis do, after all?
He published a note in his Facebook where he boasts about “dressing up” as Madeleine McCann, using a blonde wig, “pink pyjamas, a teddy bear and a vial of fake blood”. This is the unacceptable behaviour that led to the expulsion of this young man!!! At some point on the page, the comment from a friend can be read who says he is going to dress up as Natasha Campush (the German girl who lived in captivity in an underground bunker for 7 years, after being abducted), to which, I stress, young Matthew replied: “At least yours has a happy ending”. Please allow me to underline this reply: “At least yours has a happy ending”. But let me also point your attention towards the fact that at the same party there were, allegedly, “disguises” of Baby P (the baby that died a victim of severe abuse) which everyone agrees had a painful ending, and a very, very unhappy one, I want to add!
Well! Within a benign interpretation of the events, one might say: jokes in bad taste, by youngsters during a night when excesses “fuel the party”. But young Matthew ends up confessing, in a comment on the same Facebook that at a certain point in time, he felt that certain elements of his “disguise” were abusive, or, at least, he sensed that he had gone too far with elements of the costume.
The other interpretation, not quite as benign, we already know it, through the statements made by the President of the Party, with the full assent from Clarence Mitchell. Inadvertently, the young man almost attained a historical feat within English politics: an agreement between Labour and Conservatives. Forgive me for not resisting this joke, as well. Whether in good or in bad taste, you’ll be the judge.
But there is one thing that I agree upon. The young former Unionist member went too far with some details. Before anything else, I must refer that stating that Maddie’s pyjamas were pink is a plagiarism of Mrs Jane Tanner’s statement. Let’s see if we won’t soon see a lawsuit from her against him. This is because Mrs Jane Tanner is absolutely certain, just like me and every one of us, that Madeleine had pink pyjamas. Why do I say this? Because in her statement, that prompted the second photofit, she had already seen the photograph of one of Maddie’s pyjamas published in the media. Mrs Jane Tanner did, and everyone else. Alas, young Matthew must be confused, because the pyjamas (the ones on the photo) actually have pink teddy bears and white lace cuffs. Which leads us to another question: the pink teddy bear. It was not really a teddy bear, but rather a pink cuddle cat, which I never managed to perceive whether it belonged to Maddie or to her mother, Kate. We have to be more precise, dear Matthew. But, finally, and worse, a vial of false blood. Negative, dear Matthew. It was no vial, but only a few drops, and as far as many investigators are concerned, they were not fake, with very strong probabilities of constituting a sample of real blood, from the real Maddie.
Unfortunately, my dear Matthew, where you seem to have surpassed the boundaries was in the comment that you made about the alleged happy ending of Natasha Campush. Do you know why? Because that means that Maddie had an… unhappy ending.
You know, Matthew? If you had dressed up as Maddie and, with a smile, stated – “Mom? Dad? I’m back” – maybe you would not have been that vilified. Look at what Mrs Jovey Mae Hayes did. Do learn from her! That lady opportunely offered the supporters of the abduction theory, at Christmas time, a simulation (failing to present any methodological criteria for said age progression, and taking refuge, once more, in a false affiliation with the FBI) of a portrait of Maddie in 2009. The Portrait shows a smiling Maddie, transmitting the hope that she is alive, and in good health, despite subject to Stockholm syndrome (Prof. Nils Berjerot, please forgive the incommensurable ignorance). This lady, the director of a firm that works in the area of photograph manipulation, found an interesting and opportune manner to use the little girl’s image, in an execrable way, in order to pursue what I have been denouncing as Relational Marketing.
Do you see, Matthew? Ah, youth…
Maybe you should stick to selling a few t-shirts and wristbands with Madeleine’s name on. It seems that does not constitute any sort of abuse. Even her parents do it. Of course they do it with the intent to gather more financial means to proceed their relentless search for their… lost daughter.
Watch out for forgeries…
You must excuse me but I can’t say anything further today. One of these days, in an attempt to demonstrate why things that frequently happen to couples that lose their children don’t happen with the McCanns, I’ll write about sacrificial dilemmas and I’ll recommend the movie: “Sophie’s choice”.
source: Câmara de Comuns, 09.01.2009
*Dr Paulo Sargento is a forensic phychologist, a University professor, and author