So, after gleefully reporting on all the (allegedly) gory details of the latest crime drama gripping the nation, The Curious Incident of the Dog Walker in the Wyre, the media is now scolding the media (mainstream and social like) for so-reporting, and stating that all public platforms that comment on the news need tighter "regulation" (read: centralised state-controlled censorship).

The supposedly warring Daily Mail and Guardian are going lockstep on this, condemning those who dared to comment on literally the most high-profile story in months that saturated every single news vehicle, as variously "repulsive", "vultures", and "ghouls".

This is, plainly, totally ridiculous. In a free society that prizes democratic values and freedom of speech, we are free to comment on news stories - by definition in the public domain - however we choose. Others are free to express that they find our comments to be in bad taste. You may have found my opening sentiments, referring to the Bulley case as "The Curious Incident of the Dog Walker in the Wyre" to be insensitive and trivialising of a serious matter. And that's absolutely fine. You can feel that, and express that, and I can disagree with you and continue to comment on the situation as I see fit. That's how free speech works. We have the right to be insensitive and offensive, we have the right to tell others we think they are being these things, and we can argue about it, airing our different perspectives, without ever resorting to censoring or "regulating" into silence those who have a different view.

And it's imperative that we do do this, as that is the only way we maintain genuine social and civic liberty, rather than continue further down the sinister social spiral we began descending in the Covid pantomime, moving us ever-closer to totalitarianism and technocracy - where only state-ratified "experts" are permitted to hold and express views.

The Bulley case has been used as a cynical springboard to try to crush freedom of speech and dissent, and to call for harsh "regulation" (censorship) of all public platforms for those who express "insensitive" or "inappropriate" views - e.g., views not qualified as acceptable by Ministry-of-Truth, state-employed "experts". And this tells us exactly what this staged psy-op crime drama has really been all about.

To be clear: my perspective remains, as it was from the start, that this case was scripted by screenwriters and staged by professional actors (and, as we now know, Paul Ansell, the partner of 'Nikki', had a background in this area), in order to propagandise the public to push a political agenda. Engaging in this kind of "street theatre" - presenting staged events to the public as if they are real - is one of the key functions of the establishment media, and this is not a conspiracy "theory", it is well-documented fact. Please watch this short (9-minute) presentation from veteran political activist and author, Dr. Naomi Wolf, who confirms this. Wolf explains that, the more high-profile and sensationalist a media event, the more likely it is not be real and to be staged by actors in order to push a wider agenda.

Many commentators have pointed out that thousands of people go missing every year and never warrant the merest mention in the national media, never mind blanket headline coverage in every press vehicle there is. The reason for this is simple: when people authentically go missing, they can't be used so reliably and effectively to push an agenda. So, the whole Bulley case was expertly manufactured and staged by top political and psychological strategists to elicit the desired responses from the public, in order that the establishment could react to those responses with calls for censorship. It's classic problem-reaction-solution.

If the establishment had any desire whatsoever to stop members of the public "speculating" on the Nicola Bulley case, as they now claim is so important to them, they would simply have kept the story out of the headlines in the first place, just like like they do for every other missing persons' case (except Madeleine McCann, but more on her later).

First of all, it's very easy for the government to slap the press with a D-notice and stop them reporting on whatever they like, but more to the point, the idea that the UK (or any Western nation) has anything remotely resembling a "free press" and that it performs the role of holding corrupt power to account, is utterly laughable - said corrupt power owns all the legacy media, and the real function of the mainstream press is to serve as a PR outlet for the establishment. Nothing gets in any mainstream newspaper, or on any national broadcaster, unless it is signed off at the highest levels (that's what an editor is for) and is, ultimately, in the interests of the extremely wealthy and powerful people who own all the legacy press.

So, said press gave such breathless, blanket coverage to the Nicola Bulley case (when they could have just ignored it, as they do 99.9% of missing persons' cases) because they had been explicitly tasked with baiting the public into "speculating" (ye Gods, not speculation! What next, critical thinking and freedom to form opinions not approved by the state?!), so the establishment could then use this as a basis to bring in more censorship.

With an almost impressively obscene degree of audacity, The Guardian newspaper has announced today that it is writing to independent press regulator, IPSO, to complain about the media coverage of the Bulley case.

This is the same IPSO that The Guardian itself chooses not to belong to (one of just three newspapers that makes this choice), and the same Guardian that has completely ignored my letter of complaint regarding their outrageous and lethally dangerous flouting of ethical journalism obligations, by lying outright about the Covid vaccine in a way that could quite easily have led to many thousands of serious injuries and deaths.

In short, The Guardian stated in a September 2022 article that "we know" it is safe to administer the Covid booster and flu vaccine at once. Of course, we know no such thing, as I detailed to them in my letter. The Guardian never replied to my missive (despite my publicly reminding them of this fact many times), yet now they are feigning pearl-clutching outrage about speculative headlines about crime scenes, whilst blithely dismissing and ignoring the maiming and death of thousands that their unethical, corrupt, lying "journalism" has played a key role in facilitating. (By the way, since The Guardian's article, even the mainstream press has confirmed that giving the Covid and flu vaccines together is especially dangerous, but this was only months after the fact and after millions had received them. )

So we can clearly see (as if we were in any doubt) that the collective mainstream press are ruthless and malicious liars who could not care less about anything remotely resembling an ethical code, and are only pretending to care about ethics regarding Nicola Bulley because they are engaged in a perennial military-grade psychological operation to manipulate, control, and ultimately silence the public,

This leads us on to the only other famous missing person in the world, Madeleine McCann, whose name is at least as well known as any Hollywood celebrity, and this is not an accident. As I have observed previously, Madeleine has been made into a media star for a reason and we are on the precipice of finding out what that reason is.

A young woman named Julia, who is currently resident in Poland, has come forward with the sensationalist claim that she is Madeleine McCann. Various elements of her story seem to fit - that she is the right sort of age ("officially", Julia is 21, whilst Madeleine would only be 19, but as Julia says, her abductor could easily have changed her age to obscure her identity). She has similar features, including the famous eye defect (how convenient that the world's most famous missing child has such a rare and unusual facial feature that would make her immediately identifiable - savvy script-writing there from the world stage screenwriters behind all this). And she bears more than a passing resemblance to Kate and Gerry McCann.

The issue is, why do we even know all this? Why has this been splashed all over the papers, including local papers, when the matter could quickly and easily be put to bed with a simple DNA test?

Which, allegedly, Julia, Gerry and Kate are currently undergoing, and have been for ages now, making it officially the longest DNA test in the history of the world... Surely, if any of this was authentic, given how high-profile and high-stakes the case is, a DNA test would be prioritised for ultra-quick processing?

But as I said about those savvy screenwriters, they know what they're doing. They know how to build a suspense-filled, edge-of-your seat, grippingly good crime drama thriller, and for that, you don't give the captive audience answers right-away. You give them cliff-hangers and plot-twists - you make them wait.

The whole Madeleine McCann event, in my opinion, was staged fiction: media circus theatre - something that was seemingly confirmed by Gerry McCann himself when, captured on film at the airport waiting to go away, the cameraman says "cheer up Gerry, this is supposed to be a holiday!", to which Gerry snaps, "I'm not here to enjoy myself". Yet the specific purpose of a holiday is to enjoy yourself, so with this remark, Gerry would seem to qualify he is, indeed, not on holiday, rather, he is working - starring in what was set to become one of the most renowned and gripping child abduction dramas of all time (I mean, 'Gone Girl' has nothing on this).

The scene in Praia De Luz was set perfectly for an "abduction" to take place. Despite the wide availability of babysitters at the resort the McCanns and friends were staying at, they chose not to hire one and to instead go out to dinner leaving the children alone, with a parent checking up on them every so often. This is totally weird behaviour - not just extremely unsafe for the children, but inconvenient for the parents (after all, who wants to wobble back to an apartment after every vessel of vino, when you could enjoy your drunken revelry in peace by leaving the kids with a babysitter?). But it was necessary to make the abduction narrative plausible.

So, thereafter, the deftly designed shocking, scandalous, plot-twist-full real-time crime drama fully played out on the world stage, with the specific purpose of enticing the public to point fingers at people who will ultimately turn out to be completely innocent. All the "clues" pointing to Madeleine having died, the sniffer dogs and such, were all staged and faked, then reported in the media as if they were real - because the establishment wanted a certain response from the public, just as it does over Nicola Bulley, to justify their "solution" (draconian state censorship of free expression - and heavy punitive action taken against anyone who disobeys).

The public was baited into blaming the parents for Madeleine's "death", so that when Madeleine is found, very much alive, this can be used as ultimate proof that free speech is far too dangerous, as all these awful, repulsive "vultures" and "ghouls" (the favoured pejoratives for those who dare to express an opinion on high-profile media theatre that differs from the state-approved view) can be slammed as evil, delusional conspiracy theorists who need to be silenced to stop them victimising any other innocent, grieving families in future.

I don't know whether Julia will be "revealed" as being Madeleine or not, but either way, the public is now primed for Madeleine's imminent reappearance, and there is currently underway a mass re-evaluation of the previously dominant public belief that "the parents did it, it's so obvious".

As I've said before, when the media makes something "so obvious", you can be sure it's too obvious, and that we're being manipulated into this belief for a reason, so it can subsequently be used against us.

In not being at the mercy of endless manipulative mercenaries calling themselves journalists, it's imperative to bear in mind that the legacy establishment media has one purpose and one purpose only, and that is - not to report "the news" (thousands of newsworthy things happen every day that are completely ignored) - but to function as the PR wing of the psychopathic establishment and to promote their agendas. That is literally all the mainstream media ever does, and it uses all sorts of extremely sophisticated techniques to manipulate, hypnotise, brainwash and bewitch the public into complying with what it wants.

We have the inalienable right to comment on any public event in whatever manner we choose. Others have the right to find our views wrong, offensive, even despicable, but they don't have the right to try to use the weight of state apparatus to silence us, even if it turns out we were wrong (as is likely to be the case with all those who thought "the parents did it" in the McCann case). It's neither illegal nor immoral to sometimes get things wrong. It is, in fact, all too ineffably human - and that, no doubt, is precisely why the establishment wants to so ruthlessly crush it.

Thanks for reading! This site is 100% reader-funded, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, meaning your support is what powers this site to keep going. If you would like to make a contribution of any size, please do so through...

1. BuyMeACoffee for one-off or monthly donations
2. Patreon, for monthly pledges
3. Direct bank transfer, for either monthly or one-off donations, to Nat West, a/c 30835984, s/c 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA

Your support is what enables this site to continue to exist, and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.