General discussion about the latest news (not search related)

[Brietta]

You need to make your mind up, do you believe the tittle tattle spouted by the likes of Brunt or yourself when stating you don't expect any thing from the Scotland Yard.

Are you confused?  The link in my post is not to Martin Brunt ... http://www.policeprofessional.com/news.aspx?id=31483 ... and if it had been ... so what?

The news story might very well be in the public domain as a result of replies to FOI replies being published in fora on the internet.

Shock! Horror! that Martin Brunt should be doing his job. 

[Alice Purjorick]

Actually in my opinion you have really omitted the meat and bones from your link;  it is well worth reading and mulling over in context.
Who in their right mind seeks to interfere in any way with an obviously active ongoing criminal investigation, particularly when we know there are matters of grave sensitivity to be addressed. Not to mention this is a case concerning a missing child who allegedly comes first in the thoughts of all.  Heh!

I don't quite see how that sentiment can be claimed by those who get themselves tied in knots at mention of Madeleine's fund and have apoplexy at the thought of a farthing being spent in the continuing search for her.




Dear Ms Kendall

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2018010000845

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 19/01/2018.  I note you seek
access to the following information:

* Will you please inform me if Operation Grange will be requesting more
money for the ongoing search for Madeleine McCann when present funding
runs out in March
* Also the total sum that has been spent so far of taxpayers money in
this search

DECISION IN RESPECT OF PART ONE OF YOUR REQUEST

The Metropolitan Police Service can neither confirm nor deny whether it
holds the information that you requested as the duty in Section 1(1)(a) of
the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) does not apply by virtue of
the following exemptions:

* Section 30 - Investigations

Please see the legal annex for further information on the exemptions
applied in respect of your request.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann is ongoing
and as with any ongoing investigation we need to ensure that any
information provided under the Freedom of Information Act does not impact
on the police operation.  In this instance the MPS have decided to apply a
neither confirm nor deny (NCND) response to the first part of your
request.  This is because the MPS are not prepared to say whether we have
or have not approached the Home Office in respect of the continuation of
Operation Grange. 

As you would expect the MPS will not provide a running commentary on live
investigations.  Any response which confirms whether or not additional
funding is being sought would also be likely to confirm whether or not
there are any outstanding lines of enquiry that the Operation Grange team
feel should be explored. 

The MPS provide updates to the public by way of press releases and blogs
which are carefully timed and prepared in order to ensure we keep the
public informed without compromising the ongoing investigation.  An
example of such an update can be found at the following link:
http://news.met.police.uk/blog_posts/ac-....

The MPS appreciate that the funding for Operation Grange is of high public
interest however as explained confirmation of whether or not the requested
information is held would give an insight in to the investigation itself.
 Clearly information concerning an ongoing investigation must be protected
in order to ensure that any response issued does not disrupt the
investigation or assist offenders. 

To clarify, any response which outlines whether or not there are further
enquiries to be made concerning a criminal investigation could not be
placed in the public domain as this would be highly valuable information
to the individuals who are responsible for offences.  Such individuals may
subsequently decide to take additional measures to avoid detection or
apprehension.  Conversely offenders would also benefit should the MPS
response indicate that our enquiries have concluded or are near
completion. 

At this point, I would like to explain that all FOI disclosures are
published on our website as the information, once disclosed, is considered
to be available to all members of the public. 

We must protect the integrity of our investigation, however we are also
keenly aware of the public's interest in the cost of this investigation
and how it is funded.  A careful balance is needed to show that we are
both accountable for our decisions and transparent regarding the cost to
the public purse.

The exemption provide under section 30 of the Act is qualified and
therefore I am required to provide you with a public interest test which
you can find in the legal annex below.

Please note this response should not be taken to as an indication of
whether the information requested under part one of your request is or is
not held.

DECISION IN RESPECT OF PART TWO OF YOUR REQUEST

The MPS have decided to disclosure the cost of Operation Grange to date to
you in full. 

The cost of Operation Grange is as follows: ...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The MPS understands that there is significant public interest in matters
concerning Madeleine McCann.  The investigation has been lengthy and
ultimately is resourced using public funds.  It is important that we are
as open and transparent as possible when dealing with matters of such high
public interest.  A full response here would provide clarity on whether
additional funding for the operation is being sought.  This would help
encourage debate concerning the use of public funds.

Public interest considerations favouring the application of the neither
confirm nor deny (NCND) response

It is important to acknowledge that this is an ongoing investigation into
the disappearance of a child.  As with all investigations it is of
paramount importance that the response to a Freedom of Information request
does not disrupt or have any negative impact on that investigation.
 Clearly such disruption to an investigation would not be in the best
interests of the public.  The length of time and money that is put into an
investigation does not diminish the argument above. 

Balancing Test

After weighing up the competing interests I have determined that the
public interest favours the maintenance of the neither confirm nor deny
exemption.  The argument in favour of the NCND is significant as
ultimately it is not in the best interests of the public to issue any
response that could prejudice an ongoing investigation, assist offenders
or increase the risk of further offences being committed.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/operation_grange#incoming-1110345


In my opinion, the communication from Grange certainly makes the position as far as an active investigation is concerned crystal clear.
The right 'to know' comes nowhere near to the right of the police to be allowed to get on with their jobs without let or hindrance.

The reply is logical and and obvious and that in my opinion should have deterred yet another FOI request concerning Madeleine McCann and the active investigation into her case (one wonders how many in total this one makes from those allegedly concerned about the efficiency of the public purse).

The snip you posted while giving important information ... really doesn't come close to reviewing the far wider picture ... information on which either you chose to ignore or just failed to see the significance of.
 

What an interesting observation!
What is the extent of your belief in that observation? Is it global or just to suit what ever argument you are propounding at any given moment?

[Mr Gray]

What an interesting observation!
What is the extent of your belief in that observation? Is it global or just to suit what ever argument you are propounding at any given moment?

Could it be any clearer
There, an active investigation so little will be revealed

[Alice Purjorick]

Could it be any clearer
There, an active investigation so little will be revealed

Brietta's stance could be alot clearer.
It seems to change with the wind.

[Mr Gray]

Brietta's stance could be alot clearer.
It seems to change with the wind.

So briettas post could be clearer.. And seems to change in the wind... That's, all your opinion but for some reason Rob accepts it as fact

[Alice Purjorick]

So briettas post could be clearer.. And seems to change in the wind... That's, all your opinion but for some reason Rob accepts it as fact

You should pay attention. It is not just my opinion.
He /she /it has expressed two opposing opinions about interference with live police investigations.
I was just trying to establish his/her/its ground rules.

[Mr Gray]

You should pay attention. It is not just my opinion.
He /she /it has expressed two opposing opinions about interference with live police investigations.
I was just trying to establish his/her/its ground rules.

I disagree.. You are stating your opinion as fact
Could you cite the two opposing opinions

[G-Unit]

Who told the press that Operation Grange have applied for more funds from the Home Office? Where's the leak? So much for the MPS being secretive about a live investigation.

[Robittybob1]

You should pay attention. It is not just my opinion.
He /she /it has expressed two opposing opinions about interference with live police investigations.
I was just trying to establish his/her/its ground rules.

Can you provide cites for the two opposing opinions please.

[barrier]

Can you provide cites for the two opposing opinions please.

Earlier Brietta had this to say,

As far as I know there has been no comment made by anyone from Scotland Yard ... nor would I expect any.

Snip
Detectives investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann have applied for more funding for the search, the Home Office has confirmed.
http://www.policeprofessional.com/news.aspx?id=31483

Later followed by.

Who in their right mind seeks to interfere in any way with an obviously active ongoing criminal investigation, particularly when we know there are matters of grave sensitivity to be addressed.

Also.

Shock! Horror! that Martin Brunt should be doing his job. 

Clearly indicating that she doesn't expect anything from the officals ie: MET officers but is happy to rely on some hack spreading rubbish even when the MET will not comment,simples.

[Wonderfulspam]

Who told the press that Operation Grange have applied for more funds from the Home Office? Where's the leak? So much for the MPS being secretive about a live investigation.

Maybe the Portuguese leaked it, they got the blame for all the burglary suspect leaks.

I never could understand why that theory was so well publicised, risking jeopardising the live investigation.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/28/madeleine-mccann-abducted-during-botched-burglary/

[Robittybob1]

Where it is said: "As far as I know there has been no comment made by anyone from Scotland Yard" I take that as Brietta has accepted that as a fact, and there is no point in asking for a cite as there supposedly there is none.  If someone can provide a cite that proves that wrong it will no longer be a fact.
"As far as I know there has been no comment made by anyone from Scotland Yard ... nor would I expect any."
The  "... nor would I expect any" bit is opinion.
So the opinion component is "nor would I expect any comment made by anyone from Scotland Yard.

So where is the opposing opinion to that?

The next sentence "Who in their right mind seeks to interfere in any way with an obviously active ongoing criminal investigation, particularly when we know there are matters of grave sensitivity to be addressed."  would be opinion.
On a different topic to the first so it isn't opposing.

[G-Unit]

Earlier Brietta had this to say,

Later followed by.

Also.
Clearly indicating that she doesn't expect anything from the officals ie: MET officers but is happy to rely on some hack spreading rubbish even when the MET will not comment,simples.

My interest lies in wondering what purpose is served by Martin Bunt reporting that Operation Grange have applied for more funding. Who told him and why?

[Mr Gray]

My interest lies in wondering what purpose is served by Martin Bunt reporting that Operation Grange have applied for more funding. Who told him and why?

According  to the statement the home office confirmed the request.... As to why... It's a matter of public interest and there is no harm in revealing it

[Wonderfulspam]

If I were Madeleine's abductor, this information would be important.
I'd know I had to remain in hiding.
I might even harm Maddie as I'd possibly think the Met were closing in.
If I were led to believe that funding had ceased however , I might be more likely to venture from the hideout, and then be caught unaware in an ingenious double bluff.